Overview
Title
National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures for the Bureau of Land Management (516 DM 11)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) now has a rule that lets them quickly approve tests for finding heat under the ground like in a hot spring, as long as they follow certain rules to not dig too much and fix the land after.
Summary AI
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has updated its procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to include a new categorical exclusion (CX) for certain geothermal resource confirmation activities. This exclusion applies to activities like drilling to confirm a geothermal resource, provided they do not involve resource extraction and meet specific conditions, such as limiting surface disturbance to 20 acres and adhering to reclamation guidelines. This update aims to streamline approval processes while still protecting environmental resources, but it does not apply to geothermal power plant operations, which will undergo further review. Public feedback was considered, and changes were made to clarify the scope and requirements of the CX.
Abstract
This notice announces a revision to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at Chapter 11 of part 516 of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual (516 DM 11). The revision adds a new categorical exclusion (CX) for geothermal resource confirmation activities on Federal geothermal resource leases.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register announces the addition of a new categorical exclusion (CX) to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures, specifically for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This exclusion pertains to geothermal resource confirmation activities, such as drilling to confirm resource existence, which are now streamlined for approval under specific conditions. It is a regulatory update aimed at expediting geothermal project approvals on federal lands while still protecting environmental resources.
General Summary
The new procedures allow certain geothermal activities to proceed with less federal review if they meet predefined criteria. These criteria ensure that activities do not involve actual resource extraction, limit surface disturbance to 20 acres, and adhere to environmental reclamation guidelines. This adjustment aims to reduce project timelines, facilitating the development of renewable energy resources. It does not apply to the construction or operation of geothermal power plants, which will require separate, more thorough environmental reviews.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the document. Firstly, the complexity and length of the document may make it difficult for those without expertise in environmental policy or law to fully comprehend its implications. The intricate references to specific laws and regulations can be daunting for non-experts. Additionally, there is concern over potential bias, as expedited approvals through categorical exclusions could seem like favoritism towards the energy industry, minimizing the importance of comprehensive environmental assessments.
The response to public feedback presented in the document could be clearer. Discussions on "extraordinary circumstances" are handled in a discretionary manner, which could result in inconsistent evaluations, potentially affecting transparency.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this document represents a shift towards more efficient processes for certain types of geothermal projects, potentially speeding up energy development and contributing to an increase in renewable energy sources. However, for communities concerned about thorough environmental reviews, this shift might be perceived as risking insufficient scrutiny of environmental impacts.
Impact on Stakeholders
Renewable energy developers are likely to view this update positively, as it promises quicker project approvals under certain conditions, thus reducing administrative hurdles and costs. This aligns well with efforts to promote clean energy solutions.
On the other hand, environmental organizations and local communities may have mixed reactions. While the update ensures that stringent environmental standards are still considered, the perception of reduced scrutiny due to the streamlined process could raise concerns about adequate protection of environmental and community resources. Furthermore, comments from the public show a mixture of support and skepticism, indicating that transparency and clarity in decision-making processes remain crucial.
Conclusion
This regulatory change reflects an attempt to balance efficient energy development with environmental stewardship. While it offers potential benefits for renewable energy advocates, it also presents challenges concerning transparency and comprehensive environmental protection. The discourse surrounding this update highlights the importance of continued public engagement to ensure that diverse perspectives are considered in federal land management decisions.
Issues
• The document is lengthy and complex, which may hinder accessibility and understanding for individuals without expertise in environmental policy and law.
• There might be potential for bias, as some commenters are concerned about the BLM potentially favoring the energy industry by classifying geothermal projects under categorical exclusions, which could expedite project approval without thorough environmental impact assessments.
• The language used in the responses to public comments could be clearer and more concise to better engage and inform the general public.
• Some parts of the document, like the numerous references to specific laws and regulations (e.g., 40 CFR 1507.3), may be challenging to understand for non-experts.
• The issue of 'extraordinary circumstances' is addressed in a discretionary manner, which could lead to variability in how projects are evaluated, potentially impacting transparency and consistency.
• The response to Comment 24 regarding unanticipated effects does not provide enough information or clarity, as it simply states the BLM is unaware of any without addressing possible concerns directly or detailing proactive measures.
• Although the document is thorough, the focus on procedural and regulatory details might obscure the more practical implications for how actions on public lands will be managed moving forward.