Geothermal Lease Update: What We Found—and What Lemhi County Still Needs to Know

Last Friday on Sept 18, the Bureau of Land Management published the final notice for its November 17 geothermal lease sale. Three of the parcels are in Lemhi County—Parcels 0049, 0054 and 0056—covering approximately 10,083 acres.

Since our first article about the proposed leases, we've been digging through decades of BLM planning records to answer a basic question:

What protections already apply to this land?

We found something important.

In the historic Lemhi planning record, BLM specifically provided that an additional 800 acres at Sharkey Hot Springs would be CLOSED, preventing geothermal leasing.

Unlike the historical CLOSED designation, those lands are now being treated as available for geothermal leasing, just with a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) restriction—meaning a company can lease the geothermal resource beneath the ground, but cannot place wells, drilling pads, buildings, roads or other development facilities on top of the protected land.

Somehow, between the historic planning decision and the present lease sale, the treatment changed. What we have not yet found is the decision or planning record showing how, when, or why the change was made—even after reviewing an extraordinary amount of the publicly available records online.

So what happened in between?

That's one of several questions we now want BLM to answer before these leases are sold.

First, what exactly is happening?

BLM plans to auction geothermal leasing rights on three Lemhi County parcels on November 17, 2026.

It is important to understand what that does—and does not—mean.

A geothermal lease is not approval to build a geothermal power plant. Actual exploration and development can require additional applications, environmental review and federal approvals.

But leasing the geothermal rights is still a consequential step. That is why we believe it makes sense to resolve important land-use questions before the leases are sold, rather than afterward.

The bigger question: Which Lemhi lands are actually open to geothermal leasing?

Sharkey Hot Springs is one specific example within the land now being offered for lease. 

But this issue is much bigger than Sharkey. BLM is offering three geothermal lease parcels in Lemhi County—Parcels 0049, 0054 and 0056—covering approximately 10,083 acres in total.

That raises a larger question: How much of the land in these three parcels is actually open to geothermal leasing under the governing Lemhi Resource Management Plan?

BLM's December 2008 geothermal planning decision amended the Lemhi Resource Management Plan.

For the Salmon Field Office/Lemhi RMP, that decision identifies:

520,764 acres OPEN to geothermal leasing

and

60,464 acres CLOSED to geothermal leasing.

The acreage totals are clear.

What we have not been able to locate is the authoritative parcel-scale GIS layer, allocation map or legal-description record showing exactly where those OPEN and CLOSED lands are in relation to the three parcels being offered today.

That is the larger countywide question.

Before approximately 10,083 acres are leased, we want BLM to show how Parcels 0049, 0054 and 0056 fit within the operative geothermal-leasing allocation.

And Sharkey Hot Springs gives us a concrete reason to ask.

What we found at Sharkey Hot Springs

The historical record is unusually specific.

The September 1985 Draft Lemhi RMP/EIS states that:

“An additional 800 acres at Sharkey Hot Springs would be closed to geothermal leasing, subject to valid existing rights.”

The same language appears in the June 1986 Proposed RMP/Final EIS.

Then we checked the approved April 1987 Lemhi Resource Management Plan (RMP).

Importantly, that plan outlined two distinct categories with respect to geothermal development. 

1. CLOSED—the land is not available for geothermal leasing

2. NSO—No Surface Occupancy—the geothermal land can be leased, but wells, drilling pads, buildings, roads or other development facilities cannot be placed on the protected land.

These are two separate categories. The 1987 RMP identified approximately 79,569 acres where geothermal leasing was allowed but subject to NSO restrictions, while a separate 15,596 acres were closed to leasing altogether.

That distinction matters because Sharkey had historically been designated as closed.

So the records present a straightforward question:

• Historic record: 800 acres at Sharkey — CLOSED to geothermal leasing

• Current record: 800 acres surrounding Sharkey — NSO (open to geothermal leasing with restrictions)

Read it for yourself. BLM's current Sale Notice says:

“No Surface Occupancy (NSO) will be applied 800 acres surrounding the Sharkey Hot Springs Recreation Site.”

What happened in between?

Good question. We don't know yet.

And that is important.

We have not established that BLM improperly changed the historic Sharkey closure. There may honestly be a perfectly reasonable explanation. 

But we have reviewed an extraordinary amount of the publicly available record—hundreds of pages of planning documents, historical records, current lease documents, maps and GIS data—and we still have not found the decision or spatial record explaining how or when the historic CLOSED designation became the current NSO treatment.

There may be a valid subsequent planning decision that changed or superseded it. The historic 800 acres and today’s 800 acres may not have identical boundaries. There may be an explanation contained in records that simply aren’t publicly available online.

We also have not found the authoritative legal description or map defining the original 800-acre Sharkey closure.

That’s exactly why we’re planning to ask the County Commissioners to ask BLM. We want BLM to provide the missing link rather than assume the answer ourselves:

Show us the historic 800-acre boundary.

Show us whether and how it was subsequently changed.

And show us how today’s 800-acre NSO relates to it.

In short:

Show us the chain.

One more missing document may help answer these questions

Our research uncovered another piece of the historical planning record.

The September 1985 Draft specifically identifies a district-wide geothermal Environmental Assessment (EA) completed August 3, 1982—EA ID-040-2-37.

The Draft also says that the district-wide geothermal EA was incorporated into the Resource Management Plan (RMP) and that stipulations developed during its preparation would be attached to geothermal leases.

In other words, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the current treatment of the Sharkey lands—available for leasing subject to an NSO—is completely correct. The historical planning record still tells us that geothermal leasing was governed in part by requirements developed through this 1982 EA. So what does that EA actually say, and which of those requirements have been applied to the lands being leased today?

We have not been able to locate a publicly accessible copy of the 1982 EA.

We therefore want BLM to provide it—including its maps, appendices, stipulations and legal descriptions—and identify any portions that apply to the lands now comprising all three current Lemhi County parcels, not merely Sharkey.

So that’s the 1982 EA… What about the current 2026 Environmental Assessment?

BLM is also preparing a current Environmental Assessment (EA) specifically for the 2026 Salmon Geothermal Lease Sale. This EA ePlanning project is DOI-BLM-ID-I040-2026-0016-EA.

But the public project page currently identifies its status as:

“In Progress — Analysis & Document Preparation.”

Meanwhile, BLM has already published the final Sale Notice, and the lease sale is scheduled for November 17.

That status does not prove BLM has failed to perform required environmental work—actually based on the ePlanning link, it appears that it is being done. The analysis may still be underway, or documents may not yet have been posted publicly.

But before these parcels are sold, we want Lemhi County to have access to the completed environmental analysis and land-use-plan-conformance documents with enough time to meaningfully review them before the sale.

Thus, unless the 1982 and 2026 EA documents are produced between now and the next County Commissioners meeting, we plan to ask the Commissioners to formally request that BLM provide them ASAP.

And what about the AI data center?

This remains one of the questions we hear most often.

Our earlier article briefly discussed concerns about whether energy development in this area could pave the way for a future AI data center or another unusually large electrical load.

While we have not found evidence establishing that these geothermal leases are connected to an AI data center, the concern itself is not coming out of nowhere. Data centers require enormous amounts of reliable electricity, and there are real-world examples of smaller and rural communities being selected in part because of their energy resources or infrastructure. Google says, “enhanced energy infrastructure” was one reason it chose The Dalles, Oregon, for its first company-owned data center. In rural Iowa, Facebook specifically cited the state’s abundant wind-generated power when it selected Altoona for a data center and subsequently worked with energy partners on a nearby wind project that added up to 138 MW of new generation to the grid.

None of that proves the same thing is happening in Lemhi County. It does, however, explain why asking whether new energy development here is connected to a future large electrical user is a reasonable question.

We do not want speculation to be presented as fact. But, because the question is now a matter of significant public concern, we believe it is reasonable to ask BLM directly whether it knows of any proposed data center, AI/high-performance-computing facility, cryptocurrency operation, major transmission or interconnection project, unusually large electrical load, or other significant industrial energy user associated with these geothermal nominations or anticipated energy development affecting Lemhi County.

If the answer is no, that is useful information too.

What can we do now?

This is the important part.

First, sign up for our notification emails using the form on this page. We will keep you posted as we learn more.

For now, know this:

• The leases have not been sold.

• The sale is scheduled for November 17.

One of our Lemhi County Informed members is scheduled to speak with the Lemhi County Commissioners on Monday, Sept 28.

At that meeting, we plan to present a proposed letter for the Commissioners to send to BLM, along with a detailed evidence packet containing the underlying documents, page numbers, hyperlinks and screenshots supporting the findings outlined in this article.

The letter does not ask the Commissioners to conclude that BLM has violated the Resource Management Plan.

It does not ask them to automatically oppose geothermal development.

It asks for answers while there is still time to use them.

Specifically, we are asking BLM to:

• show how all three Lemhi County parcels fit the operative OPEN/CLOSED geothermal allocation;

• identify historic closures, NSOs or other significant protections affecting those lands and explain how they were carried forward or changed;

• explain what happened to the historic Sharkey closure and provide the authoritative historic and current boundaries;

• provide the missing 1982 geothermal EA;

• provide the current (2026) environmental and land-use-plan-conformance analysis; and

• explain the procedures and deadlines available if Lemhi County identifies a legitimate problem and wants to request deferral, withdrawal, modification or additional review before November 17.

Of course, if BLM provides any of this information between now and the meeting, our request will be updated accordingly.

That’s where this investigation stands today.

• We have not proven that BLM violated the Lemhi Resource Management Plan.
• We have not proven that the Sharkey closure was improperly changed.
• And we have not proven that an AI data center is connected to these leases.

What we have found are important questions that can—and should—be answered while there is still time before the sale.

Get the documents. Get the maps. Show us the chain. Then follow the evidence wherever it leads.

We’ll continue updating the community as additional information becomes available.