After Sharkey, We Kept Digging—and Found More Questions
What began as a question about AI data centers has turned into a much more fundamental investigation:
Are all of the acres BLM plans to offer for geothermal leasing in Lemhi County actually supposed to be available for geothermal leasing in the first place?
That question is no longer theoretical.
BLM has now advised that—following research by one of our Lemhi County Informed members, which we documented in our previous article—approximately 800 acres around Sharkey Hot Springs (*see maps at the end of this article for reference) are now being removed from the upcoming lease sale after the historic CLOSED-to-geothermal-leasing decision was brought to BLM’s attention.
This is a genuinely positive outcome. It shows what can happen when careful research, informed community advocacy, and open communication with our public agencies work together. We especially want to recognize the Salmon BLM office. When the discrepancy at Sharkey was brought to their attention, they took it seriously, investigated it promptly, and moved quickly to correct it. That responsiveness deserves recognition.
After discovering what happened at Sharkey, Lemhi County Informed began looking more closely at the rest of the planning record to determine whether other acreage was being listed as OPEN when it should be CLOSED.
What we found raises additional questions.
Think the AI data-center concern is far-fetched?
Take a closer look.
The original concern was whether Lemhi County could someday become vulnerable to a large AI data-center project.
At first, the limited power infrastructure in Lemhi County seemed reassuring. These enormous facilities—some of which are nearly twice the physical size of the entire City of Salmon—can require extraordinary amounts of continuous electricity, and we simply do not have that here.
But then we learned that BLM was preparing to offer three geothermal lease parcels in Lemhi County—ID-2026-11-0049, ID-2026-11-0054 and ID-2026-11-0056—as part of its November 17, 2026 Idaho geothermal lease sale. BLM says the statewide sale includes 35 parcels totaling nearly 113,330 acres. (BLM — September 2026 Idaho Geothermal Lease Sale announcement)
That changed the question:
Could new local power generation change Lemhi County’s vulnerability to a large data center over time?
There is no evidence at this point that these three Lemhi County geothermal leases are intended for an AI data center.
But asking the question is not unreasonable.
The U.S. Department of Energy now specifically discusses geothermal energy as a power source for data centers. DOE says geothermal can produce steady electricity around the clock, making it particularly well suited to the constant power demands of data centers. (U.S. Department of Energy — Geothermal and Data Centers)
There is also an important federal-policy connection.
Executive Order 14318, “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure,” directs the federal government to facilitate rapid development of AI data-center infrastructure, including through the use of federally owned land and resources. The order specifically identifies “geothermal power equipment” among the energy infrastructure that can support data-center projects. (White House — Executive Order 14318)
A Reasonable Concern
The federal policy expressly contemplates the same combination we are now watching develop here in Lemhi County:
federal land + geothermal energy development + the potential for that energy infrastructure to support data centers.
Again, none of this establishes that a data center is planned for Lemhi County.
It does establish why it is reasonable to ask questions and request transparency:
Who nominated these geothermal parcels?
Has there been any discussion about who or what the power generated by future geothermal development in Lemhi County might ultimately serve?
Those questions are part of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by one of our members with BLM this past May.
While waiting for those records, our investigation turned to the parcels themselves.
That is when the Sharkey Hot Springs discrepancy was discovered and subsequently corrected.
And now, after continued review of the historical planning documents another potential discrepancy has been identified.
The Lewis & Clark National Historic and Scenic Trail
The Lewis & Clark planning history is different from Sharkey’s, but it raises another important OPEN/CLOSED question that we will outline below:
In the 1987 Lemhi RMP, Lewis & Clark Trail lands were treated as OPEN and available for geothermal leasing with a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) restriction. This restriction applied to approximately 1,820 acres associated with the trail.
Then, in 2001, BLM amended the Lemhi RMP and increased the Lewis & Clark mineral-protection area to approximately 4,840 acres. BLM’s own planning library identifies both the 1987 Lemhi RMP and the 2001 RMP Amendment as part of the Salmon Field Office planning record. (BLM Planning/NEPA Library — Salmon Field Office planning documents)
That’s when something big happened in 2008.
BLM placed National Historic and Scenic Trail lands in the CLOSED/unavailable-for-geothermal-leasing category. (BLM — 2008 Geothermal Record of Decision)
So the planning chronology for the Lewis & Clark Trail looks like this:
1987: OPEN + NSO (1,820 acres)
↓
2001 RMP Amendment: OPEN + NSO (expanded to 4,840 acres)
↓
2008 Geothermal ROD/RMP Amendment: CLOSED / unavailable
↓
2026: Historic Trail acreage being offered in lease sale as OPEN + NSO
That is where the unresolved question begins.
What changed between 2008 and 2026?
The current Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail crosses two of the three geothermal lease parcels—0054 and 0049. (National Park Service — Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail maps)
So here is the obvious question:
If BLM classified National Historic and Scenic Trail lands as CLOSED to geothermal leasing in 2008, why is Lewis & Clark Trail-related acreage being offered as OPEN + NSO restriction for the lease sale 2026?
There may be an explanation. But we have not found the paper trail that explains the change.
BLM must confirm land is OPEN before offering it for lease
BLM’s own geothermal leasing handbook says land cannot be included in a lease sale until BLM confirms that it is open for leasing under the applicable land-use plan and that the required environmental review has been completed. (BLM — Geothermal Lease Sale Process)
But–as you now well know–Sharkey was CLOSED—and still made it into the lease sale as OPEN acreage.
That raises a simple question: Was the required OPEN/CLOSED review done correctly for the rest of the three-parcel package?
And where is that review?
BLM’s project still says “In Progress”
We would expect to find the review on BLM’s ePlanning page for the 2026 Salmon Geothermal Lease Sale, but it’s not there. Currently, the page still lists the project as “In Progress — Analysis & Document Preparation.” The page was last updated September 23. (BLM ePlanning — 2026 Salmon Geothermal Lease Sale)
It’s possible the required review was completed and simply hasn’t been posted publicly. But if it was completed, it really should have been posted with the sale announcement.
That record could help explain how Sharkey was mistakenly classified as OPEN—and whether there are any additional discrepancies, such as the current open question regarding the corridor along the Lewis and Clark trail noted above.
And then there is the outstanding FOIA
At the beginning of this article, we mentioned that one Lemhi County Informed member filed a broad Freedom of Information Act request with BLM on May 18, 2026.
Among other things, the request seeks records showing:
who nominated the Lemhi County parcels and why these particular lands were selected;
communications, studies and other records connected to the nominations and potential development of the parcels; and
records discussing future energy needs, infrastructure expansion, and what geothermal development in this area might ultimately be intended to serve (for example, is there a planned data center we don’t yet know about?).
BLM provided an estimated completion date of August 17.
That date has passed and as of the end of September, the requested records still have not been produced, and the delay has been formally appealed.
Those records matter for two reasons.
First, they could help explain how BLM determined these parcels were available for leasing.
Second, they may answer the question that originally prompted this investigation:
Who nominated these lands, and what—if anything—has been discussed about their eventual development or use? Is there a data-center connection we do not yet know about?
What Lemhi County Informed asked the Commissioners to do
At the September 28 County Commissioners meeting, one Lemhi County Informed member presented:
the now-resolved Sharkey discrepancy + documentation (which our research uncovered)
the possible Lewis & Clark discrepancy with documentation (which we also uncovered)
and the outstanding-record issues (that’s our missing May 2026 FOIA and the still-unlocated documentation showing the required pre-sale review was completed)
The Commissioners were asked to:
Send a letter to BLM requesting that all three Lemhi County parcels—0049, 0054 and 0056—be removed from the November 17 geothermal lease sale.
Send that request to Idaho’s congressional delegation and ask them to support the County’s request for removal.
Forward the pending FOIA materials to the congressional delegation and ask for assistance obtaining the outstanding BLM records.
Place the matter on an action agenda as soon as possible so the Commissioners can formally decide whether to take these actions well before the November 17 sale.
The reasoning is straightforward. We now have:
A confirmed classification problem at Sharkey Hot Springs.
An additional unresolved OPEN/CLOSED planning question involving the Lewis & Clark National Historic and Scenic Trail.
A BLM ePlanning page still showing “Analysis & Document Preparation” in progress, even though BLM’s own procedures require the pre-sale review to be completed before parcels are included in a lease sale—and the documentation showing that review was completed has not been located.
Federal records requested through FOIA in May that still have not been produced.
Salmon BLM deserves credit for correcting the Sharkey discrepancy almost immediately once the historic records were brought forward.
But Sharkey also demonstrates why these questions matter before federal geothermal lease rights are conveyed—not afterward.
Given the confirmed Sharkey error, the unresolved Lewis & Clark classification question, and the federal records that remain outstanding, Lemhi County Informed believes all three Lemhi County parcels should be removed from the geothermal lease sale.
Because the matter was not listed as an action item, the Commissioners could not take formal action on these requests at the September 28 meeting. Thus, Lemhi County Informed asked that the matter be placed on an action agenda as soon as possible.
Now we will be watching to see what the Commissioners do next.
*Sharkey Maps for Reference
Readers may notice that BLM’s publicly available geothermal nomination map (see below) depicts the Sharkey Hot Springs protection area as a circle. The map legend describes that symbol as the area where an 800-acre No Surface Occupancy buffer would be applied around the recreation site. Exhibit G Map
That circle should not be read as the exact shape of the acreage ultimately carved out of the lease parcels. Federal lease parcels are described using PLSS sections, lots and aliquot parts, so an actual removal can look much more block-like or irregular than the circular reference shown on the overview map.
For that reason, people should not be alarmed if the Sharkey correction does not appear as a neat “bubble” around the hot springs when the revised parcel boundaries are shown.
We have included both the publicly available BLM map and our own illustrative DIY rendering below to help readers visualize the difference. Our rendering is not an official BLM map and should not be treated as the final legal boundary; it is simply an example of how the Sharkey-area removal could look when translated into section and aliquot-based parcel geography.
BLM Reference Map
Our DIY Rendering
Comments
Post a Comment