```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4768-4774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: http://www.doi.gov/elips/ at Series 31, DM 
part 516, Chapter 11. The Substantiation Report for the CX is available 
at the BLM's ePlanning site: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2034686/510.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Bernier, Division Chief, 
Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, at (303) 239-3635, or 
[email protected]. 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, https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/guidance.html.
    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:
     Does not include resource utilization;
     Does not exceed 20 acres of total (contiguous or 
noncontiguous) surface disturbance;
     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;
     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
     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 (https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/home) 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 (https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/articles/protocol-addressing-induced-seismicity-associated-enhanced-geothermal).
    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
```