4768 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 

required by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Bryan Newland, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01043 Filed 1–15–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4337–15–P 

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 hbernier@blm.gov. 

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-ofcontact 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
4770 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 

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 sagegrouse), 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 sitespecific 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 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-inducedseismicity-associated-enhancedgeothermal). 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
4772 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 

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 sitespecific 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). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 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 projectspecific 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
4774 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

[MO 4500183156] 

Notice of Adoption of Categorical 

Exclusions under Section 109 of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Interior (Department) is notifying the 

public and documenting the adoption of 

11 Department of Energy (DOE) and 6 

National Telecommunications 

Information Administration (NTIA) 

categorical exclusions (CXs) for use by 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

under section 109 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In 

accordance with section 109, this notice 

identifies the types of actions for which 

the BLM and BIA will rely on the CXs, 

the considerations that the BLM and 

BIA will use in determining the 

applicability of the CXs, and the 

consultation between the agencies on 

the use of the CXs, including 

application of extraordinary 

circumstances. 

DATES: The adoption is effective January 

16, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

BLM: Amelia Savage, Senior Planning 

and Environmental Analyst, Division of 

Support, Planning and NEPA, 

alsavage@blm.gov, telephone (480) 307– 

8665. BIA: Chester McGhee, Branch 

Chief, Environmental Services, 

chester.mcghee@bia.gov, telephone 

(615) 289–3390. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Program Background 

1. Realty 

The BLM and BIA realty programs 

process applications for rights-of-way or 

other land use authorizations that 

facilitate commercial, non-commercial, 

recreational, and conservation activities 

including communication sites, 

transmission lines, fiber optic 

infrastructure, and renewable energy. 

2. Recreation 

The BLM’s recreation program 

supports and delivers a wide variety of 

recreational experiences including, but 

not limited to, camping, hunting, 

fishing, hiking, horseback riding, offhighway vehicle driving, mountain 

biking, bird watching, and various 

winter sports. The program manages 

over 4,000 recreation sites and 

associated facilities, in addition to over 

400 fee sites. An estimated 82 million 

visitors enjoy outdoor recreation on 

BLM-managed public lands every year. 

The recreation program also supports 

the bureau’s travel and transportation 

management program, which includes 

trails, roads, primitive roads, and 

associated parking lots and trail heads. 

3. Resource Protection 

The BLM’s and BIA’s Wildlife and 

Cultural Heritage Programs manage 

wildlife habitat to help ensure selfsustaining, abundant, and diverse 

populations of wildlife on public and 

Tribal lands and preserve public and 

Tribal lands and their resources that are 

important to the public and to American 

Indian and Alaska Native communities 

to ensure that current and future 

generations retain the ability to connect 

to their natural and cultural heritage. 

4. Minerals 

The BLM manages Federal mineral 

resources pursuant to the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), 30 U.S.C. 

181 et seq., and other legal authorities. 

BIA is authorized to approve leases 

for exploration, extraction of, or removal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1