(forge) geothermal research and monitoring draft environmental ass

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


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.



Table 3-1


Elementsa Not

Presentb

Present/

Not

Affectedb

Present/

May Be

Affectedc

Rationale

Invasive, nonnative,

and noxious species


Migratory birds X Carried forward in Section 3.9.

Native American

religious concerns


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)


Wetlands and riparian

zones


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.



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


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,



Table 3-2



Not Affecteda

Present/May


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.



Table 3-2



Not Affecteda

Present/May


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



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



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



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.



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

http://water.nv.gov/permitinformation.aspx?app=13472


http://water.nv.gov/permitinformation.aspx?app=57351E





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.



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).



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.



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



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.



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).



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



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


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



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).


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



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.







Figure 10

Fallon FORGE Cross-section

Meters

Meters



This page intentionally left blank.



3.6 WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN AREAS


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.




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



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.





3.7 WILDLIFE AND KEY HABITAT


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).



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).



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.



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).


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



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,



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.



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



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.





3.8 BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES


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.



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



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.



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



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).


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.



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.


production/injection wells and installing new access roads and site trailers could


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.



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).



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



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.





3.9 MIGRATORY BIRDS


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).



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.


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



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.


production/injection wells, and installing new access roads and site trailers could


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.



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.



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.



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



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


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).



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.


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.


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



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.




associated with the Proposed Action would occur. New weed propagation from

the emergency canal would continue.

3.11 NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS


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



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).




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.





3.12 LAND USE, AIRSPACE, AND ACCESS


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



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.



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.


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.



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.





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



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).


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


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.



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.





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.


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.



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


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.



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.







This page intentionally left blank.

(forge) geothermal research and monitoring draft environmental ass

Documents