Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-1
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section identifies and describes the current condition and trend of
elements or resources in the human environment that may be affected by the
Proposed Action or No Action Alternative. Also described are the
environmental consequences or impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action
Alternative on the affected environment. To the extent possible, this section
incorporates by reference the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a) and other prior
NEPA analyses covering the project area to describe the affected environment
and environmental impacts from the Proposed Action.
3.1 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES AND RESOURCE AREAS CONSIDERED
Appendix 1 of the BLM’s NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1 (BLM 2008b) identifies
supplemental authorities, or resource areas, that are subject to requirements
specified by statute or executive order and must be considered in all BLM
environmental analysis documents. Similarly, the Navy’s Environmental Readiness
Program Manual (OPNAV Instruction 5090.1D) requires all relevant resource
areas be included in the analysis. Table 3-1, below, identifies resource areas in
the project area and whether there is the potential for environmental impacts.
Resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action and No Action
Alternative are further described in this EA.
Table 3-1
Resource Areas and Rationale for Detailed Analysis for the Proposed Action
Elementsa Not
Presentb
Present/
Not
Affectedb
Present/
May Be
Affectedc
Rationale
Air quality X This EA incorporates by reference
the environmental protection
measures and best management
practices contained in Appendix E of
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-2 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Table 3-1
Resource Areas and Rationale for Detailed Analysis for the Proposed Action
Elementsa Not
Presentb
Present/
Not
Affectedb
Present/
May Be
Affectedc
Rationale
the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a),
including those for air quality,
beginning on page E-2. Air quality
mitigation measures for fugitive dust
and vehicle emissions, listed starting
on page 4-11 of the EIS, would
mitigate or avoid air quality impacts
from ground-disturbing activities and
equipment operations associated with
the Proposed Action.
Areas of Critical
Environmental
Concern
X None present.
Cultural resources X This EA incorporates by reference
the stipulations contained in
Appendix D and environmental
protection measures in Appendix E
of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a). As
concluded in the EIS (page 4-119), it
would mitigate or avoid impacts from
ground-disturbing activities
associated with the Proposed Action.
Also, incorporated by reference are
the findings of the cultural resources
overview and Class III Inventory of
Selected Areas Technical Report in
the NAS Fallon Programmatic EIS for
Geothermal Development (Navy
1991).
Environmental justice X Based on a review of 2016 US
Census Bureau data for Churchill
County and the city of Fallon, no
minority or low-income populations
would be disproportionately affected
by the Proposed Action or No
Action Alternative. Refer to the Salt
Wells EIS for the criteria used to
define environmental justice
populations (BLM 2011a).
Farmlands (prime or
unique)
X Carried forward in Section 3.13.
Forests and rangeland X Not present.
Floodplains X Carried forward in Section 3.4.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-3
Table 3-1
Resource Areas and Rationale for Detailed Analysis for the Proposed Action
Elementsa Not
Presentb
Present/
Not
Affectedb
Present/
May Be
Affectedc
Rationale
Invasive, nonnative,
and noxious species
X Carried forward in Section 3.10.
Migratory birds X Carried forward in Section 3.9.
Native American
religious concerns
X Carried forward in Section 3.11.
Paleontology X This EA incorporates by reference
the environmental protection
measures and best management
practices contained in Appendix E of
the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a). If
workers encounter paleontological
resources, Fallon FORGE would
notify the BLM and Navy
paleontological resource contact.
Federally threatened
or endangered species
X No threatened, endangered,
candidate, or proposed species or
designated critical habitat are present
in the action area; thus, none would
not be affected by the Proposed
Action (see Section 3.8).
Wastes, Hazardous or
Solid
X Refer to description of the Proposed
Action in Section 2.1.
Water quality (surface
water and
groundwater)
X Carried forward in Section 3.4.
Wetlands and riparian
zones
X Carried forward in Section 3.6.
Wild and Scenic Rivers X None present.
Wilderness/Wilderness
Study Areas
X None present.
a See BLM Handbook H-1790-1(BLM 2008b), Appendix 1, Supplemental Authorities to be Considered and Navy
Environmental Readiness Program Manual (OPNAV Instruction 5090.1D). b Supplemental authorities that are determined to be not present or present/not affected need not be carried
forward or discussed further in the document. c Supplemental authorities that are determined to be present/may be affected must be carried forward in the
document.
3.1.1 Additional Affected Resources
There are resources or uses that are not supplemental authorities, as defined by
BLM Handbook H-1790-1 (BLM 2008b) in the project area. BLM and Navy
specialists have evaluated the potential impact of the Proposed Action on these
resources and documented their findings in Table 3-2, below. Resources or
uses that may be affected by the Proposed Action are further described in this
EA.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-4 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Table 3-2
Other Resources Considered
Resource or Issue Present/
Not Affecteda
Present/May
Be Affectedb Rationale
BLM sensitive species X Carried forward in Section 3.8.
Lands with wilderness
characteristics (BLM
only)
X None present.
Land use, airspace,
and access
X Carried forward in Section 3.12.
Livestock grazing X Impacts would be negligible, because
development would occur on a very small
percentage of each allotment overlapping the
project site.
Minerals X No geothermal resources would be
consumed; no other mineral resource would
be affected by the Proposed Action.
Recreation X There are no recreation uses in the project
area.
Seismicity X Addressed under Geology in Section 3.5.
Socioeconomics X Carried forward in Section 3.13
Soils X The impacts of soil disturbance during the
installation of production/injection and
monitoring well pads were analyzed and
addressed in the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a).
Stimulation activities would not affect the soil
surface; this is because these activities are
occurring at the subsurface level. Soil
disturbance and associated impacts from
installing proposed new access roads would
be the same as those described in the Salt
Wells EIS (BLM 2011a). Hydric soils were
identified using the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil
Survey. There were 18 soil map units
identified in the project area; one is rated as
having approximately 94 percent hydric soils,
occupying approximately 1.9 acres, or 0.2
percent of the project area; three map units
occupy a combined total of 118.3 acres, or
10.5 percent of the project area. Each is rated
as having approximately 5 percent of hydric
soils in each map unit.
The extent that hydric soils occupy the
project area is relatively low, and all hydric
soils are associated with wetlands and riparian
areas. The potential impacts on hydric soils
would be similar to, and associated with,
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-5
Table 3-2
Other Resources Considered
Resource or Issue Present/
Not Affecteda
Present/May
Be Affectedb Rationale
potential impacts on wetlands and riparian
areas, as analyzed in Section 3.6, Wetlands
and Riparian Areas.
Soil compaction could affect the water-holding
capacity, and thus saturation, of hydric soils in
the area; however, avoiding these areas,
making lease stipulations, and implementing
mitigation measures would reduce these
impacts to less than significant.
These measures would include all
construction vehicle and equipment staging or
storage would be located at least 100 feet
away from any streams, wetlands, and other
water features (Appendix E, Salt Wells EIS);
there would be no surface grading, vegetation
clearing, or overland travel near or on
wetlands, riparian areas, or sensitive resource
areas identified by the BLM.
Adhering to the no surface occupancy
geothermal lease stipulation for lease numbers
NVN-079104, NVN-079105, and NVN-
079106, as described in Appendix B of the Salt
Wells EIS (pages B-5–B-7; BLM 2011a) would
further avoid impacts on wetlands and riparian
areas in the project area. This would come
about by preventing surface disturbance in
these areas or within 650 feet of them. This
stipulation would apply to all delineated
wetland and riparian areas, as well as to
surface water bodies (except canals), playas,
and 100-year floodplains in the lease areas
(see Appendix D).
Because hydric soils occupy a very small
amount of the project area, and potential
impacts are similar to those analyzed in
Section 3.6, Wetlands and Riparian Areas,
hydric soils were not carried forward for
further analysis.
Travel management
and access
X Carried forward under Land Use, Airspace,
and Access in Section 3.12.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-6 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Table 3-2
Other Resources Considered
Resource or Issue Present/
Not Affecteda
Present/May
Be Affectedb Rationale
Vegetation X Carried forward under Wildlife and Key
Habitat in Section 3.7.
Visual resources X This EA incorporates by reference the
environmental protection measures and best
management practices contained in Appendix
E of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a),
including those for visual resources,
beginning on page E-9. These measures
would mitigate or avoid visual impacts from
ground-disturbing activities and operations
associated with the Proposed Action.
Wild horses and
burros
X None present.
Wildlife/key habitat X Carried forward in Section 3.7 a Resources or uses determined to be not present/not affected need not be carried forward or discussed further in
the document. b Resources or uses determined to be present/may be affected must be carried forward in the document.
3.2 RESOURCES OR USES PRESENT AND BROUGHT FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS
The following resources are present in the project area and may be affected by
the Proposed Action; they are carried forward for analysis:
Water resources, including surface and groundwater quality,
quantity, and rights
Geology, including seismicity
Wetlands and riparian areas
Wildlife and key habitat, including vegetation
BLM sensitive species
Migratory birds
Invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed species
Native American religious concerns
Land use, airspace, and access
Farmlands (prime or unique)
Socioeconomics
3.3 METHOD
For each of the resources identified in Section 3.2, above, this EA identifies
and describes the current conditions in the human environment that may be
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-7
affected by the Proposed Action. Where appropriate, reference is made to the
Salt Wells EIS and other prior NEPA documents to supplement the descriptions.
Potential impacts are those that could occur from implementing the Proposed
Action. Impacts are assessed in terms of their duration (temporary or
permanent) and context (local or regional). A temporary impact is one that
occurs only during implementation of the alternative, while a permanent impact
could occur for an extended period after implementation of the alternative.
Where appropriate, the analysis provides recommended mitigation and
monitoring measures to avoid or reduce impacts on the specified resource.
3.4 WATER RESOURCES
3.4.1 Affected Environment
The general descriptions of groundwater and surface water in the project area
are consistent with those described in the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a) and are
summarized where appropriate. Updated information relevant to the FORGE
project area, where available, is described below.
Surface Water
The Proposed Action is in the Lahontan Valley, Carson Desert, and
northwestern portion of the Salt Wells Basin in west-central Nevada. The
project area is approximately 7 miles southwest of Fallon, Nevada. This basin is
in the western part of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province (Basin and
Range Province). This province is characterized by north-south trending
mountain ranges, separated by alluvium-filled, nearly flat to gently sloping valleys
with internally drained, closed basins. Major surface water features in or near
the Fallon FORGE project area (Figure 6, Surface Water) are as follows:
The Truckee Canal
Irrigation canals, laterals, and drains
FEMA flood zone
Hot and warm springs and seeps
Non-geothermal springs
Emergency canal
Irrigation water is delivered to large areas of agricultural land in the Fallon area
by a complex array of irrigation works, including canals, laterals, and drains (see
Figure 6). This irrigation system is part of the Newlands Project, one of the
first irrigation projects built by Reclamation in Nevada.
The Newlands Project is operated by the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
(TCID) and has approximately 60,000 irrigated acres and two divisions: the
Truckee Division, with water diverted at Derby Dam from the Truckee River
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-9
into the Truckee Canal and irrigation delivery system for service to
approximately 5,000 acres of irrigated lands; and the Carson Division, with
water released from the Carson River near the Lahontan Reservoir
(Reclamation 2014). The Carson Diversion Dam, 5 miles below the Lahontan
Dam, diverts water into two main canals for irrigation.
In 2017, Reclamation constructed an emergency canal to mitigate potential flood
impacts in Churchill County. The canal intersects the project area for 2 miles
(see Figure 6). The future status of this canal is unknown, though the Proposed
Action would protect and preserve the integrity of the emergency canal.
One water body in the project area is listed as impaired on the Clean Water
Act’s current 303(d) list of impaired waters. An impaired water body is
considered too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet water quality standards
set by states, territories, or recognized tribes in the United States. Under
Section 303(d), states, territories, and recognized tribes are required to develop
lists of impaired waters.
One stretch of drain ditch, 1.3 miles of the “L” Deep Drain, is listed as impaired
on the 303(d) list for mercury in fish tissue. The presence of mercury may be a
result of past practices in the area that used mercury, such as historic gold
mining. The “L” Deep Drain is in the Lahontan Valley in Churchill County, near
Fallon (see Figure 6).
The emergency canal is also connected to the Lower Deep Diagonal Drain
(LDDD), which has associated impaired beneficial uses for arsenic, boron,
Escherichia coli (bacteria), iron, mercury in fish tissue and sediment, total
phosphorus, and total dissolved solids. The emergency canal is also impaired,
because it is hydrologically connected to the LDDD; however, since the canal is
newly constructed, it is not on the NDEP or EPA 303(d) list.
Groundwater
General descriptions of groundwater in the project area are consistent with
those described in the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a). Surrounding the project
area, four groundwater subsystems were identified. A shallow, unconsolidated
sedimentary aquifer extends from the land surface to a depth of about 50 feet.
An intermediate depth, unconsolidated sedimentary aquifer is positioned from
50 feet to 500–1,000 feet below the land surface. Then a deep, generally
unconsolidated sedimentary aquifer begins 500–1,000 feet below the land
surface.
Transecting all three sedimentary aquifers is a basalt aquifer that is highly
permeable; it is beneath a volcanic feature named Rattlesnake Hill (BLM 2011a).
This basalt aquifer does not extend under the project area, as shown in
Figure 7, below. Domestic and industrial water supplies for the City of Fallon,
NAS Fallon, and the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe are obtained from the basalt
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-10 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Figure 7
Aquifer Location
aquifer. Rural populations in the Carson Desert area obtain domestic water from
private wells in the quaternary basalt aquifer. Infiltration from the Newlands
Project canals and drains can cause water levels to rise in the shallow aquifer.
The FORGE project area is within Basin and Range basin fill aquifers. Basin and
Range basin-fill aquifers consist primarily of sediment-filled basins separated by
mountain ranges. Basin-fill deposits range from about 1,000 to 5,000 feet thick in
many basins, but they are thicker in some basins. Groundwater in the area is
mostly unconfined and is recharged when infiltration of mountain streams,
precipitation, and inflow from fractured bedrock typically enters the aquifers
along mountain fronts (USGS 2016).
Water Rights
Within a two-mile buffer of the project boundary there are seven permitted,
certified, or vested water rights (see Table 3-3, Water Rights within Two Miles
of the Project Area, and Figure 8, Water Rights). These water rights are for
irrigation, environmental use, effluent, commercial use, storage, recreation, and
stock watering, as shown in the table below.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-12 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Table 3-3
Water Rights within Two Miles of the Project Area
Application Application Status Source Type of Use
13472 Certificate Stream Irrigation
13473 Certificate Stream Irrigation
57351E Permit Underground Environmental
67710 Certificate Underground Commercial
79614 Permit Effluent* Storage
79614S01 Certificate Storage* Recreation
V09744 Vested right Underground Stock watering
Source: Nevada Division of Water Resources 2018
* These sources have the same coordinates (Nevada Division of Water Resources 2018).
Geothermal Resources
There are two distinct components of the hydrothermal system in the project
area: a shallow hydrothermal system, consisting of a thermal spring near the
surface, and a deep geothermal system, consisting of higher temperatures and
depths greater than 1,300 feet below the ground. General descriptions of
geothermal resources in the project area are consistent with those described in
Section 3.7, Water Quality and Quantity, of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a) for
geothermal flow systems.
Geothermal well characteristics are shown in Table 3-4, below. Apart from the
thermal spring (well 6), these wells have all been drilled over 5,000 feet below
the surface; however, well 84-31 has a perforated casing depth of 679 feet. Its
purpose is to extract water from that depth without drawing from the
unconsolidated shallow aquifer or deep geothermal system.
Table 3-4
Existing Geothermal Well Characteristics
Well Number
Well characteristics FOH-3D 61-36 88-24 84-31 82-36 6
Well location (UTM 11N
NAD83 Easting)
355920 355750 356211 357854 356230 356641
Well location (UTM 11N
NAD83 Northing)
4360916 4360984 4362830 4360300 4360752 4357646
Total well depth (feet) 8,747 6,962 5,003 5,912 9,469 160
Casing depth (feet) 2,887 2,464 2,005 3,970 3,990 N/A
Slotted liner depth (feet) open hole 6,955 5,003 5,869 8,970 N/A
Perforated casing depth
(feet)
N/A N/A N/A 679 N/A N/A
Maximum measured
temperature in well (°F)
397 378 280 343 417 167
Source: SNL 2018
N/A = not applicable
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-13
Thermal Spring (Well 6)
There is an area approximately 1 mile south of the FORGE project where water
emanating from an improperly abandoned 160-foot-deep well is acting as a
thermal spring system (see Figure 8). The area exhibits wetland characteristics,
including riparian vegetation and wildlife. The surface water temperature at the
well is 162°F; the bottom hole temperature is 171°F at a depth of 160 feet (Hinz
et al. 2016). This well was drilled before 1980 (exact date unknown), before any
geothermal exploration in the Carson Sink; it predates the Fallon FORGE
project.
Geochemical analyses of water samples collected from well 6 indicate that it has
TDS of approximately 4,000 parts per million (ppm). This fluid is chemically
distinct from fluids sampled from well 84-31, with lower lithium (Li), calcium
(Ca), sulphate (SO4) and fluorine (F) content; therefore, the thermal spring (well
6) and well 84-31 are not hydrologically connected (see Figure 9).
Differences in local geology have resulted in more faulting and fracturing of the
rock units near the well. This has provided fluid flow pathways (and
permeability) and has allowed deeper geothermal fluids to move to shallower
depths (<150 feet). In contrast, fluids sampled from the deep basement wells,
such as FOH-3D, are from low-permeability rock units in the Mesozoic
basement. These units do not support vertical groundwater movement.
3.4.2 Environmental Consequences
Indicators of impacts on water resources include any change in water quality or
quantity affected by the Proposed Action. The region of influence for direct and
indirect impacts is the project area.
Proposed Action
Surface Water Quantity
No direct impacts on surface water quantity are anticipated from stimulating the
wells under Phase 3. This is because surface water would not be used in the
Proposed Action unless it is trucked in from a separate location, consistent with
US Navy and Ormat operations. Water used for well stimulation is anticipated
to be sourced from an adjacent geothermal reservoir via well 84-31, or it may
be sourced from well 88-24. It is approximately 7 miles from the basalt aquifer
used by the City of Fallon. There may be a nominal amount of supplemental
water needed during drilling, which would be trucked to the site. This water
would be purchased from sources with existing water rights; no water rights
would be purchased that would affect surface water quantity in the surrounding
area.
The Proposed Action would have a negligible impact on the thermal spring
south of the project area. This is because there would be a negligible change in
the amount or temperature of water in shallower aquifers.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-14 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Figure 9
Fallon FORGE Geothermal Well Geochemistry
Source: SNL 2018
Geochemical data from water samples collected from the identified thermal
spring (well 6) and the shallow geothermal aquifer in well 84-31 indicate that the
fluids are chemically distinct and originate from separate groundwater aquifers;
therefore, pumping from the shallow geothermal aquifer in well 84-31 is not
expected to affect temperature or flow to the thermal spring (well 6).
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-15
The thermal spring (well 6) is over 2 miles from the source of stimulation
activities, and the deep Mesozoic basement rock, where the geothermal fluid
originates, is highly impermeable; therefore, potential indirect impacts on water
quantity of the thermal spring (well 6) are anticipated to be negligible. This is
because of the proximity of pumping and impermeability of the source rocks.
Extracting groundwater from well 84-31 would not likely modify water flow
from the spring (well 6), because the water originates from separate
groundwater aquifers. Nevertheless, Fallon FORGE would monitor the spring
for at least 1 year before any water is used for well stimulation (see Appendix
E). Monitoring would continue throughout the well stimulation process to
ensure that neither production of fluid from well 84-31 or injection of this fluid
into deep geological formations on the FORGE site would affect the discharge
from the thermal spring (well 6). The Fallon FORGE team would submit a
monitoring plan to the BLM and Navy, describing monitoring protocols and
actions in the event the spring exhibits reduced water flows.
Surface Water Quality
The Proposed Action could disturb approximately 47 acres in the monitoring
and production/injection well pad assessment areas (FORGE GIS 2017). If
facilities are near surface water resources, impacts on surface water quality
could occur. Examples of these impacts are sedimentation from construction
activities and a higher potential for surface water contamination from any spill
from EGS Phase 3 activities. If a spill were to occur, fluids used in stimulations
could affect surface water quality; however, measures have been incorporated,
as described under the Proposed Action to reduce or avoid impacts on surface
water quality.
Applicable fluid mineral leasing stipulations (see Appendix D) would reduce or
avoid potential impacts on surface water quality in the project area, including
the impaired emergency canal and drain. These include such stipulations as no
surface occupancy within 650 feet (horizontal measurement) of any surface
water body on BLM-administered land (BLM 2014a). As required by
Reclamation, there would be no surface occupancy within 100 feet of the canals,
which would result in negligible impacts on the surface water quality of those
features.
Fallon FORGE would store stimulation water in containers, such as water pits,
drilling sumps, or Baker tanks,2 to prevent impacts on water quality. It would
reuse the stimulation or hydraulic fracturing waters from one well to another to
reduce the potential for contaminating surface water resources or groundwater
infiltration. Sumps, pits, or Baker tanks to contain fluids and drill cuttings would
be used only infrequently and then only temporarily, such as during well drilling
and testing. Drilling sumps would comply with applicable Nevada regulations and
2 A steel tank for storing liquid.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-16 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
would not be lined; however, any excess liquid would be mitigated by pumping
excess water off the top of the expended drill cuttings or by covering the
drilling sump to prevent birds from being attracted to the water.
After the well drilling and testing operations are completed, the containment
basins would remain in place with wildlife-proof covers until all liquids are
evaporated. The reserve pit would no longer be needed and would be closed
and backfilled, recontoured to pre-construction topography, and reseeded.
EGS could produce small seismic events, which, if not monitored, could damage
concrete irrigation ditches or other irrigation facilities in the vicinity (Majer et al.
2007); however, the Navy installed a 10-station micro earthquake array to
detect local seismicity in the FORGE site.
The FORGE program is monitoring base seismicity, which would be augmented
with deep monitoring holes over 6,000 feet and intermediate monitoring
boreholes. These would be used to monitor very small earthquakes (less than
magnitude 2.0) associated with water injection experiments (DOE 2017). If
seismic monitoring indicates induced seismicity, well stimulation would be
curtailed or managed in accordance with Appendix B.
Groundwater Quality
In order to prevent groundwater infiltration, basins used to store water for well
stimulation or for flowback from production/injection wells would be lined with
a low permeability high density polyethylene liner or other liner, subject to BLM
and Navy approval. Any pit storing water for use in stimulation or for flowback
water would be lined, and the surface would be covered to deter birds and
other wildlife. Floating continuous covers or floating tiles/balls may be used to
protect water resources and wildlife.
The quality of fluids collected in the reserve pits would vary. This would depend
on the amount of each source, such as drilling fluids and additives, stormwater,
and geothermal water. Once the wells are finished and put into production or
used for other purposes, the reserve pit would no longer be needed. Any
remaining liquids would be removed, and the pit would be closed in accordance
with applicable regulations.
The geothermal water used for stimulation would be diverted temporarily
through a temporary water line to a lined sump or Baker tank next to the well.
This would be done to provide a buffer between withdrawal and injection
points, which would prevent impacts on shallow groundwater resources.
Indirect impacts on groundwater quality would be any potential connection
between the EGS reservoir and local and regional aquifers. The planned EGS
stimulations would occur in the basement rocks, approximately 5,000 to 8,000
feet below ground surface. If these fractures were to extend upward from the
top of the EGS reservoir zone, it would be several thousand feet below the
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-17
bottom of regional and local aquifers. Given the very low permeability of the
receptor rock throughout the length of the vertical borehole below the regional
aquifer, there is little chance that fluids could migrate vertically during
stimulation.
In addition to the cement well casing (see Table 3-4, Existing Geothermal Well
Characteristics, for casing depths), the impermeability of the deep Mesozoic
formations would also ensure that the injected fluid would remain isolated from
the sedimentary aquifer associated with well 84-31.
If spilled stimulation water were to infiltrate groundwater, there could be
indirect impacts on shallow groundwater resources; however, the potential for
contamination is low. This is because there is low permeability in the project
area, and temporary pits and sumps would prevent infiltration.
Thickener agents and proppants3 potentially used in stimulations could affect
groundwater quality; however, implementing environmental protection
measures described under the Proposed Action and those analyzed in Section
4.7, Water Quality and Quantity, of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a) would
reduce or avoid impacts on shallow groundwater quality.
This reservoir would be hydrologically separate from the shallow aquifer
directly below the surface, as shown in Figure 7. Water, at temperatures
roughly equivalent to the ambient air temperature, would be injected into the
stimulated hot basement rock. It would be heated by the hot rocks and
withdrawn as hot geothermal fluids.
The geothermal reservoir would have its own pressure system, balanced by the
production/injection wells. The water removed would be reintroduced into the
deep reservoir, thereby creating a closed circuit. This method, which would
isolate injected fluids in the deep aquifer, would avoid impacts on groundwater
quality or quantity from introducing injected fluids into the shallow aquifer.
There could be a negligible change in the amount or temperature of water in
shallower aquifers in the project area. Additionally, the environmental
protection measures outlined in Appendix E of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a),
and included as Appendix C of this EA, would protect groundwater resources
from potential contamination. These measures, which include complying with
the stormwater pollution prevention plan and any applicable provisions of the
state general permit, along with ensuring that all well casing is cemented from
the bottom of the well to the surface, would reduce or avoid impacts on surface
water resources, as described in the Salt Wells EIS.
3 Solid materials, typically sand, treated sand, or human-made ceramic materials.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-18 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
EGS could produce small seismic events, which, if not monitored, could damage
concrete irrigation ditches or other irrigation facilities in the vicinity (Majer et al.
2007). There is a 10-station micro earthquake array that was installed by the
Navy to detect local seismicity in the FORGE site. The FORGE program is
currently monitoring base seismicity, which would be augmented with deep
monitoring holes over 6,000 feet and intermediate monitoring boreholes. These
would be used to monitor very small earthquakes (less than magnitude 2.0)
associated with water injection experiments (DOE 2017). If the seismic
monitoring indicates induced seismicity, well stimulation would be curtailed or
managed in accordance with Appendix B.
Groundwater Quantity
Up to thirteen deep wells, including monitoring and production/stimulation
wells, would be drilled in the project area, to depths ranging from 5,000 to
8,500 feet. As shown in Figure 7, the wells would be nearly 10 miles south of
the basalt aquifer, which is used for irrigation and drinking water in the Fallon
area. Proposed wells would not interact with groundwater in the basalt aquifer,
including shallow groundwater in and surrounding the site.
The maximum water requirements for the FORGE program would be
approximately 33 acre-feet (11 million gallons) per production/stimulation well;
up to three wells are expected to be stimulated, so approximately 100 acre-feet
(33 million gallons) of water are expected to be used, none of which is
considered as a consumptive use.
The primary source of water for stimulations and other activities would be the
geothermal fluid produced from well 84-31, one of the wells already drilled by
Ormat Nevada, Inc., or potentially from well 88-24, another existing well. This
water is from a deeper source that is unrelated to shallower groundwater
aquifers used for irrigation or drinking water supplies. Accordingly, there would
be no impact on those shallower aquifers. Removing water from the deep
geothermal groundwater sources could modify groundwater flow patterns and
pressures in those locations during pumping.
Extracting geothermal water from well 84-31 for stimulation experiments on
the FORGE site would have a negligible impact on the water flow from the
thermal spring (well 6). This is because the two groundwater sources are not
interconnected, as demonstrated by the chemistry and separation of these
hydrologically distinct aquifers (see Figure 7 and Figure 9).
Similarly, during EGS experiments, injecting the fluid produced from well 84-31
into geological formations greater than 5,500 feet on the FORGE site would not
affect flow from the thermal spring (well 6). The proposed production/injection
wells used for the EGS experiments would be approximately 2 miles north of
the thermal spring (well 6).
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-19
Due to the complexity of the subsurface geology in the Carson Lake region, and
the measured low permeability of the deep geological reservoirs on the FORGE
site (5,500 to 8,000 feet deep), injecting fluids on the FORGE site would have
negligible impact on flow from the thermal spring (well 6). Fallon FORGE would
monitor well 6 for at least 1 year before any water being extracted from well
84-31 to be used for well stimulation on the FORGE site (see Appendix E).
Monitoring would continue throughout the well stimulation process, to ensure
that neither production of fluid from well 84-31 or injection of this fluid into
deep geological formations on the FORGE site would affect the discharge from
the thermal spring (well 6). The Fallon FORGE team would submit a monitoring
plan to the BLM and Navy, describing monitoring protocols and actions in the
event the spring exhibits reduced water flows.
Water Rights
The Proposed Action would have a negligible impact on the seven water rights
holders within 2 miles of the Project Area (see Table 3-3 and Figure 8). Wells
would be cased, which would protect groundwater from contamination. Water
rights would not be affected by withdrawing 33 million gallons. This is because
this geothermal well water would not be consumptive use. Moreover, it is not
hydrologically connected to existing groundwater and surface water rights
within 2 miles of the Project Area.
Underground water rights are not anticipated to be affected because of their
distance from pumping and because they are in geologically separate aquifers.
Surface water rights may be affected, in the event of a spill or structural failure
of ditches/canals from induced seismicity. Again, due to proximity, BMPs, and
environmental protection measures, direct impacts on surface water quantity or
quality are not anticipated; however, the water quality and quantity would be
monitored to ensure that potential impacts on water rights are negligible.
Recommended Mitigation or Monitoring
Applicable environmental protection measures and BMPs, as described in
Appendix E of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a, E-6), would apply under the
Proposed Action. Before the FORGE Phase III activities begin, an inventory of
currently accessible water wells and other wells around the Fallon FORGE site
would be performed.
These wells would continue to be monitored through Phase III activities. This
would be done to identify and mitigate potential impacts on water resources
from Fallon FORGE activities and to characterize the other seasonal, climate-
related, and human variables, such as other consumptive groundwater users in
the vicinity. These other factors could also affect the local water table at the
FORGE site and the behavior of flow from the thermal spring (well 6).
Monitoring would be for depth to water table, water chemistry, and water
temperature (see Appendix E). These measures would comply with the
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-20 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
stormwater pollution prevention plan and would ensure that all well casings are
cemented from the bottom of the well to the surface. They also would reduce
or avoid impacts on surface water resources, as described in the Salt Wells EIS.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Navy would not implement the
Proposed Action on federal lands. None of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action would occur.
3.5 GEOLOGY
3.5.1 Affected Environment
The region of influence for geology is the project area.
The Basin and Range Province formed through regional, crustal extension of the
western part of the North American continental plate, with fault blocks sliding
downward, forming basins separated by mountain ranges (BLM 2011a).
Mountain ranges surrounding the Proposed Action consist of Tertiary volcanic
rocks, including basalt, rhyolite, silicic tuffs, and other related rocks. Also
present in the mountain ranges are Tertiary and Mesozoic intrusive rocks, such
as granite and dioritic rocks. These rocks may also include Tertiary silicic,
intermediate, and mafic porphyritic or aphanitic intrusive rocks. The closest
mountains to the project area are the Lahontan and Bunejug Mountain Ranges
(BLM 2011a).
Valleys contain Quaternary alluvial deposits that may include parent materials of
Tertiary age (BLM 2011a). The Proposed Action would be on Quaternary
deposits. These are Piedmont alluvial deposits (upper and middle quaternary)
(FORGE GIS 2017; USGS GIS 2005).
The Lahontan Valley is a portion of Pleistocene age Lake Lahontan, which
existed in northwestern Nevada between 20,000 and 9,000 years before
present. At its peak, approximately 12,700 years before present, Lake Lahontan
had a surface area of over 8,500 square miles, with its largest component
centered at the location of the Lahontan Valley and Carson Sink. The Carson
Lake Wetland area, immediately southwest of the Proposed Action,
encompasses a portion of the Lahontan Valley wetland at the terminus of the
Carson River. This wetland is one of the remaining natural features of Lake
Lahontan (BLM 2011a).
Seismicity
Although there are other types of faults in the Basin and Range Province, the
extension and crustal stretching that have shaped the present landscape
produce mostly normal faults. A normal fault occurs when one side of the fault
moves downward with respect to the other side. The upthrown side of these
faults form mountains that rise abruptly and steeply, and the down-dropped side
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-21
creates low valleys. The fault plane, along which the two sides of the fault move,
extends deep in the crust, usually at an angle of 60 degrees. In places, the relief
or vertical difference between the two sides is as much as 10,000 feet (USGS
2017).
The Proposed Action is in a region that is part of the most active seismic belt in
the Basin and Range province. Because of the relative recent history of major
faulting (Holocene age, within the last 12,000 years), some of these faults are
considered active (BLM 2013).
Eetza Mountain is just east of the site of the Proposed Action, on the north side
of Highway 50. The closest faults are north and south of Eetza Mountain
(Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 2017).
The moment magnitude scale for measuring earthquakes is based on the total
moment release of the earthquake. Magnitude 2.5 or less is usually not felt but
can be recorded by a seismograph. Magnitude 2.6 to 5.4 is often felt but causes
only minor damage. Earthquakes above a Magnitude 5.5 may slightly damage
buildings and other structures (Michigan Technological University 2017). The
occurrence of damage depends on various factors, such as proximity to an
earthquake and the integrity of structures.
In order to address public concern and gain acceptance from the general public
and policymakers for geothermal energy development, specifically EGS, the
DOE commissioned a group of experts in induced seismicity, geothermal power
development, and risk assessment. This group wrote the Protocol for
Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems
(Appendix A).
The protocol is a living guidance document for geothermal developers, public
officials, regulators, and the public. It provides a set of general guidelines
detailing useful steps to evaluate and manage the impacts of induced seismicity
related to EGS projects. The protocol emphasizes safety, while allowing
geothermal technology to move forward in a cost-effective manner (Majer et al.
2012).
The DOE also developed Best Practices for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated
with Enhanced Geothermal Systems (Appendix B). It provides a set of general
guidelines that detail useful steps that geothermal project proponents can take
to deal with induced seismicity issues. It provides more detail than the protocol,
while still following the main steps in the protocol (Majer et al. 2016).
3.5.2 Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
In total, there would be a combination of nine monitoring wells and three
production/injection wells. The production/injection wells would be drilled using
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-22 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
advanced directional drilling technologies to increase permeability in the desired
geologic structures. The test results would contribute to scientists’
understanding of the interconnected fracture network that is needed for
efficient and sustained geothermal heat extraction under low-pressure injection
and production.
The 3-acre pad area for each well would include an approximately 1-acre sump.
Each sump would be approximately 7 feet deep. The wells, pads, sumps, and
stimulation fluid containment basins would permanently disturb 38 acres. The
assumption is that any disturbance from roads or site trailers would not occur
at depths that would affect the geology of the area.
Direct, negligible impacts on surface geology would be limited to the pads,
sumps, and containment basins, due to the well drilling and the construction of
the pads, sumps and containment basins. These impacts would last until the
beginning of any required reclamation, subsequent to any implementation of the
Proposed Action.
Seismicity
All stimulations would occur in the Mesozoic basement rocks underlying the
basement sediments and volcanics (see Figure 10, Fallon FORGE Cross-
section). A microseismic monitoring system is currently operational at the
Fallon FORGE site, and additional monitoring would be implemented before any
full-scale stimulation begins. It is reasonable to assume that direct impacts on
seismicity may occur due to microseismic events resulting from stimulations.
This is due to the physical shifting of the minute cracks in the rock at this depth.
As shown in Appendix B, earthquakes induced in EGS fields are generally on a
magnitude ranging from 2 (insignificant) to about 3.5 (locally perceptible to
humans). The Proposed Action would follow the guidelines in the protocol
(Appendix A) and the useful steps in the Best Practices document (Appendix
B). The potential induced seismicity is estimated to be minor and would occur
only during the Proposed Action.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Navy would not implement the
Proposed Action on federal lands. None of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action would occur.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-23
Figure 10
Fallon FORGE Cross-section
Meters
Meters
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-24 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-25
3.6 WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN AREAS
3.6.1 Affected Environment
General descriptions of wetlands and riparian areas in the project area are
consistent with those described in the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a) and NAS
Fallon Programmatic EIS for Geothermal Energy Development (Navy 1991).
Additional information relevant to the Fallon FORGE project area, where
available, is described below.
NAS Fallon conducted a wetland inventory of its lands in 2007, including the
main base and portions of adjoining Reclamation lands in the project area. Most
of the FORGE project area is in the inventory study area, thus the results of the
inventory were incorporated into this EA. The inventory classified wetlands
based on the methods employed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). This inventory uses a classification system
encompassing a broad spectrum of vegetation and non-vegetation features, only
some of which are likely to be regulated as jurisdictional wetlands (Cowardin et
al. 1979).
The NAS Fallon inventory did not cover the entire FORGE project area. For
areas not covered, which are generally the areas south of Macari Lane, the NWI
was queried to characterize wetlands. The results of the NWI query were
grouped into the same features used in the NAS Fallon inventory (see
Figure 11, Playas, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas).
The results of both the NAS Fallon wetland inventory and NWI query in the
FORGE project area are summarized in Table 3-5, below. Descriptions of each
wetland type are included in Appendix I of the NAS Fallon INRMP (NAS Fallon
2014), which is included as Appendix F of this EA. There has not been a
wetland delineation completed for the 630 acres of lease lands in the project
area.
Table 3-5
Wetlands
Wetland Type Inventoried by
NAS Fallon
Other Areas
(NWI)
Total Wetland
Acres
Freshwater emergent wetland1 — 50 50
Moist saline meadows and flats 30 — 30
Human-made ponds and ditches 10 — 10
Playas 130 — 130
Sources: FORGE GIS 2017; NAS Fallon GIS 2017; USFWS GIS 2017a
1 This NWI category includes primarily marshes, as described by NAS Fallon (2014). It also includes smaller areas
of moist saline meadows, flats, and playas; these wetland types are described in Appendix F.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-27
3.6.2 Environmental Consequences
Indicators for impacts on wetlands and riparian areas are the acres and function
of wetlands and riparian areas affected by the Proposed Action. The region of
influence for direct and indirect impacts is the project area.
Proposed Action
The nature and type of direct and indirect impacts on wetlands and riparian
areas would be the same as those described in the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a;
see Section 4.8, Floodplains, Wetlands and Riparian Zones, page 4-62, of the
EIS). These impacts are from the direct removal of wetland vegetation,
increased sedimentation leading to decreased water quality in these areas, and
wetland degradation from weed establishment and spread. Potential impacts on
wetlands and riparian areas in the Fallon FORGE project area that are outside of
the scope of the Salt Wells EIS are described below.
Under the Proposed Action, drilling nine monitoring wells and three
production/injection wells and installing new access roads and a site trailer could
disturb approximately 47 acres in the monitoring and production/injection well
pad assessment areas. There are 90 acres of well pad assessment areas
overlapping identified wetland and riparian areas (FORGE GIS 2017). If facilities
are in or near wetland areas, there could be impacts on these areas, such as
wetland vegetation removal or fill, increased sedimentation, and noxious weed
introduction and spread. These impacts could decrease the acres or function of
wetlands and riparian areas in the project area.
Measures would be incorporated under the Proposed Action to reduce or
avoid impacts on wetlands and riparian areas. These measures are summarized
in Appendix E, Fallon FORGE Environmental Protection Measures. The
impacts of incorporating these measures are described below.
Adhering to the no surface occupancy geothermal lease stipulation for lease
numbers NVN-079104, NVN-079105, and NVN-079106, as described in
Appendix B of the Salt Wells EIS (pages B-5–B-7; BLM 2011a), would avoid
impacts on wetlands and riparian areas in the project area. This would come
about by preventing surface disturbance in these areas or within 650 feet of
them.
This stipulation would apply to all delineated wetland and riparian areas, as well
as to surface water bodies (except canals), playas, or 100-year floodplains in
these lease areas (see Appendix D). Canals used for water delivery or drainage
on Reclamation lands would be avoided by a 100-foot no surface occupancy
buffer.
Before implementing the Proposed Action, the project proponents would
conduct a wetland delineation for the 630-acre portion of the project area
under federal lease (see Appendix E). The purpose of the delineation would be
to verify the boundaries, acreage, and types of wetlands and riparian areas and
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-28 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
associated no surface occupancy buffers identified in the project area (see
Figure 11).
In accordance with the abovementioned lease stipulations, there would be no
surface disturbance in areas within 650 feet of a delineated feature. For the
proposed well pads within the buffer area of the playa, should the delineation
verify the current playa boundaries, the well pads would be located in another
portion of the monitoring or production/injection well pad assessment areas
outside the buffer area. Incorporating these measures would reduce potential
impacts on wetlands and other riparian areas by ensuring that all wetlands and
riparian areas in the project area are adequately avoided.
Further, applicable Environmental Protection Measures and Best Management
Practices, as described in Appendix E of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a), would
apply to the Proposed Action. These measures are included in Appendix C of
this EA. These measures include complying with the stormwater pollution
prevention plan, minimizing vegetation removal, prohibiting overland travel, and
preventing noxious weed spread. They would reduce or avoid impacts on
wetlands and riparian areas by preventing or minimizing sedimentation into
wetland areas, preventing damage to wetland vegetation from overland travel,
and minimizing the potential for weed spread into wetlands and riparian areas.
Where jurisdictional wetlands or Other Waters of the United States could not
be completely avoided, the project proponents would obtain regulatory
approval for any wetland removal or fill. Any and all mitigation measures
determined by the US Army Corps of Engineers and Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection in the regulatory permit would be strictly adhered to.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Navy would not implement the
Proposed Action on federal lands. None of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action would occur.
3.7 WILDLIFE AND KEY HABITAT
3.7.1 Affected Environment
General descriptions of wildlife and wildlife habitat in the project area are
consistent with those described in Section 3.11, Wildlife (page 3-94), of the Salt
Wells EIS (BLM 2011a). Updated information relevant to the FORGE project
area, where available, is described below.
The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) Wildlife Action Plan (Wildlife
Action Plan Team 2012) groups Nevada’s vegetation cover into broad ecological
system groups and links those with 22 key habitat types in the state. The
Wildlife Action Plan is based on the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
(SWReGAP) land cover types (USGS SWReGAP GIS 2004).
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-29
Along with survey data, key habitats can be used to infer likely occurrences of
wildlife species assemblages. SWReGAP land cover types are discussed in
Section 3.9, Vegetation (page 3-82), of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a); however,
the BLM queried this database once again, during preparation of this EA, to
account for any potential updates.
Each key habitat type is thoroughly described in the NDOW Wildlife Action
Plan (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012), which is incorporated by reference.
The NDOW Carson Lake Pasture Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is south
of the project area; the southern boundary of the project area shares a portion
of the WMA’s northern boundary (a Navy micro earthquake seismometer,
shown on Figure 3, is in the WMA). The Carson Lake Pasture is described in
Section 3.1, Introduction (page 3-6) of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a); the Salt
Wells EIS project boundary is depicted on Figure 1, Project Vicinity. The
Reclamation emergency canal also traverses the WMA to the south of the
project area.
NAS Fallon conducted a vegetation inventory of its lands in 2007, including the
main base and portions of adjoining Reclamation lands in the project area. Most
of the inventory study area overlaps with the FORGE project area; thus, the
results of the inventory were incorporated into this EA. Results of the NAS
Fallon vegetation inventory are compared with the corresponding SWReGAP
land cover type. Descriptions of each vegetation class are found in Appendix H
of the NAS Fallon INRMP (NAS Fallon 2014), which is in Appendix G of this
EA.
Acres of key habitat types and corresponding SWReGAP land cover and NAS
Fallon vegetation classes in the project area, and associated common wildlife
species, are summarized in Table 3-6, below; SWReGAP land cover types are
shown in Figure 12, Vegetation Classes.
General Wildlife
Habitats in and around the project support numerous native and nonnative,
general wildlife species (NDOW 2017). Small mammals observed in the vicinity
are Chisel-toothed kangaroo rat (Dipodomys microps) and Merriam’s kangaroo
rat (D. merriami).
Desert scrub habitats support numerous reptiles. Those observed in and near
the project area are common sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), common
side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), eastern collared lizard (Crotaphytus
collaris), Great Basin gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola), Great Basin
whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris tigris), Pleasant Valley tui chub (Gila bicolor), red racer
(Coluber flagellum piceus), tiger whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris), western patch-nosed
snake (Salvadora hexalepis), yellow-backed spiny lizard (Sceloporus uniformis), and
zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides).
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-30 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Table 3-6
Key Habitats and Vegetation
Key Habitat Corresponding
SWReGAP Type
Corresponding
NAS Fallon
Vegetation
Acres Associated Common
Wildlife Species
Cold Desert
Scrub
Inter-Mountain
Basins Mixed Salt
Desert Scrub and
Inter-Mountain
Basins Greasewood
Flat
Alkali seepweed,
black
greasewood,
rubber
rabbitbrush
630 Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra
americana); coyote (Canis latrans);
Great Basin pocket mouse
(Perognathus parvus); black-tailed
jackrabbit (Lepus californicus);
Great Basin rattlesnake (Crotalus
oreganus lutosus); side-blotched
lizard (Uta stansburiana); black-
throated sparrow (Amphispiza
bilineata); horned lark (Eremophila
alpestris)
Desert Playas
and Ephemeral
Pools
Inter-Mountain
Basins Playa
N/A1 801 Pocket gopher (Thomomys sp.),
voles (Microtus sp.), killdeer
(Charadrius vociferus); American
avocet (Recurvirostra americana);
black-necked stilt (Himantopus
mexicanus); spadefoot toad (Spea
intermontana)
Marshes North American
Arid West
Emergent Marsh
N/A1 1401 Yellow-headed blackbird
(Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus);
marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris);
spotted sandpiper (Actitis
macularius); cinnamon teal (Anas
cyanoptera); bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana)
N/A Invasive Annual and
Biennial Forbland
N/A <10 Common raven (Corvus corax);
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis);
horned lark; pronghorn antelope
Agricultural
Lands
Agriculture Pasture, pasture
(remnant)
280 Birds, including foraging raptors;
ground squirrels, pocket mice, and
other rodents; barn swallow
(Hirundo rustica); western fence
lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis);
gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer)
Sources: FORGE GIS 2017; USGS SWReGAP GIS 2004; Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012; BLM 2011a
1 See Section 3.6, Wetlands and Riparian Areas, for descriptions of wetlands, including playas, in the project area.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-32 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Aquatic habitats, such as Carson Lake and canals and ditches on NAS Fallon,
support the following amphibian and fish species: American bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus), black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), common carp (Cyprinus carpio),
Sacramento blackfish (Orthodon microlepidotus), Sacramento perch (Archoplites
interruptus), western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), white bass (Morone
chrysops), and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis). American bullfrogs are common
in NAS Fallon main station canals and ditches, such as those within the project
area.
Game Species
Most of the FORGE project area is mapped by NDOW as mule deer
distribution, and the far southern portion of the project area is mapped as
pronghorn antelope distribution (NDOW 2017).
3.7.2 Environmental Consequences
Indicators for impacts on wildlife and key habitat are as follows: wildlife
disturbance, injury, or mortality; interference with wildlife movement corridors
or migration routes; and acres of key habitats affected by the Proposed Action.
The region of influence for direct and indirect impacts is the project area.
Proposed Action
The nature and type of direct and indirect impacts on wildlife would be the
same as those described in the wildlife section of Salt Wells EIS (BLM 201a1; see
Section 4.11, Wildlife, page 4-87). These are visual and noise disturbance during
construction and operation, habitat loss and fragmentation, and impacts on
migratory patterns.
The nature and type of direct and indirect impacts on key habitats would be the
same as those described in the vegetation section of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM
2011a; see Section 4.9, Vegetation, page 4-70). These are vegetation removal,
reduced function, community structure change, increased competition from
noxious weeds and nonnative plant species, and reduced function due to fugitive
dust deposition.
Potential impacts on wildlife and key habitat in the FORGE project area that are
outside of the scope of the Salt Wells EIS are described below. Impacts on bird
species are discussed in Section 3.9, Migratory Birds.
Under the Proposed Action, drilling up to nine monitoring wells and three
production/injection wells, and installing new access roads and site trailers could
disturb approximately 47 acres in the monitoring well and production/injection
well assessment areas (FORGE GIS 2017). Ground disturbance would remove
wildlife habitat, thereby reducing the acres of key habitats in the project area.
Final well pad, site trailer, and road locations and, thus, the exact amount of
disturbance in each key habitat type are not known at this time; however, the
amount of permanent habitat loss associated with the proposed project would
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-33
be small, relative to the total amount of habitat in the region. There would likely
be no permanent population-level impact on wildlife species due to habitat loss.
Construction and drilling could directly and indirectly affect wildlife via
disturbance, injury, mortality, and interference with movements or migration.
Two proposed wells, four existing wells, and a proposed site trailer are within
approximately 1 mile of NDOW’s Carson Lake Pasture WMA. A Navy micro
earthquake seismometer is also in the WMA (see Figure 3). Wildlife
movements in the WMA could be disturbed during construction and operation
of these features. They also could be disturbed by noise from and the presence
of humans and equipment.
As discussed in Section 3.5, Geology, geothermal stimulation associated with
the proposed project may result in microseismic events, due to physical
movements of minute cracks in underlying basement rock. As discussed, these
events typically range from magnitude 2 (insignificant) to about 3.5 (locally
perceptible to humans).
The BLM (2011b) searched scientific literature for impacts of induced seismic
events on wildlife and migratory birds for the Newberry Volcano EGS
Demonstration Project (DOI‐BLM‐OR‐P000‐2011‐0003‐EA) in eastern Oregon;
however, they identified no impacts. The Brady Hot Springs EGS project (DOI-
BLM-NV-W010-2012-0057-EA) in Churchill County did not include a review of
impacts on wildlife from EGS activities.
A magnitude 3.5 induced seismic event could result in acoustic, visual, and tactile
stimuli that would be detectable by wildlife in the area. It would be in the form
of short‐duration, low‐to‐high frequencies of sound and physical shaking;
however, these stimuli may be masked by, or mistaken for, natural, ambient
environmental conditions and may not induce a response in wildlife, including
large mammals (BLM 2011b); therefore, the magnitude and intensity of any
induced seismic events may minimally and temporarily disturb or displace
wildlife, including large mammals.
Impacts would occur only during the stimulation period of the Proposed Action.
As stated in Section 2.1.2, the exact timing and duration of stimulation
activities would be determined by the DOE and Fallon FORGE, after reviewing
proposals from the research community. Further, data on observed induced
seismicity would be reported to the BLM; appropriate measures, if necessary,
could be implemented following data review.
Ponds, tanks, and impoundments containing liquids, including drilling reserve
pits, can present hazards to birds, bats, and other wildlife (BLM 2008c). Hazards
can be from access to any liquids contaminated by substances that may be toxic,
fur or feathers fouled by detergents and oils, or excessive temperatures. The
Proposed Action would include such protections as covering sumps with fabric,
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-34 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
using floating cover systems, or implementing other approved techniques to
prevent attracting wildlife. Similarly, containment basins used to store
stimulation fluids would be covered, so this impact is not anticipated to occur.
Similarly, wildlife species can become trapped in open pipes and other small
spaces commonly associated with construction materials and equipment. To
prevent wildlife mortalities in open, uncapped hollow pipes or other openings,
openings would be capped, screened, or otherwise covered to prevent
unintentional wildlife entrapment. In addition, other openings where wildlife
escape ramps are not practicable, such as well cellar openings, would be capped
or covered so they do not pose a wildlife trap hazard. This would prevent injury
or mortality from wildlife entrapment in these features.
Adhering to the no surface occupancy geothermal lease stipulation for lease
numbers NVN-079104, NVN-079105, and NVN-079106, as described in
Appendix B of the Salt Wells EIS (Pages B-5 through B-7; BLM 2011a), would
avoid impacts on wetland and riparian habitats in the project area by preventing
surface disturbance in these areas or within 650 feet of them. This stipulation
would apply to all delineated wetland and riparian areas, surface water bodies
(except canals), playas, or 100-year floodplains in these lease areas (see
Appendix D). Canals used for water delivery or drainage on Reclamation lands
would be avoided by a 100-foot no surface occupancy buffer. This would
minimize impacts from noise or visual disturbances on wildlife inhabiting these
areas.
Additional measures would be incorporated under the Proposed Action to
reduce or avoid impacts on wildlife and key habitat. As described in Section
3.6, Wetlands and Riparian Areas, before implementing the Proposed Action,
the project proponents would conduct a wetland delineation for the 630-acre
portion of the project area under federal lease (see Appendix E). The purpose
of the delineation would be to verify the boundaries, acreage, and types of
wetlands and riparian areas and associated no surface occupancy buffers
identified in the project area (see Figure 11).
In accordance with the abovementioned lease stipulations, there would be no
surface disturbance in areas within 650 feet of a delineated feature. Should the
delineation verify the current playa boundaries, the pads for the proposed wells
within the buffer area of the playa would be located in another portion of the
monitoring or production/injection well pad assessment areas, outside the
buffer area. Incorporating these measures would minimize impacts from noise
or visual disturbances on wildlife in these areas.
The project proponents would develop and implement a noxious weed
management plan, as described in Section 3.10, Invasive, Nonnative, and
Noxious Weeds. A draft plan outline is included as Appendix J of this EA.
Implementing the plan would help maintain acres of key habitats in the project
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-35
area by preventing the establishment and spread of noxious weeds as a result of
the Proposed Action.
Further, applicable environmental protection measures and best management
practices, as described in Appendix E of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a), would
apply to the Proposed Action. These measures are included in Appendix J of
this EA. They would reduce or avoid impacts on wildlife and their habitat. Such
measures would include providing environmental education for workers,
preventing overland travel, avoiding sensitive habitats, minimizing vegetation
removal, and implementing measures to prevent wildlife entrapment or injury.
Finally, the BLM wildlife biologist and NDOW would be notified within 24 hours
of any wildlife injuries or mortalities found in the project area during
construction or operation. This would allow corrective measures to be taken to
avoid further wildlife injury or mortality.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Navy would not implement the
Proposed Action on federal lands. None of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action would occur.
3.8 BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES
3.8.1 Affected Environment
BLM sensitive animal and plant species are discussed in Section 3.13 (page
3-107) of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a). Updated information relevant to the
FORGE project area, where available, is provided below.
BLM Instructional Memorandum NV-IM-2018-003 updated the sensitive species
list for Nevada. This sensitive species list was used in the analysis for BLM
sensitive species.
The USFWS, NDOW, and Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) were
consulted for lists of sensitive species in the vicinity of the project area (records
of coordination are included in Appendix H). Using these lists, in conjunction
with the list of BLM sensitive species in Table 3-33 (page 3-109) of the Salt
Wells EIS (BLM 2011a), and the updated Nevada BLM sensitive species list (NV-
IM-2018-003), the BLM formulated a list of BLM sensitive species with the
potential to occur in the project area. This list, which includes rationales for
determining the likelihood of occurrence in the FORGE project area, is included
as Appendix I, BLM Sensitive Species.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-36 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
As described in Section 3.13 (page
3-107) of the Salt Wells EIS, surveys
for BLM-sensitive species were
conducted between 2005 and 2010;
surveys included a portion of the
FORGE project area. Because the list
of BLM sensitive species has been
updated since surveys were
conducted, and due to the length of
time since surveys were conducted,
the BLM and Navy did not rely on
them when making determinations of
sensitive species presence or absence
in the FORGE project area. Rather,
the BLM made this determination by
considering the results of previous
surveys, including those conducted by
NAS Fallon, reviewing existing,
recent data sources of known
occurrences from the NDOW and
NNHP and suitable habitat (see
Section 3.7, Wildlife and Key
Habitat), and by drawing on
knowledge of the project area.
Amphibians
Suitable habitat for BLM sensitive amphibian species is likely present in the
project area; however, dense populations of American bullfrog (Lithobates
catesbeianus) in these areas (NAS Fallon 2014) likely preclude presence of
sensitive amphibian species, due to predation, competition, and disease.
Birds
Surveys in 2010 for the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a) documented golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos) nests about 3 miles from the project area, and a Swainson’s
hawk (Buteo swainsoni) nest within 1 mile (NDOW 2017) (also see Table 3-21,
page 3-100, of the Salt Wells EIS). These nests may or may not be active, but
the presence of potential nesting habitat for these species remains.
Similarly, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus) have been observed within 4 miles of the project area, associated
with Carson Lake (NDOW 2017). These raptor species may hunt in the project
area, but there is no nesting habitat there. The emergency canal installed in
2016 may have increased foraging habitat value for these raptors by increasing
the prevalence of waterfowl and other small wildlife in the project area.
The objectives of the BLM sensitive
species policy in Manual 6840—
Special Status Species Management,
are twofold, as follows:
1. To conserve or recover
species listed under the
Endangered Species Act of
1973 (ESA; 16 USC, Section
1531 et seq.), as amended, and
the ecosystems on which they
depend so that ESA
protections are no longer
needed for these species
2. To initiate proactive
conservation measures that
reduce or eliminate threats to
BLM sensitive species to
minimize the likelihood of and
need for listing these species
under the ESA
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-37
Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) could occur in the FORGE project
area, and it has been documented in the vicinity (NDOW 2017); however,
those conducting surveys for the Salt Wells EIS did not locate any of the
species. Marginally suitable foraging and breeding habitat for short-eared owl
(Asio flammeus) is likely present in the project area, but much higher-quality
habitat is likely present in the Carson Lake and pasture area, south of the
project area, where it is known to occur.
A loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) was observed in the Salt Wells project
area during biological surveys, and NDOW (2017) documented it in the vicinity;
this species has potential to nest in the project area (see Table 3-21, page 3-100,
of the Salt Wells EIS).
Sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis) and least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) may use
wetland habitats in the project area for foraging and during migration. Both
species breed in open wetland habitats; however, the sandhill crane does not
breed in the project area region in Nevada, and the least bittern prefers
breeding habitats with woody riparian vegetation, which is not present in the
project area. NDOW (2017) documented least bittern in the vicinity of the
project area, presumably at the Carson Lake and Pasture, south of the project
area.
Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) was documented to nest in the Salt
Wells projects area (see Table 3-21, page 3-100, of the Salt Wells EIS), and
suitable breeding habitat for this species may be present in wetland habitats in
the FORGE project area. Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) may
also occur in wetland (playa) habitats in the FORGE project area. This species is
known to nest at Carson Lake and pasture, south of the project area (NDOW
2017) (also see Table 3-21, page 3-100, of the Salt Wells EIS).
Black tern (Chlidonias niger) was analyzed in the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a) as a
BLM sensitive species; however, this species has subsequently been removed
from the Nevada BLM sensitive species list and is discussed in Section 3-9,
Migratory Birds.
Mammals
As described in Table 3-22 of the Salt Wells EIS (page 3-109), several bat species
have been documented in the Salt Wells project area and the region. These
species are pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus),
western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), California myotis (Myotis californicus), small-
footed myotis (M. ciliolabrum), little brown myotis (M. lucifugus), Arizona myotis
(M. occultus), fringed myotis (M. thysanodes), Yuma myotis (M. yumanensis),
canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus), and Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida
brasiliensis). NDOW (2017) listed the big brown bat, Brazilian free-tailed bat,
small-footed myotis, and Yuma myotis in the vicinity.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-38 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) and long-eared myotis (M. evotis) have not
been documented in the vicinity, though suitable foraging habitat for these
species is also present. Suitable foraging habitat may also be present for
Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) and hoary bat (Lasiurus
cinereus), which have been documented in the Lahontan Valley (NDOW 2017).
No bat roosting habitat, such as abandoned buildings, mine workings (e.g.,
shafts, adits, and inclines), trees, rock outcrops, or cliffs, is present in the
immediate project area; however, such features are present in the vicinity.
Western red bat, little brown myotis, and Yuma myotis have all been
documented to roost in the project area vicinity.
While NDOW (2017) has also documented pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus
idahoensis) in the vicinity of the project area from a 1981 observation from
Churchill County, Fallon, suitable sagebrush-dominated habitat is not present in
the project area; thus, this species is unlikely to occur there.
Reptiles
Two BLM sensitive lizards, long-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia wislizenii) and
desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), may use habitats in the project
area, especially those areas with sandy soils. The project area is within the range
of these two species (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012), and both have been
documented in the vicinity (NDOW 2017).
NDOW (2017) has also documented Great Basin collared lizard (Crotaphytus
bicinctores) in the vicinity of the project area; however, suitable xeric, rocky
habitat is not present, so this species is unlikely to occur there.
Insects
Nevada alkali skipperling (Pseudocopaeodes eunus flavus) relies on saltgrass
(Distichlis spicata) grasslands on alkali flats as a larval host. The butterfly has been
collected in the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge north of the project area
(Butterflies of America 2018). Suitable habitat is likely present in the project
area, in close association with wetland areas and playa edges (see Section 3.6,
Wetlands and Riparian Areas, for a map of these areas in the project area). This
species has not been documented in the project area.
As described in Table 3-22 of the Salt Wells EIS (page 3-109), the BLM sensitive
butterfly, the pallid wood nymph (Cercyonis oetus pallescens), also has potential to
use alkali meadows in the project area, but it has not been observed there.
Plants
Three BLM sensitive plant species have potential to occur in the project area,
though none have been documented there. As described in Table 3-22 of the
Salt Wells EIS (page 3-109), Nevada dune beardtongue (Penstemon arenarius)
occurs in alkaline areas in shadscale habitat and is known in northern Churchill
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-39
County along the Carson Sink. Those conducting surveys for this species in the
Salt Wells project area did not locate it (BLM 2011a).
Lahontan milkvetch (Astragalus porrectus) and playa phacelia (Phacelia inundata)
both grow in open alkaline areas, such as along playa edges. Suitable habitats are
present in the FORGE project area for both of these species, but surveys for
them during the appropriate season have not been conducted. Lahontan
milkvetch has been recorded in northern Churchill County along the Carson
Sink. Playa phacelia has been documented only from Humboldt and Washoe
Counties in Nevada, though systematic surveys of suitable habitat in Nevada
have not been completed (Morefield 2001).
Remaining BLM sensitive plant species are unlikely to occur in the project area,
due either to lack of suitable habitat or soils or a known, restricted range
outside of the project area.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No threatened, endangered, candidate, or proposed species are known to exist
in the project area. The official USFWS Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) species list generated for the project (see Appendix I)
listed the Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia henshawi, threatened)
as the only species that should be considered in an impacts analysis for the
Proposed Action (USFWS 2017); however, no suitable habitat for this species
occurs in the project area or in the wider Lahontan Valley where the project
area is located. The nearest locations of this species are the Truckee River,
approximately 35 miles northwest of the project area, and Walker Lake,
approximately 43 miles south of the project area. Surface flows from the
Lahontan Valley do not enter either of these waterbodies. There is no
designated or proposed critical habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout.
The western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis, threatened)
breeds in large blocks of riparian woodlands with cottonwoods and willows. It
nests in willows but uses cottonwoods extensively for foraging (Wildlife Action
Plan Team 2012). This species has been documented migrating through the
Lahontan Valley (Chisholm and Neel 2002; NNHP 2017), but no breeding or
foraging habitat is in the project area. Critical habitat has been proposed, but
none is in or near the project area. The nearest critical habitat unit is in the
Carson River, upstream of Lahontan Reservoir, approximately 23 miles to the
west (USFWS GIS 2017b).
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences
Indicators for impacts on BLM sensitive species are the potential for direct
impacts on individuals or populations; acres of suitable habitat affected by the
Proposed Action; and the potential for the Proposed Action contributing to the
need to list a BLM sensitive species under the ESA. The region of influence for
direct and indirect impacts is the project area and a buffer around it, where
there may be indirect impacts from noise and visual disturbances.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-40 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Proposed Action
The nature and type of direct and indirect impacts on BLM sensitive species
would generally be the same as those described in Section 4.13, BLM-
Designated Sensitive Species (Animals and Plants) of the Salt Wells EIS (page
4-110; BLM 2011a). These potential impacts are visual or noise disturbance
during construction or operation, loss of, or displacement from, suitable
breeding or foraging habitat, injury or mortality from vehicle or equipment
strike, direct removal (sensitive plants), and decreased habitat suitability from
weed establishment or spread.
Potential impacts on BLM sensitive species in the Fallon FORGE project area
that are outside of the scope of those described in the Salt Wells EIS are
described below.
Under the Proposed Action, drilling up to nine monitoring wells and three
production/injection wells and installing new access roads and site trailers could
disturb approximately 47 acres in the monitoring well and production/injection
well assessment areas (FORGE GIS 2017). Ground disturbance would remove
suitable habitat for BLM sensitive species, which would reduce the acres of
suitable habitat in the project area. Final well pad, road, and site trailer locations
and, thus, the exact amount of disturbance in each habitat type, are not known
at this time.
The impacts on BLM sensitive species from induced seismicity and noxious
weed establishment and spread would be the same as those described for
general wildlife species in Section 3.7, Wildlife and Key Habitat.
The impacts on BLM sensitive species that use wetland and riparian areas would
be the same as those described for general wildlife species in Section 3.7,
Wildlife and Key Habitat. This would come about from adhering to the no
surface occupancy geothermal lease stipulation for lease numbers NVN-079104,
NVN-079105, and NVN-079106.
The impacts on BLM sensitive species from their attraction to open water
sources would be the same as those described for general wildlife species in
Section 3.7, Wildlife and Key Habitat. This would come about by covering
sumps and containment basins with fabric covers, using floating cover systems,
or using other approved techniques to prevent attracting wildlife.
Applicable environmental protection measures and BMPs, as described in
Appendix E of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a), would apply to the Proposed
Action (see Appendix C of this EA). These measures would reduce or avoid
impacts on BLM sensitive wildlife and plant species and their habitat. Examples
of such measures are providing environmental education for workers,
preventing overland travel, avoiding sensitive habitats, minimizing vegetation
removal, and implementing measures to prevent wildlife entrapment or injury.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-41
Additional, specific potential impacts on BLM sensitive birds, mammals, reptiles,
insects, and plants are described below.
Birds
As described above, the BLM sensitive raptor species golden eagle, bald eagle,
Swainson’s hawk, and peregrine falcon have been observed in the project area
vicinity. These species likely forage in the area, but there is no nesting habitat
there.
Direct and indirect impacts on BLM sensitive raptor species from loss of
foraging habitat and temporary disturbance from construction noise and human
presence would generally be as described in Section 4.12, Migratory Birds (page
4-99) of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a). For example, BLM sensitive raptors
may avoid hunting in the project area during construction, but ample foraging
habitat is available in the immediate vicinity. As described in Appendix E of the
Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a), ground disturbance and vegetation removal would
be limited to the minimum extent necessary to install the project components.
This would reduce or avoid impacts on BLM sensitive avian species from
foraging habitat loss.
As described above, the nearest known golden eagle nest is approximately 3
miles from the FORGE project area. The nearest other known raptor nest, that
of a Swainson’s hawk, is approximately 1 mile away. These nests were observed
during surveys for the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a). No nesting habitat for these
species is present in the project area or immediate vicinity. Due to the distance
between the project area and known past nesting locations, no impacts on these
nesting locations are anticipated.
As described above, several other BLM sensitive avian species may occur in the
project area: western burrowing owl, short-eared owl, snowy plover, sandhill
crane, least bittern, and loggerhead shrike (this species was observed during
surveys for the Salt Wells EIS). The project area likely provides only marginal or
unsuitable breeding habitat for most of these species; higher-quality breeding
habitat is present in the nearby Carson Lake and Pasture area. Nonetheless, to
avoid impacts on BLM sensitive avian species during the breeding season, the
project proponent would conduct pre-construction avian surveys and would
establish avoidance buffers around active nests. Surveys are described in detail in
Section 3.9, Migratory Birds. This would ensure that impacts on nesting, BLM
sensitive avian species are avoided. Impacts from loss of foraging habitat and
disturbance during construction would be as described above.
Mammals
Although the project area does not provide roosting habitat, several BLM
sensitive bat species likely forage there. Direct and indirect impacts on bat
species from loss of foraging habitat, temporary construction noise, and human
presence would be as described in Section 4.11, Wildlife (page 4-89) of the Salt
Wells EIS (BLM 2011a).
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-42 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Permanent habitat loss associated with the proposed project would be small,
relative to the total amount of foraging habitat in the region, so there would be
no likely permanent population-level impact on the species due to habitat loss.
Further, lease stipulations protecting wetlands and riparian areas (see Section
3.6, Wetlands and Riparian Areas) would preserve the highest quality foraging
habitat in the project area. Because there is no roosting habitat in the project
area, impacts on roosting bats are not anticipated.
Reptiles
Potential impacts on BLM-sensitive reptiles would generally be as described in
Section 4.11, Wildlife (page 4-88 through 4-90) of the Salt Wells EIS. These
include injury or mortality from vehicle strike, disturbance or displacement from
habitat due to construction noise, and habitat quality decline through loss of
rodent burrows or food sources, such as ant colonies.
Permanent habitat loss associated with the proposed project would be small,
relative to the total amount of habitat in the region, so there would be no likely
permanent population-level impact on BLM sensitive reptile species due to
habitat loss. Further, the project proponent would conduct pre-construction
surveys for all BLM sensitive wildlife species with potential to occur in the
project area, as described in Appendix E, Fallon FORGE Environmental
Protection Measures. If surveys document BLM sensitive reptile species in work
areas, measures developed in coordination with the BLM, Navy, or NDOW
would avoid or minimize potential impacts.
Insects
Potential impacts on BLM-sensitive insects would generally be as described in
Section 4.13, BLM-Designated Sensitive Species (Animals and Plants, page 4-116)
of the Salt Wells EIS. These include removal of potential habitat, including host
and nectar plants, disturbance, or displacement from habitat.
Any permanent habitat loss associated with the proposed project would be
small, relative to the total amount of habitat in the region (e.g., at Carson Lake
and Pasture). Further, lease stipulations protecting wetlands and riparian areas
(see Section 3.6, Wetlands and Riparian Areas) would preserve the highest
quality alkali wet meadow habitat for these species. Also, the project proponent
would conduct pre-construction surveys for all BLM sensitive wildlife species
with potential to occur in the project area, as described in Appendix E, Fallon
FORGE Environmental Protection Measures. If surveys document BLM sensitive
insect species in work areas, measures developed in coordination with the BLM,
Navy, or NDOW would avoid or minimize potential impacts.
Plants
Potential impacts on BLM-sensitive plant species would be similar to those
described in Section 4.9, Vegetation (page 4-71 through 4-73) of the Salt Wells
EIS. These include direct removal during construction and habitat quality decline
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-43
through weed establishment and spread, soil erosion, and fugitive dust
deposition.
Lease stipulations protecting playa areas (see Section 3.6, Wetlands and
Riparian Areas) would preserve most suitable potential habitat for BLM sensitive
plants in the project area; however, direct impacts would still be possible
outside of these areas if these species were present there. Conducting a
wetland delineation and pre-construction surveys described in Appendix E
would prevent impacts. This would be the result of ensuring that construction
activities avoid any BLM sensitive plants in the work areas.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Navy would not implement the
Proposed Action on federal lands. None of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action would occur.
3.9 MIGRATORY BIRDS
3.9.1 Affected Environment
Migratory birds4, including USFWS bird species of conservation concern and
game birds below desired condition, are discussed in Section 3.12 (page 3-96) of
the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a). Updated information on migratory birds
relevant to the FORGE project area, where available, is provided below.
As discussed in detail in Section 3.12, Migratory Birds (page 3-98) of the Salt
Wells EIS (BLM 2011a), the Lahontan Valley is considered an Important Bird
Area (IBA) by several organizations. In particular, the Carson Lake and Pasture
to the south of the project area and its extensive shallow ponds and marshes
are an important stopover on the Pacific Flyway for migrating shorebirds and
waterfowl. The FORGE project area is fully encompassed by the IBA.
The NDOW Carson Lake Pasture WMA encompasses a substantial portion of
the Lahontan Valley wetlands at the Carson River terminus. This area is
described in Section 3.12, Migratory Birds (page 3-98) of the Salt Wells EIS
(BLM 2011a). The WMA shares a portion of its northern boundary with the
southern project area boundary.
Further, the proposed project is next to portions of the Stillwater National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) on Navy lands, which is less than 1 mile to the west of
the project area. In addition to the IBA, this area is part of the Carson Sink Bird
Habitat Conservation Area (BHCA), an area rich in priority bird species and
habitats (Ivey and Herziger 2006).
4 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC, Section 703 et seq.) protects migratory birds and their nests.
The list of birds protected under this regulation (50 CFR, Part 10) is extensive, and the project area could support
many of these species and their nests, including BLM sensitive avian species (see Section 3.8).
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-44 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Upland and wetland habitats in the FORGE project area provide habitat for
numerous species of migratory birds, including raptors, songbirds, and
waterfowl. Table 3-6, Key Habitats and Vegetation, summarizes migratory
birds typical of habitats in the project area.
NDOW (Appendix H) indicates that several raptor species have been directly
observed in the vicinity of the project area, including great horned owl (Bubo
virginianus), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus),
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), and
sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus). A prairie falcon nest has been
documented approximately 1.5 miles east of the project area, east of Highway
50, on Eetz Mountain. Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO) reports5 an
American kestrel (Falco sparverius) was observed near the project area.
NDOW (Appendix H) and GBBO indicate numerous other waterfowl,
shorebird, and songbird species have been observed in the vicinity of the project
area: acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), American avocet
(Recurvirostra americana), American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), American coot
(Fulica americana), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin
(Turdus migratorius), American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), band-
tailed pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), black tern,
black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), black-necked stilt (Himantopus
mexicanus), black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), California quail
(Callipepla californica), cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera), common grackle
(Quiscalus quiscula), common raven (Corvus corax), dowitcher (Limnodromus spp.),
double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), gadwall (Anas strepera),
goldfinches (Spinus spp.), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), grebe (Podicipedidae
spp.), green-winged teal (Anas carolinensis), magpie (Pica spp.), mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos), northern pintail (Anas acuta), northern shoveler (A. clypeata),
northern shrike (Lanius excubitor), redhead (Aythya americana), sandpipers (family
Scolopacidae), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus),
white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and white-faced ibis (Plegadis
chihi).
The emergency canal constructed in 2017 through the FORGE project area
increases the amount of waterfowl habitat there. A great blue heron was
observed hunting along the canal edges during a site visit in fall 2017. The
emergency canal also likely increases foraging habitat value for raptors, by
attracting additional waterfowl and small mammals that are potential prey
species.
3.9.2 Environmental Consequences
Indicators for impacts on migratory birds are the potential for direct or indirect
impacts on individuals or populations. These could reduce population numbers,
5 GBBO data for species observed supplied by Melanie Cota, Biologist, BLM Stillwater Field Office
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-45
cause substantial loss of or disturb habitat, interfere with migratory bird
movement or migration, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Such
impacts could also violate the MBTA, or applicable BLM regulations or guidance,
such as IM 2010-156 or IM 2008-050.
Proposed Action
The nature and type of direct and indirect impacts on migratory birds would
generally be the same as those described in Section 4.12, Migratory Birds (page
4-97) of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a). These include visual or noise
disturbance during construction and operation, potential displacement from
habitat or nest abandonment, and loss of habitat in the IBA.
Described below are the potential impacts on migratory bird species in the
Fallon FORGE project area that are outside of the scope of those described in
the Salt Wells EIS.
Under the Proposed Action, drilling up to nine monitoring wells and three
production/injection wells, and installing new access roads and site trailers could
disturb approximately 47 acres in the monitoring well and production/injection
well assessment areas (FORGE GIS 2017). This would result in permanent
habitat loss in the Lahontan Valley IBA. Final well pad, road, and site trailer
locations and, thus, the exact amount of disturbance, are not known at this
time.
As discussed in Section 3.7, Wildlife and Key Habitat, geothermal stimulation
associated with the proposed project may result in microseismic events, which
typically range from magnitude 2 (insignificant) to about 3.5 (locally perceptible
to humans). The BLM (2011b) searched the scientific literature for the impacts
of induced seismic events on migratory birds for the Newberry Volcano EGS
Demonstration Project in eastern Oregon. The BLM identified no documented
impacts.
The impact of induced seismic events on nesting birds could vary, from stress
responses in adults to nest abandonment and failure and mortality of eggs or
fledglings; however, it is unknown if the level of disturbance that birds may
experience following an induced seismic event would be substantially different
from natural, ambient stimuli. Because of this, it is unknown whether nest
abandonment is likely to occur. This potential impact was considered unlikely to
result from the demonstration EGS project (BLM 2011b) and is similarly
considered unlikely to occur as a result of the Proposed Action.
Under the Proposed Action, transmission lines would not be installed, and impacts
from these structures, such as risk of collision or electrocution of birds, would not
occur. Drill rigs used during well installation would pose a temporary collision
hazard to birds, as described in Section 4.12, Migratory Birds (page 4-98) of the
Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a). This impact would last only during drilling.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-46 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
If well sumps contained backflow fluids for prolonged periods, they may attract
avian species. This could increase the potential for direct impacts on migratory
birds from bird-aircraft strike, due to proximity to the NAS Fallon runway. To
minimize this risk, sumps would be covered with an approved material that
deters wildlife.
Given this measure, the Proposed Action is expected to negligibly increase the
potential for a bird-aircraft strike hazard (BASH). In addition to being covered,
the total surface area of the proposed sump ponds is small, compared to the
amount of available surface waters in the emergency canal and irrigation ditches
in and around the project area (see Figure 11, Playas, Wetlands, and Riparian
Areas). Further, the sumps would retain water for short durations only, as
described above. In contrast, water in the canal and irrigation ditches is present
for longer durations or even year-round.
The impacts on migratory birds from being attracted to open water sources
would be the same as those described for general wildlife species in Section
3.7, Wildlife and Key Habitat. This would be the result of such protections as
covering sumps and containment basins with fabric, using floating cover systems,
or implementing other approved techniques to prevent attracting wildlife.
Noise or visual disturbance during construction may cause nest abandonment.
Vegetation removal may also result in nest loss, damage, or abandonment,
depending on the proximity to the nest. This could result in mortality of chicks
or loss of eggs. Avoiding construction during the nesting season,6 or conducting
pre-construction breeding bird surveys during the nesting season (see
Appendix E), would prevent this impact. If nesting birds are observed in or
near the work area, an appropriate buffer would be established to avoid impacts
from noise, visual disturbance, or nest damage.
Migratory birds may also nest in, or become trapped by, open pipes and other
small spaces commonly associated with construction materials and equipment.
Capping, screening, or otherwise covering these spaces, as described in
Section 3.7, Wildlife and Key Habitat, would prevent this impact.
Adhering to the no surface occupancy geothermal lease stipulation for lease
numbers NVN-079104, NVN-079105, and NVN-079106, as described in
Appendix B of the Salt Wells EIS (Pages B-5 through B-7; BLM 2011a), would
avoid impacts on wetland and riparian habitats in the project area. This would
be the result of preventing surface disturbance in these areas or within 650 feet
of them. This stipulation would apply to all delineated wetland and riparian
areas, as well as to surface water bodies (except canals), playas, or 100-year
floodplains in these lease areas (see Appendix D).
6 Typically, the nesting season is when avian species are most sensitive to disturbance, which generally occurs from
March 1 through August 31 in the Great Basin.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-47
Canals used for water delivery or drainage on Reclamation lands would be
avoided by a 100-foot no surface occupancy buffer. This would minimize impacts
from noise or visual disturbances on migratory birds inhabiting these areas.
The impacts on migratory bird species from noxious weed establishment and
spread would be the same as those described for general wildlife species in
Section 3.7, Wildlife and Key Habitat.
Further, the project proponents would apply additional applicable environmental
protection measures and best management practices, as described in Appendix
E of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a), to the Proposed Action. These measures
are included in Appendix C of this EA. These measures would reduce or avoid
impacts on migratory birds and their habitat by taking the following measures:
Providing environmental education for workers
Preventing overland travel
Minimizing vegetation removal
Implementing measures to prevent wildlife entrapment or injury
Minimizing or preventing weed establishment and spread in
migratory bird habitat, including the adjacent IBA
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Navy would not implement the
Proposed Action on federal lands. None
of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action
would occur.
3.10 INVASIVE, NONNATIVE, AND NOXIOUS WEED
SPECIES
3.10.1 Affected Environment
To characterize the affected environment
for invasive, nonnative, and noxious weed
species, the BLM reviewed information
relevant to the project area, including
Section 3.10, Invasive, Nonnative Species
(page 3-92) of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM
2011a) and the NAS Fallon Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plan
(NAS Fallon 2014). Additional sources
reviewed are cited in the discussion
below. The BLM recognizes and targets
for treatment noxious weeds from the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
A noxious weed is any plant
designated as undesirable by a federal,
state, or county government as
injurious to public health, agriculture,
recreation, wildlife, or property.
Noxious weeds are nonnative and
invasive. Their control is based on
resource or treatment priorities and
is governed by budgetary constraints.
Invasive plants include not only
noxious weeds, but also other plants
that are not native to the United
States. The BLM considers plants
invasive if they have been introduced
into an environment where they did
not evolve and, as a result, usually
have no natural enemies to limit their
reproduction and spread
(Westbrooks 1998).
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-48 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Federal Noxious Weed List (USDA 2017) and the Nevada Department of
Agriculture (NDA)-maintained Nevada Noxious Weed List (NDA 2017). The
latter lists 47 noxious weed species in the state that require control.
Numerous invasive, nonnative, and noxious weeds are present on the Ormat
project area described in the Salt Wells EIS (page 3-94; BLM 2011a), a portion
of which overlaps the Fallon FORGE project area. These weeds are Russian
knapweed (Acroptilon repens), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium),
tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), salt-lover (Halogeton glomeratus), and Russian olive
(Elaeagnus angustifolia). These species are commonly found along roads and near
other developed or disturbed areas.
The most common noxious weeds and nonnative, invasive plants on the NAS
Fallon main station (a portion of which overlaps the Fallon FORGE project area)
are Russian olive, tamarisk, Russian knapweed, hoary cress (Cardaria draba),
curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa var. serrulata), Russian thistle (Salsola
tragus), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum; NAS Fallon 2014). Weeds on NAS
Fallon were mapped in 2008 and 2012. Weed control programs are ongoing;
34,000 acres of NAS Fallon were treated between 2009 and 2014.
In 2017, Reclamation excavated an emergency canal to help drain Carson Lake
and alleviate flooding risk; there are 2 miles of the canal in the project area.
Currently, side-cast soils from excavation provide ample substrate for noxious
weeds and nonnative, invasive plants to colonize. During a site visit in fall 2017,
numerous weedy plant species, including Russian thistle and salt-lover, were
observed colonizing side-cast soils from excavation in the project area.
3.10.2 Environmental Consequences
An indicator of impacts from invasive, nonnative, and noxious weeds is the
potential for population establishment and spread as a result of the Proposed
Action. The region of influence for direct and indirect impacts is the project area.
Proposed Action
The nature and type of direct and indirect impacts from invasive, nonnative, and
noxious weeds (hereinafter referred to collectively as weeds) would be the
same as those described in Section 4.10, Invasive, Nonnative Species, of the Salt
Wells EIS (page 4-80; BLM 2011a). These include habitat degradation from weed
establishment and spread. Potential impacts in the Fallon FORGE project area
that are outside of the scope of the Salt Wells EIS are described below.
Under the Proposed Action, drilling up to nine monitoring wells and three
production/injection wells, and installing new access roads and a site trailer
could disturb approximately 47 acres in the monitoring and production/injection
wells assessment areas (FORGE GIS 2017). As described in Section 4.10 (page
4-81) of the Salt Wells EIS, surface disturbance can facilitate weed establishment
and spread. To minimize this impact, applicable measures to prevent weed
establishment and spread from the approved weed management plan developed
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-49
for the Salt Wells projects would be incorporated into the Proposed Action.
This would reduce or prevent weed establishment and spread from surface
disturbance during well pad and other project component construction.
The potential for the Proposed Action to increase weed spread would be
minimized by preparing and implementing a noxious weed management plan
before construction begins, as described in Appendix E, Fallon FORGE
Environmental Protection Measures. This would entail taking an accurate
baseline inventory of noxious weeds in the project area and tracking the
progress of weed treatments. The plan would also outline best practices for
preventing weed establishment and spread, such as using certified weed-free
materials and washing construction equipment before using it on-site. A draft
plan outline is included as Appendix J of this EA. Developing and implementing
this plan would reduce the potential for weed establishment and spread as a
result of the Proposed Action.
Further, applicable environmental protection measures and best management
practices, as described in Appendix E of the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a), would
apply to the Proposed Action. These measures are included in Appendix C of
this EA. These measures, which include minimizing vegetation removal and
preventing noxious weed spread, would reduce the potential for noxious weed
establishment and spread during all phases of development.
As described above, the emergency canal has created extensive areas of bare,
side-cast soils in the project area, which are becoming infested with weeds.
These areas will continue to provide suitable substrate for weed establishment
unless they are proactively managed. If weed populations become established,
they will create large amounts of seeds and propagules,7 increasing the potential
for weed establishment and spread in other portions of the project area. This
impact would continue to occur regardless of preventive weed measures
incorporated into the Fallon FORGE project. New weed populations originating
from this source may reduce the efficacy of adopted preventive measures.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Navy would not implement the
Proposed Action on federal lands. None of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action would occur. New weed propagation from
the emergency canal would continue.
3.11 NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS
3.11.1 Affected Environment
Native American resources are defined under various authorities, including the
FLPMA, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Executive Order 13007,
7 A bud, sucker, or spore
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-50 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Under these authorities, federal agencies
have the responsibility for managing Native American resources. They pursue
this by, in part, taking such resources into consideration in land use planning and
environmental documentation and mitigating, where possible, impacts on places
or resources important to contemporary Native Americans and federally
recognized tribes.
Slight differences in definitions among the authorities notwithstanding, these
resources can be generally defined as places or resources, such as plants and
animals, associated with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community. These
practices and beliefs are rooted in a tribal community’s oral traditions or history
and are important in maintaining its continuing cultural identity. In practice, this
means identifying, evaluating, and managing ethnohistoric sites and resources,
traditional use areas, sacred and ceremonial sites, and traditional cultural
properties.
Since tribal heritage resources are defined culturally by the people and groups
who value them, these resources can be identified and managed only in
consultation with the people who infuse them with cultural value. In the final
analysis and decision-making, a federal agency has the legal authority to
determine how these resources would be managed and what, if any, mitigation
would be used to avoid undue and unnecessary impacts on these resources.
Ethnographic information indicates that Northern Paiute occupied the general
area, including the project area, and their way of life is characterized by the
concept of living in harmony with the natural environment. Rituals and
ceremonies ensure that plants, animals, and physical elements flourish. The
continued welfare of the people depends on these rituals and ceremonies being
performed properly and the resources being available. The manner of
performing the rituals and ceremonies, the places where they are performed,
and perhaps even the time of their performance are often prescribed (BLM
2011a Salt Wells EIS).
Overall management of Native American resources are addressed by an
integrated cultural resource management plan (NAS Fallon 2013). For
withdrawn lands, the Navy and the BLM have joint responsibility under a 2011
programmatic agreement between the Navy, BLM, and the Nevada State
Historic Preservation Office; it defines how NAS Fallon and the BLM will
implement the NHPA. Proposed BLM and Navy activities on withdrawn lands
are subject to NHPA Section 106 review, which includes tribal consultation. The
BLM consults with federally recognized tribes for all undertakings that may
affect historic properties, places, or resources important to contemporary
Native Americans, in accordance with the Nevada Protocol Agreement (BLM
2014b).
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-51
3.11.2 Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
The BLM sent consultation notification letters to the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone
Tribal Council. During consultation as part of the Salt Wells EIS, the following
concerns were identified: cultural resources, including historic properties;
continued access and use of the traditional sites; and other resources that may
be affected. No direct permanent impacts on access to or the use of traditional
use sites in the Salt Wells project area were identified, and none are anticipated
as part of the Fallon FORGE Proposed Action. Impacts on areas of Native
American religious concern often overlap with impacts on water quantity and
quality, cultural resources, visual resources, and national and historic trails.
Mitigation as part of the Salt Wells EIS required consultation and coordination
to maintain access to and use of any traditional sites. To date, no new locations
of Native American religious concerns have been identified. If ongoing
consultation identifies locations or concerns, these would be reviewed, and as
appropriate and necessary, additional monitoring and mitigation measures would
be developed. Accordingly, no impacts are anticipated.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Navy would not implement the
Proposed Action on federal lands. None of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action would occur.
3.12 LAND USE, AIRSPACE, AND ACCESS
3.12.1 Affected Environment
Land Use
This section discusses the current landownership and use, airspace
requirements, and access in the proposed project area for the Fallon FORGE
site.
The 1,120-acre Fallon FORGE project area covers an area next to and including
a portion of the southeast section of the NAS Fallon main station. The primary
uses in and near this area are agriculture, the Newlands Project, recreation,
wildlife conservation, naval air operations, and ROWs for natural gas pipelines,
transmission lines, and communication facilities.
As displayed in Figure 2, the Fallon FORGE project area and surrounding lands
consist of private lands and federal lands administered by the BLM, US Navy,
and Reclamation. Land management and ownership acreages and percentages
are shown in Table 1-1, in Section 1.1, above.
The federally administered lands near the proposed project area are the Carson
Lake and Pasture (administered by Reclamation), Stillwater National Wildlife
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-52 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Refuge (administered by the USFWS), Grimes Point Archaeological Site
(administered by the BLM), the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Indian Reservation
(administered by the US Bureau of Indian Affairs), and NAS Fallon (administered
by the DOD).
The Navy Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (NAS Fallon 2014)
outlines how resources on Navy lands in the project vicinity are to be managed.
The INRMP is a long-term planning document to guide the Navy in managing
natural resources, while protecting and enhancing installation resources for
multiple use, sustainable yield, and biological integrity. The primary purpose of
the INRMP is to maintain public access for wildlife viewing and other
recreational activities on lands not closed to the public for security or safety.
The Navy promotes agricultural outleasing and other multiple land uses to the
maximum degree compatible with military operation requirements. Parcels of
Navy-administered lands are opened for bid to local ranchers, with the highest
bidder awarded a 5-year lease. Use of the leased lands includes irrigation (on
water-righted acres), cattle grazing, farming of alfalfa, corn, sudangrass, and hay,
and combinations of these uses (NAS Fallon 2014).
Reclamation-administered lands in the area are part of the Newlands Project,
which TCID operates through a contract with Reclamation. The Lahontan Basin
Area Office of Reclamation oversees the operation of the Newlands Project in
consultation with TCID, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, the USFWS, the Fallon
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, and other regional stakeholders.
Military Training and Airspace
NAS Fallon is the Navy’s primary air-to-air and air-to-ground training facility.
Churchill County Code 16.08.240 contains provisions for land uses in the NAS
Fallon notification area, which includes lands around the main station. Section
16.08.240(J) requires notifying the NAS Fallon Commanding Officer of any new,
redeveloped, or rehabilitated buildings and structures. This includes those used
for transmission, communications, or energy generation planned or proposed
within 3 miles of NAS Fallon boundary. Structures with heights exceeding 75
feet will also require that NAS Fallon be notified to ensure navigable airspace
for military training (Churchill County 2017).
The project area is south of NAS Fallon main station, which includes an airport,
with control towers, radar, and runways; industrial facilities for maintenance of
aircraft and support equipment; business facilities for everyday operations; retail
and recreation facilities; housing for military personnel and their families; and
utility support facilities, such as for water and sewer (NAS Fallon 2014).
The runways and aprons, comprising a flat, paved asphalt area, run in a northwest-
southeast orientation through the center of the station (see Figure 1). Land uses
next to each end of the runways are primarily agriculture and open space, which
ensures compatibility with flight takeoff and landing operations.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-53
In the early 1970s, the DoD established the AICUZ Program to balance the
need for aircraft operations with community concerns over aircraft noise and
accident potential. The program goals are to protect the safety, welfare, and
health of those who live and work near military airfields, while preserving the
military flying mission (NAS Fallon 2013). Through the AICUZ program, the
Navy has modeled accident potential zones (APZs) at its air facilities. APZs give
land use planners a tool to promote development that is compatible with airfield
operations.
There are three APZ classifications (US Navy 2008):
1) The clear zone, which has the greatest accident potential, where no
structures except navigational aids and airfield lighting are allowed
2) APZ1, which is the area beyond the clear zone that still possesses a
measurable potential for accidents relative to the clear zone
3) APZ2, which has a measurable but lower potential for aircraft
accidents relative to clear zones and APZ1
Access
The project area can be accessed via US Highways 50 and 95, using Union Road,
Pasture Road, Berney Road, Depp Road, Shaffer Lane, or Macari Lane. There
are two segments of the Lincoln Highway (known as Berney Road in the north
and Macari Lane in the south) bisecting the project area. The segments are
approximately 0.4 and 0.2 miles long.
Beginning in April 2017, Reclamation authorized TCID to construct a new canal
in Churchill County for an emergency flood prevention project. The
approximately 60-foot-wide and 16-mile-long emergency canal bisects the
project area in three areas, for a total of 2 miles. There are no culverts or
bridges where roads bisect the canal. This prevents vehicle crossings and limits
access to portions of the proposed project area.
3.12.2 Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
Indicators of impacts on land uses, airspace, and access include consistency with
federal, state, and local land uses; compatibility with NAS Fallon and other
surrounding uses; change in landownership; and any change in the level of access
to or in the project area. The region of influence for impacts on land use,
airspace, and access are all lands within the proposed project area boundary.
Direct Impacts
Implementing the Proposed Action would not change any land uses or
landownership in the proposed project area.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-54 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
The Proposed Action would be consistent with the Churchill County 2015
Master Plan. For example, Goal CNR 4 identifies one of the County’s
conservation and natural resources goals. Policy CNR 4.1 (Churchill County
2015) states “Encourage and support development of renewable energy and
geothermal activity which provides benefit to Churchill County without
adversely impacting the surrounding community and environment, including
migration routes, nesting/roosting sites, unique habitats of wildlife and plant
species, and monitor for no adverse impacts to wildlife and plant populations.”
Impacts on wildlife from the Proposed Action would be expected to be minor
and localized and are further analyzed in Section 3.7.
The Proposed Action would entail drilling up to three production/injection wells
and up to nine monitoring wells. These wells would allow for subsequent EGS
development and monitoring. During construction, drill rigs that are
approximately 120 feet tall would be used for drilling wells, an activity that is
expected to last about 60 days per each of the nine monitoring wells and up to
120 days for the production/injection wells. This would have temporary impacts
on the APZs south of NAS Fallon.
Nighttime lighting and transmitters on drill rigs would mitigate the potential for
interference with NAS Fallon operations. After construction is completed, the
permanent wellhead height would be less than 6 feet. During well development
and operations, the project proponent would coordinate closely with NAS
Fallon and the FAA to ensure compatibility with military aircraft operations and
to minimize the temporary impacts on accident potential zones.
Direct access to the proposed project area would be via Highway 50 from
Berney Road or Macari Lane. Impacts on access would occur if the historic
segments of the Lincoln Highway in the proposed project area were damaged
during construction and operation under the Proposed Action.
Access to work locations in the project area would use, to the extent possible,
existing roads; however, an additional 2.1 miles of access roads may be
constructed to provide expanded access to proposed well pads.
No indirect impacts on land use, airspace, or access have been identified in
relation to the Proposed Action.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Navy would not implement the
Proposed Action on federal lands. None of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action would occur.
3.13 FARMLANDS (PRIME OR UNIQUE)
The following data and information is presented to assist with agency
compliance with the Farmlands Protection Policy Act. The locations and
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-55
acreages of prime and unique farmlands in the proposed project area are
identified based on information in the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) online soils database (NRCS GIS 2017).
3.13.1 Affected Environment
No land is classified as unique farmland in the proposed project area; however,
any potential prime farmland in the project area would require irrigation and
reclamation of salts and sodium. There are 780 acres throughout the project
area that are considered potential prime farmland if reclaimed of salts (see
Table 3-7). Areas of non-prime farmland are generally in the northern portion
of the project area (see Figure 13, Farmland).
Table 3-7
Acres of Potential Prime Farmland
Not Prime
Farmland
Prime Farmland
if Irrigated
Prime Farmland If
Reclaimed of Salts
and Sodium
Total
Proposed project
area
300 40 780 1,120
Source: NRCS GIS 2017
3.13.2 Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
This section presents the consequences that the Proposed Action is likely to
have on Prime or Unique Farmlands. Mitigation measures are discussed for
reducing any impacts that surface disturbance and constructed features may
have to agricultural operations.
No land is classified as unique farmland in the proposed project area; all
potential prime farmland would require irrigation and salt abatement.
The consequences of the project on potential prime farmland include temporary
disruption of agricultural activities during construction of production/injection
and monitoring wells and new access routes.
The region of influence for direct and indirect impacts on prime or unique
farmlands includes areas where soil would be directly disturbed in the proposed
project area.
In the potential prime farmland in the proposed project area, 260 acres would
be in the monitoring and production/injection well pad assessment areas. There
could be up to 47 acres of disturbance in these areas; however, this amount of
disturbance would be unlikely, given that not all wells and access roads would be
clustered in those portions of the assessment areas. Disturbed areas would be
converted directly to non-farmland.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-57
The footprint of well pads and access roads would be the only locations where
occupancy would not allow agricultural use; areas between well pads and access
roads could be available for farming. The Proposed Action would be compatible
with agriculture uses and would not reduce opportunities to implement
agricultural practices on the remaining prime farmlands.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Navy would not implement the
Proposed Action on federal lands. None of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action would occur.
3.14 SOCIOECONOMICS
Demographic and economic data is generally provided at the county level;
therefore, the socioeconomic study area is defined as Churchill County.
General descriptions of social and economic setting in the socioeconomic study
area are consistent with those described in the Salt Wells EIS (BLM 2011a).
Updated information relevant to the FORGE socioeconomic study area, where
available, is described below.
3.14.1 Affected Environment
Population in the socioeconomic study area is displayed in Table 3-8.
Population estimates from 2012–2016 indicate that population has declined
slightly since 2010 in Churchill County and the city of Fallon.
Table 3-8
Population in the Socioeconomic Study Area
Geography Population 2015 Population 2010 Population
Change
Churchill County 24,148 24,877 -2.9%
City of Fallon 8,410 8,606 -2.3%
Source: US Census Bureau 2016, 2010
Note: 2016 data represent 2012–2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; 2010 data are from the
2010 census.
Annual unemployment levels in Churchill County for 2016 (5.4 percent) were
similar to those of the state (5.7 percent; Headwater Economics 2017).
Current employment sectors in the socioeconomic study area are shown in
Table 3-9. Employment generated by the Proposed Action is likely to be in the
agriculture, forestry, fishing-hunting, mining category. Employment in this sector
currently represents 8 percent of employment. This is much larger than the
state average, due to the importance of farming and mining, including
geothermal development. Construction employment may also be generated by
the Proposed Action; this sector has a similar level of employment as the county
and the state.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-58 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
Table 3-9
Employment by Industry in the Socioeconomic Study Area (2015)
Economic Sector
Churchill County Nevada
(Number of employees [percent employment]
for civilian employed population above age 16)
Agriculture, forestry, fishing-hunting, and mining 739 (8%) 21,817 (1.7%)
Construction 579 (6.2%) 6,664 (6.0%)
Manufacturing 734 (7.9%) 52,723 (4.2%)
Wholesale trade 135 (1.5%) 26,001 (2.1%)
Retail trade 1,057 (11.4%) 151,987 (12.0%)
Transportation and warehousing 618 (6.7%) 64,333 (5.1%)
Information 166 (1.8%) 20,940 (1.7%)
Finance, insurance, and real estate 235 (2.5%) 72,784 (5.7%)
Professional, scientific, management, and administration 766 (8.3%) 138,342 (10.9%)
Education, health care, and social assistance 1,804 (19.5%) 195,743 (15.4%)
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 872 (9.4%) 328,665 (25.9%)
Other services 589 (6.4%) 58,360 (4.6%)
Public administration 980 (10.6%) 58,935 (4.7%)
TOTAL 9,274 1,267,312
Source: Headwater Economics 2017
3.14.2 Environmental Consequences
Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action, construction and operation of up to three
production/injection wells and nine monitoring wells may result in impacts on
local residents during the construction period from noise, dust, and traffic.
Impacts would be short term and limited to the area immediately surrounding
the proposed disturbance areas.
Specific to EGS, potential impacts from induced seismicity would include the
threat of property damage and non-physical damage to humans, such as sleep
disturbance (Majer et al. 2007; Majer et al. 2016). The potential for damage or
disturbance depends on the magnitude of a seismic event and the distance of the
property or human receptor from the source.
Seismicity is influenced by the type of stimulation, well depth, geology, and other
site specific factors (see Section 3.5, Geology, for additional details). Literature
suggests that the potential to detect seismicity is generally limited to
approximately 7.4–9.3 miles of a drilling site, and that impacts on structures are
limited to a narrower range (Majer et al. 2016). For the project area, a buffer of
5 miles was examined to determine the number of residences and other
structures with a potential for impact. Based on aerial photos, there are more
than 50 potential residences or other structures within the buffer area.
Implementation of best practices to limit induced seismicity would reduce the
level of impacts on these residences (see Appendix B). Seismic monitoring
would be implemented before full-scale stimulation begins.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
March 2018 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment 3-59
The Fallon FORGE project represents the potential for additional employment,
particularly in the construction sector. Based on estimates in the Salt Wells EIS,
well pads and associated wells typically require a crew of six workers for
construction. The number of employees needed at a given time would depend
on the timing of development and the degree to which well drilling overlaps.
Well depth and other factors influence costs and the number of employees
required. EGS stimulation would also require additional costs and employment
for the length of the stimulation period.
Some of the construction or operation jobs may be filled by workers already
residing in Churchill County; some workers may come from outside the region
to fill new jobs or as contracted employees, particularly for temporary
construction positions. Employment data suggest that some qualified workers in
the sector may be available in the county; accordingly, the addition of these
temporary jobs would not increase the population, employment, or spending in
the county or strain public services.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM and Navy would not implement the
Proposed Action on federal lands. None of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Action would occur.
3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-60 FORGE Geothermal Research and Monitoring Environmental Assessment March 2018
This page intentionally left blank.