Stop geothermal leasing on 29,477 acres of Deschutes National Forest
2026 Newberry Geothermal Consent to Lease
U.S. Forest Service· Deschutes National ForestU.S. Forest Service project page ↗
Forest ServiceWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
The groups on this fight
4 groups work Oregon
By footprint, from the same match the STAND matchmaker runs; none is linked to this decision in our record yet. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Cascadia Wildlands
Works Oregon: plaintiff in the January 2026 suit against the Roseburg BLM plan to log nearly 7,000 acres near Camas Valley.
- Crag Law Center
Works Oregon: represented Bird Alliance of Oregon, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Cascadia Wildlands in the 2012 Endangered Species Act suit over logging occupied murrelet habitat, which ended in the 2014 settlement canceling 28 timber sales..
- Oregon Natural Desert Association
Works Oregon: anchors the McDermitt Caldera Coalition on the Oregon side and fought the BLM's December 2025 approval of the Jindalee/HiTech lithium exploration project through the permitting process..
- Oregon Wild
Works Oregon: repeat plaintiff against BLM old-growth sales on the O&C lands, including the Coast Range project where courts halted logging of stands with trees over a thousand years old.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
The Forest Service may open nearly 30,000 acres of Deschutes National Forest to geothermal drilling.
What’s at risk
About 29,477 acres of National Forest System land on the Deschutes could be opened to geothermal exploration and development. The Forest Service is deciding whether to give the BLM permission to issue those leases.
If this goes through
Once consent is granted and leases are issued, geothermal operators gain legal access to explore and develop across those 29,477 acres of public forest land.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
7 holes in the agency’s own analysis
Make these points, in your own words
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- The notice identifies no NEPA Start Date and no Finding/Decision Date in the Project Milestones table, meaning the public cannot determine how much time exists to comment, what the review timeline is, or when a decision will be made. This opacity prevents meaningful public participation. The agency should publish all milestone dates before accepting comments.
- The notice characterizes the consent-to-lease action as 'an administrative action only,' yet consenting to lease 29,477 acres is a prerequisite that forecloses future no-action alternatives for that acreage. Calling it administrative understates the commitment being made. The agency should explain in the EA how granting consent does or does not constrain future site-specific decisions and what alternatives remain open after consent is granted.
- The notice lists no documents in the project record that are available for public review. The document widget and the Pinyon Public link are the only references, but no environmental baseline, resource reports, or lease nominations are described anywhere in the notice. The agency should make the BLM lease nomination package and any existing resource reports publicly available before the comment period closes.
- The notice states the project area is 'approximately 25 air miles southeast of Bend, Oregon' but gives no legal land description, township, range, or map identifying which 29,477 acres are nominated. Without knowing the specific parcels, the public cannot assess proximity to water sources, wilderness boundaries, tribal cultural areas, or wildlife habitat. The agency should publish a map and legal description of the nominated acres before the comment period opens.
Show all 9 points from the document
- The notice does not mention tribal consultation at any point, despite the project area being within the ancestral territory of multiple Oregon tribes and despite NHPA Section 106 and NEPA requiring government-to-government consultation before, not after, a consent-to-lease decision. The agency should disclose which tribes have been notified, what consultation has occurred, and whether any tribe has raised concerns, and it should not grant consent until consultation is complete.
- The notice does not identify any cooperating agencies, including BLM, which originated the lease request. For a project spanning nearly 30,000 acres under a dual-agency framework, the absence of any cooperating agency designation leaves coordination undefined. The agency should identify cooperating agencies and describe how their expertise will be incorporated into the EA.
- The notice provides a single point of contact but no description of how public comments will be considered, what the objection process is, or whether this action is subject to the pre-decisional objection process under 36 CFR Part 218. Without this procedural clarity, commenters cannot know what level of review their input will receive. The agency should clarify the applicable objection or appeal procedures in the project notice.
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
The Deschutes National Forest is responding to a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) request to grant consent to lease approximately 29,477 acres of nominated National Forest System lands for geothermal exploration and development. This decision is an administrative action only.
Did the agency answer?
7 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.
Issues on the record, awaiting the decision
- PendingThe notice identifies no NEPA Start Date and no Finding/Decision Date in the Project Milestones table, meaning the public cannot determine how much time exists to comment, what the review timeline is,
The notice identifies no NEPA Start Date and no Finding/Decision Date in the Project Milestones table, meaning the public cannot determine how much time exists to comment, what the review timeline is, or when a decision will be made. This opacity prevents meaningful public participation. The agency should publish all milestone dates before accepting comments.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice characterizes the consent-to-lease action as 'an administrative action only,' yet consenting to lease 29,477 acres is a prerequisite that forecloses future no-action alternatives for that a
The notice characterizes the consent-to-lease action as 'an administrative action only,' yet consenting to lease 29,477 acres is a prerequisite that forecloses future no-action alternatives for that acreage. Calling it administrative understates the commitment being made. The agency should explain in the EA how granting consent does or does not constrain future site-specific decisions and what alternatives remain open after consent is granted.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice lists no documents in the project record that are available for public review.
The notice lists no documents in the project record that are available for public review. The document widget and the Pinyon Public link are the only references, but no environmental baseline, resource reports, or lease nominations are described anywhere in the notice. The agency should make the BLM lease nomination package and any existing resource reports publicly available before the comment period closes.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice states the project area is 'approximately 25 air miles southeast of Bend, Oregon' but gives no legal land description, township, range, or map identifying which 29,477 acres are nominated.
The notice states the project area is 'approximately 25 air miles southeast of Bend, Oregon' but gives no legal land description, township, range, or map identifying which 29,477 acres are nominated. Without knowing the specific parcels, the public cannot assess proximity to water sources, wilderness boundaries, tribal cultural areas, or wildlife habitat. The agency should publish a map and legal description of the nominated acres before the comment period opens.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice does not mention tribal consultation at any point, despite the project area being within the ancestral territory of multiple Oregon tribes and despite NHPA Section 106 and NEPA requiring go
The notice does not mention tribal consultation at any point, despite the project area being within the ancestral territory of multiple Oregon tribes and despite NHPA Section 106 and NEPA requiring government-to-government consultation before, not after, a consent-to-lease decision. The agency should disclose which tribes have been notified, what consultation has occurred, and whether any tribe has raised concerns, and it should not grant consent until consultation is complete.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice does not identify any cooperating agencies, including BLM, which originated the lease request.
The notice does not identify any cooperating agencies, including BLM, which originated the lease request. For a project spanning nearly 30,000 acres under a dual-agency framework, the absence of any cooperating agency designation leaves coordination undefined. The agency should identify cooperating agencies and describe how their expertise will be incorporated into the EA.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
- PendingThe notice provides a single point of contact but no description of how public comments will be considered, what the objection process is, or whether this action is subject to the pre-decisional objec
The notice provides a single point of contact but no description of how public comments will be considered, what the objection process is, or whether this action is subject to the pre-decisional objection process under 36 CFR Part 218. Without this procedural clarity, commenters cannot know what level of review their input will receive. The agency should clarify the applicable objection or appeal procedures in the project notice.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own notice, quote verified against the text
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksAfter more than a decade chasing peak color across America, we built the foliage map we always wanted.
Another foreign mining company wants a piece of America’s public lands. This one comes with millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and radioactive radon.
The administration went looking for a sliver of Yosemite for a private developer and finally convinced the rest of public-lands world that if Yosemite is negotiable, nothing is safe.
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .