Notice2025-01055
National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures for the Bureau of Land Management (516 DM 11)
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 16, 2025
Effective
January 16, 2025
Issuing agencies
Interior Department
Abstract
This notice announces a revision to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at Chapter 11 of part 516 of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual (516 DM 11). The revision adds a new categorical exclusion (CX) for geothermal resource confirmation activities on Federal geothermal resource leases.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4768-4774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01055]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
[MO4500181945]
National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures for the
Bureau of Land Management (516 DM 11)
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces a revision to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) at Chapter 11 of part 516 of the Department of the
Interior's Departmental Manual (516 DM 11). The revision adds a new
categorical exclusion (CX) for geothermal resource confirmation
activities on Federal geothermal resource leases.
DATES: The CX is effective January 16, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The new CX can be found at the web address for the BLM's
revised NEPA procedures: <a href="http://www.doi.gov/elips/">http://www.doi.gov/elips/</a> at Series 31, DM
part 516, Chapter 11. The Substantiation Report for the CX is available
at the BLM's ePlanning site: <a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2034686/510">https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2034686/510</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Bernier, Division Chief,
Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, at (303) 239-3635, or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b43494e5945424e596b494746054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b73797e6975727e695b797776357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The United States (U.S.) Department of the Interior (Department)
published the proposed CX for geothermal resource confirmation on
October 22, 2024, for a 30-day public comment period. Refer to the
Federal Register notice (89 FR 84380) for more information regarding
the background and rationale for the CX. This notice notifies the
public of the BLM's establishment of the Geothermal Resource
Confirmation CX and includes the BLM's responses to comments from the
public on the proposed CX. The BLM has made clarifying edits to the CX
text in response to comments as explained in this notice. These edits
do not change the scope of the CX as proposed.
The Department proposed the CX for use by the BLM to support
approval of an operations plan for lessees to drill and test wells to
confirm the existence and capacity of a geothermal resource. Therefore,
this increased efficiency will serve to expedite renewable energy
development on BLM managed lands.
NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires Federal agencies to consider
the environmental effects of their proposed actions in their decision-
making processes and inform and engage the public in that process.
Section 101(a) of NEPA sets forth a national policy to use all
practicable means and measures, including financial and technical
assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general
welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which humans and
nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of
Americans. 42 U.S.C. 4331(a). Section 102 of NEPA directs agencies to
interpret and administer Federal policies, regulations, and laws
consistent with NEPA's policies. 42 U.S.C. 4332.
NEPA also created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which
has issued regulations implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 through
1508 (CEQ regulations). CEQ also has issued numerous guidance documents
to facilitate agency implementation of NEPA. See CEQ, CEQ Guidance
Documents, <a href="https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/guidance.html">https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/guidance.html</a>.
To comply with NEPA, agencies determine the appropriate level of
review of any major Federal action--an environmental impact statement
(EIS), environmental assessment (EA), or a categorical exclusion (CX).
40 CFR 1501.3. If a proposed action is likely to have significant
environmental effects, the agency must prepare an EIS and document its
decision in a record of decision. 40 CFR 1501.3(c)(3), part 1502,
1505.2. If the proposed action is not likely to have significant
environmental effects or if the significance of the effects is unknown,
the agency may instead prepare an EA, which is a concise public
document used to support agency decision making on a proposed agency
action. 40 CFR 1501.3(c)(2), 1501.5, 1508.1(j). After completing the
analysis in the EA, the agency may conclude that the action will have
no significant effects and document that conclusion in a finding of no
significant impact, or conclude that the action is likely to have
significant effects and therefore requires preparation of an EIS. 40
CFR 1501.6(a), 1508.1(j).
Under NEPA and the CEQ regulations, a Federal agency establishes
CXs--categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do
not have a significant effect on the human environment, individually or
in the aggregate--in its agency NEPA procedures. 42 U.S.C. 4336(e)(1);
40 CFR 1501.4(a), 1507.3(c)(8), 1508.1(e). If an agency determines that
a CX covers a proposed action, it then evaluates the proposed action
for extraordinary circumstances, which are factors or circumstances
that indicate a normally categorically excluded action may have a
significant effect. 40 CFR 1501.4(b), 1508.1(o). If any extraordinary
circumstances exist, the agency nevertheless may apply the CX if it
conducts an analysis and determines that the proposed action does not
in fact have the potential to result in significant effects
notwithstanding an extraordinary circumstance, or the agency modifies
the action to avoid the potential to result in significant effects. 40
CFR 1501.4(b)(1). In these cases, the agency must document such
determination. Id. If the agency cannot categorically exclude the
proposed action, it will prepare an EA or EIS, as appropriate, before
issuing any decision to authorize the action. 40 CFR 1501.4(b)(2).
The CEQ regulations require Federal agencies to develop procedures
to implement NEPA and the CEQ regulations, facilitate efficient
decision making, and ensure that the agencies make decisions in
accordance with the policies and requirements of NEPA. 40 CFR 1507.3.
As part of their procedures, agencies must establish CXs and identify
extraordinary circumstances. 40 CFR 1507.3(c)(8). When establishing new
or revising existing CXs in agency NEPA procedures, agencies must
substantiate the proposed new or revised CXs with sufficient
information to conclude that each category of actions does not have a
significant effect, individually or in the aggregate, on the human
environment, and provide this substantiation in a written record that
is made publicly available as part of the notice and comment process
for developing or revising proposed agency procedures. See 40 CFR
1507.3(b), (c)(8). In developing NEPA procedures, agencies must consult
with CEQ and
[[Page 4769]]
provide an opportunity for public review. 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(1)-(2).
Before publishing final procedures, agencies must receive a
determination from CEQ that the procedures conform with NEPA and the
CEQ regulations. See 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2).
II. Proposed Categorical Exclusion
The text of the proposed CX, as provided in the October 22, 2024,
Federal Register notice, was as follows:
Approval of an operations plan for geothermal resource confirmation
wells (e.g., core drilling, temperature gradient wells, and/or resource
wells), including, but not limited to, construction of temporary routes
for access, reclamation of all surface disturbance, and direct testing
(e.g., flow tests) to confirm the existence of a geothermal resource,
to improve injection support, or to demonstrate communication between
wells that:
<bullet> Does not include resource utilization;
<bullet> Does not exceed 20 acres of total (contiguous or
noncontiguous) surface disturbance;
<bullet> Includes reclamation of temporary routes when their
intended purpose(s) has been fulfilled, unless through a separate
review and decision-making process the BLM incorporates and
appropriately designates a route as part of its transportation system.
Unless a temporary route is specifically intended to accommodate public
use, use of the temporary route is limited to project specific
geothermal resource confirmation purposes;
<bullet> Requires temporary routes to be constructed and used to
allow for the reclamation, by artificial or natural means, of the
temporary route and areas where the vegetative cover was disturbed by
the construction or use of the route, and requires such treatment to be
designed to reestablish vegetative cover as soon as possible, but at
least within 10 years after approved reclamation commences; and
<bullet> Includes design elements to protect resources and resource
uses consistent with the applicable Resource Management Plan, laws,
regulations, and lease terms.
III. Comments on the Proposed CX
The BLM received 27 comment letters during the 30-day public
comment period on the proposed CX. Comments were submitted by State and
local governments and agencies, interest groups, non-profit
organizations, and private citizens. The BLM received comments both in
support of and in opposition to the proposed CX. Some comments were
beyond the scope of the BLM's proposed CX, such as a recommendation for
the BLM headquarters to allocate more funding for new employees and
another to require consultation on the forthcoming Infrastructure
Impact Tool being developed by the United States Geological Survey,
which is still in development and not led by the BLM.
The BLM considered all comments to date and responds in this notice
to all 24 substantive issues raised in the public comments. The BLM has
noted in the responses to comments when it changed the text of the CX
in response to a comment. The BLM appreciates the interest and
participation of all respondents. The BLM, where appropriate, grouped
together similar or related comments, and responds to the comments as
follows:
Comment 1: At least 18 commenters expressed support for
establishing the CX, stating that it would substantially reduce
permitting timelines for geothermal energy authorizations and advance
the responsible development of clean and reliable energy on public
lands while keeping in place strong commitments to environmental
stewardship. In addition, commenters noted that the availability of the
CX for the BLM's use could help the BLM to expedite approval of new
geothermal projects and promote the realization of their associated
economic benefits while allowing the BLM's staff to focus on other
proposals that may have a significant environmental effect.
Response 1: The BLM agrees with these comments and will continue to
conduct the appropriate level of NEPA review for proposed Federal
actions, including, where appropriate, application of available CXs,
and public engagement, as necessary. The BLM will continue to
appropriately consider potential adverse effects of proposed activities
through the NEPA process.
Comment 2--Transparency and public input: At least nine commenters
requested that the BLM coordinate with the public and appropriate
agencies when relying on the CX to authorize geothermal energy
projects.
Response 2: The CEQ and Department's NEPA implementing regulations
do not require public notice for an agency to use a CX. As provided in
CEQ regulations and guidance, establishing, revising, and appropriately
using CXs is consistent with NEPA. CXs are not exemptions or waivers
from NEPA. Rather, they are a type of NEPA review intended to
accomplish the purposes of NEPA efficiently and effectively. The
establishment of a CX is a public process through which the agency must
demonstrate that the category of actions does not normally have
significant effects on the human environment, individually or in the
aggregate (40 CFR 1501.4). Having made such a demonstration, subject to
public review and comment, the agency may then apply the CX to complete
the NEPA environmental review process for proposals that fall within
the scope of the CX, unless any extraordinary circumstances exist that
make application of the CX inappropriate. The BLM will continue to
cooperate and collaborate with Tribal, State, local, and Federal
agencies as appropriate in managing the public lands. Although public
engagement is not required as part of the process for applying a CX,
the BLM may elect to involve the public (e.g., through notification or
public scoping), where appropriate, in an action for which the BLM
intends to rely on a CX for approval, based on various considerations,
including the level of public interest (40 CFR 1501.9(c)(3)). Each use
of this CX will be documented on the BLM NEPA register website (<a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/home">https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/home</a>) and made available to the public.
Comment 3--Potential groundwater depletion: At least three
commenters expressed concern that use of the CX could lead to
groundwater depletion.
Response 3: Geothermal resource confirmation includes drilling
wells to confirm the existence of a geothermal resource and evaluate
its commercial viability and to determine the extent of the resource by
demonstrating communication between wells but does not include
commercial utilization of the geothermal resource. Such drilling and
flow testing of geothermal resources during the resource confirmation
phase of development does not result in a consumptive use of
groundwater. Groundwater extracted during geothermal resource
confirmation activities is reinjected back into the geothermal
resource. Groundwater consumption that may occur during any subsequent
production or utilization phase would not be covered by the CX and
would be subject to a separate authorization decision, based on a
subsequent, independent NEPA review.
Comment 4--Adequate level of NEPA analysis: At least two commenters
asserted that NEPA analysis through an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement is necessary for approval of geothermal
resource confirmation drilling projects.
Response 4: As documented in the accompanying Substantiation
Report, the category of geothermal resource confirmation actions
covered by this CX does not normally have significant
[[Page 4770]]
effects on the human environment, individually or in the aggregate. The
BLM reviewed 26 environmental assessments related to geothermal
resource confirmation, as well as 20 oil and gas drilling projects,
each of which supported a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The
BLM further confirmed that no unanticipated effects occurred because of
project implementation for any of the studied projects. These 26
geothermal projects represent all of the geothermal resource
confirmation projects that have been approved by the BLM over the last
21 years and were suitable for analysis in the Substantiation Report
(i.e., those completed and where full documentation was available,
including assessment of any unanticipated effects after project
completion). In addition, for any proposed action that the BLM intends
to approve in reliance on the CX, the BLM would evaluate effects to
resources through the Department's extraordinary circumstances review
process (43 CFR 46.205 and 46.215). This review would be documented and
included in the information posted on the BLM's NEPA register. If the
Responsible Official cannot rely on the CX to support a decision on a
particular proposed action due to extraordinary circumstances, the
Responsible Official will prepare an EA or EIS, consistent with 40 CFR
1501.4(b)(2) and 43 CFR 46.205(c), before issuing any decision to
authorize the proposed action.
Comment 5--Potential air quality effects: At least one commenter
expressed concern for potential effects to air quality that might
result from operation of geothermal power plants.
Response 5: Effects to air quality resulting from geothermal
resource confirmation projects, which includes drilling wells to
confirm the existence of a geothermal resource and evaluate its
commercial viability, are normally minor and temporary, as documented
in the accompanying substantiation report. The scope of the CX does not
include the construction or operation of power plants, and thus
potential effects to air quality associated with any proposed
geothermal power plant are beyond the scope of the CX. If a utilization
plan is proposed, the potential effects of that plan (e.g., air quality
effects) would be evaluated during the NEPA review associated with a
proposed utilization project for geothermal development (e.g.,
operation of geothermal power plants).
Comment 6--Potential water quality effects: At least one commenter
expressed concern that geothermal systems may affect water quality
through discharge of heavy metals and dissolved solids.
Response 6: Geothermal resource confirmation operations do not
normally include the use of toxic heavy metals. With regard to
dissolved solids, drilling muds composed of inert naturally occurring
clays, such as bentonite and barite, are used, but these do not impact
water quality. If a particular project would involve an atypical use of
materials with potential to adversely affect water quality, the BLM
would consider that fact as part of its consideration of extraordinary
circumstances. Potential effects to water quality associated with any
proposed geothermal power plant are beyond the scope of the CX, which
does not include the construction or operation of a geothermal power
plant. If a utilization plan is proposed, the potential for those
effects would be reviewed during a future NEPA review associated with a
proposed utilization project for geothermal development.
Comment 7--Potential land subsidence: At least two commenters
expressed concern that fluid withdrawals associated with geothermal
development can cause land subsidence.
Response 7: Typically, the resource confirmation phase does not
result in consumptive use of groundwater. The possibility of land
subsidence that may be associated with the operation of any proposed
geothermal power plant due to any fluid withdrawals is beyond the scope
of the CX, as it is not included in the resource confirmation phase. If
a utilization plan is proposed, the potential for those effects would
be reviewed during the NEPA review associated with a proposed
utilization project for geothermal development.
Comment 8--Potential biological and cultural resources effects: At
least six commenters expressed concern that geothermal exploration can
affect vegetation and wildlife (including special status species like
Greater sage-grouse), biodiversity, surface water, cultural resources,
and groundwater; and at least one commenter recommended that the BLM
incorporate protections for species into the CX text.
Response 8: The BLM's geothermal operations plan review process
includes several layers of protection, which ensure that resource
confirmation projects will not significantly impact site-specific
biological and cultural resources, regardless of the level of NEPA
review. Therefore, these resources do not need to be addressed
specifically in the text of the CX.
First, regardless of the level of analysis the BLM conducts for
NEPA compliance, actions that are proposed to take place on BLM-managed
lands, including geothermal resource confirmation activities, must be
reviewed for conformance with the applicable BLM Resource Management
Plan (RMP) as part of the BLM's compliance with the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-3).
Any geothermal resource confirmation activities would be subject to
applicable RMP terms and conditions and any applicable lease
stipulations, which include requirements to ensure protection of
sensitive resources.
Second, any geothermal resource confirmation activities must also
comply with any lease stipulations. Such activities would be evaluated
in the NEPA review conducted at the leasing stage. Leases may contain
site-specific lease stipulations related to resource protection (e.g.,
seasonal restrictions for species and habitat protection, thermal
features, water resources, vegetation) that become part of the
enforceable lease terms. In addition, the BLM assembles an
interdisciplinary team to facilitate coordination among agencies where
appropriate. The BLM ensures that design elements are included in
geothermal drilling permit (GDP) approvals to ensure conformance with
the applicable RMP, lease terms, and other relevant requirements. For
example, it is typical for the BLM to address the timeframe of the
activity and relevant drilling requirements as well as reclamation
activities within a Conditions of Approval (COA) of the GDP (e.g.,
plugging, abandonment and reclamation activities must be completed
within 3 years of project completion). BLM professionals review each
proposed action for potential resource conflicts and incorporate
appropriate design elements into an approval.
Third, the BLM must comply with the requirements of the Endangered
Species Act regarding effects on any threatened or endangered species,
as an obligation independent of compliance with NEPA.
Finally, before relying on the CX to approve any proposed action,
the BLM must consider extraordinary circumstances (43 CFR 46.215),
which include consideration of effects on public health and safety;
natural resources and unique geographic characteristics such as
historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands;
wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks;
sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands;
floodplains; national
[[Page 4771]]
monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or
critical areas; unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of
available resources; unique or unknown environmental risks; precedent
for future decision making; historic properties; listed or proposed
species or critical habitat; low income or minority populations; access
by Indian religious practitioners to, and for ceremonial use of, Indian
sacred sites and the physical integrity of those sites; and
contribution to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of
invasive plants or non-native invasive species. This review would be
documented and included in the information posted on the BLM's NEPA
register. If the Responsible Official cannot rely on the CX to support
a decision on a particular proposed action due to extraordinary
circumstances, the Responsible Official will prepare an EA or EIS,
consistent with 40 CFR 1501.4(b)(2) and 43 CFR 46.205(c).
Comment 9--Potential noise effects: At least one commenter
expressed concern that geothermal exploration can cause noise.
Response 9: As documented in the Substantiation Report, the BLM
reviewed 26 environmental assessments related to geothermal resource
confirmation that supported FONSIs, as well as 20 similar oil and gas
drilling project EAs. These environmental assessments analyzed noise
effects associated with geothermal resource confirmation. The EAs
concluded that noise effects were temporary in nature and could result
from increased traffic on local roads. Ultimately, such effects are
expected to be minimal, short-term, and addressed through the
implementation of design elements.
Comment 10--Potential seismic effects: At least four commenters
expressed concern that geothermal development could contribute to
seismic effects.
Response 10: When geothermal projects are submitted for approval,
the BLM evaluates the volume of fluid to be injected and estimates
potential for seismicity. Following a standard protocol, potential
seismicity above a certain level would trigger requirements for
reducing the injection rate or making other adjustments (<a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/articles/protocol-addressing-induced-seismicity-associated-enhanced-geothermal">https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/articles/protocol-addressing-induced-seismicity-associated-enhanced-geothermal</a>).
This level is lowered when sensitive resources are nearby. This is
standard practice regardless of the level of NEPA review conducted. In
addition, for any proposed action that the BLM intends to approve in
reliance on the CX, the BLM evaluates effects to resources through the
Department's extraordinary circumstances review process set forth at 43
CFR 46.205 and 215. This review is documented and included in the
information posted on the BLM's NEPA register. If the Responsible
Official cannot rely on the CX to support a decision on a particular
proposed action due to extraordinary circumstances, the Responsible
Official prepares an EA or EIS, consistent with 40 CFR 1501.4(b)(2) and
43 CFR 46.205(c).
Comment 11--Water usage: At least one commenter expressed concern
that geothermal power plants require a large amount of water for
cooling, which could create conflicts over water use.
Response 11: Geothermal resource confirmation activities do not use
water for cooling. The scope of the CX does not include the
construction or operation of power plants. If a utilization plan is
proposed, the potential for the possibility of conflicts over water use
that may be associated with any proposed geothermal power plant would
be reviewed during the NEPA review associated with a proposed
utilization project for geothermal development.
Comment 12--Produced hazardous waste: At least one commenter
expressed concern that geothermal exploration can produce hazardous
waste that requires safe disposal.
Response 12: Geothermal resource confirmation activities do not
normally produce hazardous waste because geothermal resource
confirmation activities largely consist of drilling wells--using water
and mud to drill, then placing steel casing and cement to construct a
well bore. The mud is generally naturally occurring inert clay, such as
bentonite or barite. If a particular project would involve an atypical
use of materials with potential to adversely affect water quality, the
BLM would consider that fact as part of its consideration of
extraordinary circumstances.
Comment 13--Cumulative Effects: At least five commenters expressed
concern that projects approved using the CX would not account for
analysis of cumulative effects and connected or closely related
actions. At least one commenter suggested that all environmental
reviews for geothermal exploration projects should include analysis of
cumulative effects and connected actions of potential geothermal
projects in one NEPA document. Additionally, at least one commenter
expressed concern that the proposed CX was unclear about whether a
proponent would be required to abandon a well and proceed to
reclamation if the BLM was simultaneously conducting a NEPA review for
a utilization development proposal.
Response 13: Before authorizing a project in reliance on a CX, the
BLM must complete an extraordinary circumstances review that includes
evaluation of whether its proposed action has the potential to have ``a
direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant
but cumulatively significant environmental effects.'' 43 CFR 46.215(f).
Therefore, unless the Responsible Official affirmatively determines
that the proposed action does not have such a potential, the BLM cannot
rely on this CX. Geothermal exploration, resource confirmation, and
utilization are distinct actions that are not dependent on each other.
None of these three phases automatically triggers any other phase of
geothermal development, and the BLM retains authority to impose
conditions or deny permits at each phase. If the project proponent does
not find a suitable geothermal resource, then the project proponent
would not proceed to the next phase and site reclamation would
commence; however, if a proponent does find suitable geothermal
resource and proceeds to the next phase, separate authorization for
that next phase, supported by a NEPA review, is required. The BLM does
not envision requiring a project proponent to proceed to reclamation
while processing an application for approval of a utilization
(production) plan.
Comment 14--BLM objectivity: One commenter expressed concern with
the objectivity of the BLM in developing the proposed CX and suggested
that establishment of the CX was a ``giveaway'' to energy industries.
Response 14: The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as
amended, requires the BLM to manage the public lands for multiple use
and sustained yield unless otherwise provided by law. Not all lands
need to be managed for the same uses; ``multiple use'' is defined as
including, among other values, ``a combination of balanced and diverse
resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future
generations for renewable and non-renewable resources'' (43 U.S.C.
1702(c)). In accordance with the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500.5(a)),
the BLM is proposing this CX to improve efficiency in processing
applications for geothermal resource confirmation that normally have no
significant effects. The BLM evaluated the potential for a geothermal
resource confirmation CX independently without external influence, in
accordance with existing
[[Page 4772]]
laws and regulations. The BLM reviewed 26 environmental assessments
related to geothermal resource confirmation projects as well as 20
environmental assessments for oil and gas drilling projects that
supported FONSIs, and subsequently confirmed that no unanticipated
effects occurred because of project implementation. The Substantiation
Report was available to the public during the 30-day comment period
following Federal Register publication of the proposed CX. In addition,
BLM consulted with CEQ on the development of this CX, as required by 40
CFR 1507.3(b).
Comment 15--Site-specific mitigation measures: At least one
commenter expressed concern that, although geothermal resource
confirmation projects approved through the proposed CX would be subject
to mandatory design features, the CX approval process would not
consider or include site-specific mitigation measures typically
developed during the NEPA process through an EA.
Response 15: Design elements include the requirements or
limitations that are outlined in applicable RMPs, geothermal lease
terms, and other relevant requirements (applicable Federal and State
laws, regulations, and policy) to avoid or minimize environmental
consequences and optimize efficient implementation to meet resource
objectives in the location where the geothermal resource confirmation
project would occur, if approved. As such, the BLM ensures that
applicants are aware of these design elements and applicants can change
their intended projects as first proposed to incorporate any design
elements, or the BLM can include the elements in the permit approval
through a COA. The range of potential effects and common protective
measures are familiar to the BLM and to operators. Regardless of the
level of analysis that the BLM conducts for NEPA compliance, all
geothermal development decisions and activities must be consistent with
the applicable RMPs and lease stipulations placed on the parcel.
Activities that are not in conformance with the BLM RMP decisions and
lease stipulations are prohibited and will not be authorized,
regardless of whether the BLM complies with NEPA through an EIS, EA, or
a CX (see response to comment 8). Therefore, the CX relies on the
limits in the applicable RMP and lease terms to ensure that the actions
approved in reliance on the CX would include appropriate design
elements and not have significant effects. In addition, for any
proposed action that the BLM intends to approve in reliance on the CX,
the BLM would evaluate potential effects to resources through the
Department's extraordinary circumstances review process set forth at 43
CFR 46.205 and 215. This review would be documented and included in the
information posted on BLM's NEPA register website. If the Responsible
Official cannot rely on the CX to support a decision on a particular
proposed action due to extraordinary circumstances, the Responsible
Official will prepare an EA or EIS, consistent with 40 CFR 1501.4(b)(2)
and 43 CFR 46.205(c).
Comment 16--Suggested revisions to allowable acreage: At least 2
commenters suggested reducing the 20 acres of allowable surface
disturbance proposed in the CX, while at least 1 other commenter
suggested that the BLM expand the acreage amount of allowable surface
disturbance.
Response 16: To support the development of the CX, in its
Substantiation Report (Addresses section), the BLM examined the range
of surface disturbance in 26 geothermal projects analyzed in EAs that
all supported FONSIs, and that were completed between 2005 and 2019, to
identify potential effects resulting from the kinds of activities
normally included in geothermal resource confirmation operations plans,
as outlined in the Department's regulations at 43 CFR part 3200,
subpart 3260. As discussed in the Substantiation Report, the EAs and
associated FONSIs were reviewed to determine the scope of environmental
effects anticipated to result from the proposed actions. The size and
scale of geothermal resource confirmation projects reviewed in those
documents were the basis of the surface disturbance limitations chosen
for the CX, and as such the BLM declines to modify the allowable
acreage.
Comment 17--Total surface disturbance: At least one commenter
recommended that the CX should include all types of routes, including
drive and crush (routes that are made when vehicles drive over and
crush any vegetation rather than by excavation or laying of any road
surface) as part of the 20-acre disturbance limit.
Response 17: The BLM concurs and notes that all routes, including
drive and crush, will be considered as part of the 20-acre disturbance
limitation within the CX, which is standard practice for any BLM
proposed action.
Comment 18--Potential effects from different kinds of geothermal
resource confirmation projects: At least one commenter expressed
concern that the proposed CX failed to account for different kinds of
geothermal resource confirmation projects with differing construction
requirements that may result in effects to resources not contemplated
by the proposed CX. Additionally, the commenter expressed concern that
the CX fails to distinguish between or prioritize those projects that
are most likely to minimize environmental effects.
Response 18: In its Substantiation Report, the BLM contemplated
different well pad, well diameter, and access road requirements for
confirming a resource. For example, as described within the
Substantiation Report, within the 26 projects analyzed in the EAs
reviewed, resource well pad size ranged from 2.5 to 4.1 acres,
depending on the well diameter size, as well as the number of wells
proposed per pad. The 20 acres of disturbance provides flexibility for
these various resource confirmation project requirements. The commenter
did not identify any specific kind of geothermal resource confirmation
project that the BLM did not adequately consider in developing this CX.
The BLM's prioritization of different geothermal projects is outside
the scope of establishment of a CX.
Comment 19--Geothermal drill permits: At least one commenter
expressed concern that the proposed CX was limited to approval of an
operations plan, noting that geothermal resource confirmation projects
require approval of a GDP and sundry notice in addition to approval of
an operations plan.
Response 19: The BLM concurs with the commenter and has updated the
text of the CX to make clear that it would apply to approval of both
operations plans and associated GDPs. The analysis in the
Substantiation Report includes the approval of GDPs. Therefore, the
inclusion of GDPs in the CX clarifies the text while not changing the
scope of the CX.
Comment 20--Potentially limiting multiple-use: At least one
commenter expressed concern that geothermal projects eliminate all
other public uses of multiple-use land, including wildlife habitat and
public recreation.
Response 20: The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as
amended, requires the BLM to manage the public lands according to the
principles of multiple use and sustained yield, and to manage the lands
under land use plans (i.e., RMPs) developed consistent with these
principles. The BLM's RMPs and site-specific lease stipulations serve
to protect resources on public lands, including wildlife habitat areas.
FLPMA's definition of ``multiple use'' contemplates ``the use of some
land for less than all the resources.'' 43 U.S.C. 1702(c).
[[Page 4773]]
Comment 21--Previously disturbed lands: At least one commenter
recommends the use of previously disturbed lands, BLM lands identified
for disposal, and other less environmentally sensitive land for
geothermal energy projects.
Response 21: The BLM considers the appropriateness of using
previously disturbed lands, lands identified for disposal, and other
less environmentally sensitive land in relation to proposed actions,
consistent with the applicable RMP, regardless of the level of NEPA
compliance conducted.
Comment 22--Extraordinary circumstances review: At least one
commenter expressed concern that the discretionary nature of
extraordinary circumstances review could lead to variation in how the
criteria are evaluated.
Response 22: For any proposed action that the BLM intends to
approve in reliance on the CX, the BLM must evaluate effects to
resources through the Department's extraordinary circumstances review
process set forth at 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.215. This review would be
documented and included in the information posted on the BLM's NEPA
register. If the Responsible Official cannot rely on the CX to support
a decision on a particular proposed action due to extraordinary
circumstances, the Responsible Official will prepare an EA or EIS,
consistent with 40 CFR 1501.4(b)(2) and 43 CFR 46.205(c). The
Responsible Official relies upon the knowledge and experience of the
BLM professionals when determining if extraordinary circumstances are
present.
Comment 23--Resource management plan protections: At least one
commenter expressed concern that prior geothermal leasing EAs and older
RMPs do not sufficiently analyze or provide protections for resources
against effects caused by geothermal resource confirmation projects.
Another commenter suggested updating the 2008 Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the Western
United States.
Response 23: Although some RMPs date back to the 1980s, the 2008
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Geothermal Leasing
amended 114 RMPs that were signed prior to 2008, in the 12 western
states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, by adding
design elements appropriate for exploration and development of
geothermal resources. Additionally, responsible officials have the
option of conducting additional NEPA analysis if the existing analysis
supporting the lease and the RMP is not sufficient. Suggestions or
proposals regarding updating the 2008 Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States or
revising or amending BLM land use plans are outside the scope of the
establishment of the new CX in this notice.
Comment 24--Unanticipated effects: At least one commenter expressed
concerns that unanticipated effects occurred from three past geothermal
projects.
Response 24: The BLM is unaware of any unanticipated effects that
occurred as a result of any resource confirmation projects, and the
commenter did not identify geothermal resource confirmation projects
that resulted in unanticipated effects. Nor did the commenter identify
these potential unanticipated effects.
IV. Additional Clarifying Changes
While considering the comments and recommendations the BLM received
during the public comment period on the proposed CX revisions, the BLM
incorporated several changes to the CX text proposed in October 2024.
These changes and the rationale for them are described below.
In response to a comment recommendation, the BLM added ``and
associated Geothermal Drilling Permits'' after ``operations plan'' in
the CX text to make it clear that the CX includes issuance of
Geothermal Drilling Permits associated with an approved operations plan
for geothermal resource confirmation (as required in 43 CFR 3261.11).
The BLM also added the word ``a'' before ``geothermal resource
confirmation'' for readability. The BLM replaced the word ``wells''
with ``project'' after ``geothermal resource confirmation'' because the
CX supports the entire project and not just individual wells. The BLM
removed the following from the CX text ``wells (e.g., core drilling,
temperature gradient wells, and/or resource wells), including, but not
limited to, construction of temporary routes for access, reclamation of
all surface disturbance, and direct testing (e.g., flow tests) to
confirm the existence of a geothermal resource, to improve injection
support, or to demonstrate communication between wells'' because these
examples of geothermal resource confirmation operations are not needed
to define the scope of the CX. At the same time, the BLM added
``pursuant to 43 CFR part 3200, subpart 3260'' for clarification. These
edits do not change the scope of the CX as proposed.
The BLM changed the format from a bulleted list to an alphabetized
list. The BLM added a new third provision (c), ``Requires reclamation
of all surface disturbances when their intended purpose has been
fulfilled,'' to clarify that that all surface disturbance is reclaimed
as soon as its intended purpose has been fulfilled. The proposed CX had
focused on reclamation of temporary routes and did not explicitly
address other reclamation.
In the third (c) and fourth provisions (d), the BLM replaced
``Includes'' with ``Requires'' making it clear that reclamation is a
requirement for approval of an operations plan. Additionally, the BLM
created a new fifth provision (e) from the second sentence of the third
provision (c), which is now in the fourth provision (d), by rewording
it to be consistent with the other provisions; therefore, the text
proposed as ``unless a temporary route is specifically intended to
accommodate public use; use of the temporary route is limited to
project-specific geothermal resource confirmation purposes;'' is
changed to ``Does not make a temporary route available for public use
unless a temporary route is specifically intended to accommodate public
use;''.
The new sixth provision (f), after the word ``used'', the BLM
changed the word ``to'' to ``so as to'' for readability. Additionally,
in the new sixth provision (f), ``of the temporary route and areas
where the vegetative'' has been changed to ``of vegetative cover on the
temporary route'' to simplify the language. Finally, in the new sixth
provision (f), BLM changed the words, ``at least'' to ``at most'' to
show that the 10-year requirement is the maximum time allowed for
reclamation.
V. Categorical Exclusion Justification
The BLM finds that the category of actions described in the CX
(below) does not normally have a significant effect on the human
environment, individually or in aggregate. This finding is based on the
analysis of the BLM's proposal to establish the CX in the BLM's
Substantiation Report and supporting record documents. The
Substantiation Report explains that, because the restrictions on the
proposed Geothermal Resource Confirmation CX limit surface disturbance
and access road construction, and the required design elements
incorporated into the operations plan and GDP approvals are effective
to address environmental effects, the BLM concludes that the category
of actions included in this CX does not normally result in significant
environmental effects, individually or in
[[Page 4774]]
the aggregate. The Substantiation Report summarizes the review of 26
geothermal resource confirmation EAs that supported FONSIs, as well as
20 similar oil and gas drilling project EAs, to demonstrate the finding
that actions under the revised CX would not normally result in
significant effects to the human environment. The Substantiation Report
includes evaluation of the BLM NEPA analyses and available scientific
research on the effects of routine actions included in the new CX over
time and over different geographic areas, and following consideration
of comments from the public.
The Department and the BLM consulted with CEQ on the proposed and
final CX. CEQ issued a letter stating that it has reviewed the CX and
found it to be in conformity with NEPA and the CEQ NEPA regulations.
Therefore, the Department adds the final CX to the BLM's NEPA
procedures at Department Manual at 516 DM 11.9. When applying this CX,
Responsible Officials within the BLM will evaluate proposed actions
covered by the CX to determine whether any extraordinary circumstances
are present in accordance with the requirements in the Department's
NEPA implementing procedures at 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.215. This review
would be documented and included in the information posted on the BLM's
NEPA register. If the Responsible Official cannot rely on this CX to
support a decision to authorize geothermal resource confirmation
activities due to extraordinary circumstances, the Responsible Official
will prepare an EA or EIS before doing so, consistent with 40 CFR
1501.4(b)(2) and 43 CFR 46.205(c). When applying this CX, the BLM will
document its reliance and publish the documentation on the BLM NEPA
register website.
VI. Amended Text for the Departmental Manual
BLM's NEPA procedures in 516 DM 11 is modified as follows:
Part 516: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Chapter 11: Managing the NEPA Process--Bureau of Land Management
11.9 Actions Eligible for a Categorical Exclusion (CX)
B. Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Energy
(7) Approval of an operations plan and associated Geothermal
Drilling Permits for a geothermal resource confirmation project,
pursuant to 43 CFR part 3200, subpart 3260; which:
a. Does not include resource utilization;
b. Does not exceed 20 acres of total (contiguous or
noncontiguous) surface disturbance;
c. Requires reclamation of all surface disturbances when their
intended purpose has been fulfilled;
d. Requires reclamation of temporary routes when their intended
purpose(s) has been fulfilled, unless through a separate review and
decision-making process the BLM incorporates and appropriately
designates the route as part of its transportation system;
e. Does not make a temporary route available for public use
unless the temporary route is specifically intended to accommodate
public use;
f. Requires temporary routes to be constructed and used so as to
allow for the reclamation, by artificial or natural means, of
vegetative cover on the temporary route and areas where the
vegetative cover was disturbed by the construction or use of the
route, and requires such treatment to be designed to reestablish
vegetative cover as soon as possible, but at most within 10 years
after approved reclamation commences; and,
g. Includes design elements to protect resources and resource
uses consistent with the applicable Resource Management Plan, laws,
regulations, and lease terms.
Authorities: NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); E.O. 11514, March 5, 1970, as
amended by E.O. 11991, May 24, 1977; and CEQ regulations (40 CFR
1507.3).
Stephen G. Tryon,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2025-01055 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-84-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 16, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.