Bureau of Land Management's Decision Record and Environmental

Jersey Valley Geothermal Development Project
Environmental Assessment: NV063 -EAO8-09 1
4.4.10 Rangeland
Primary impacts that could occur from the RFFAs would be cumulative increases in vegetation
and soil disturbances, which could result in incremental losses in the availability of grazing used
for livestock. Some of this reduction in forage would be temporary, until reclaimed, though some
could be longer term. No cumulative activities are expected to prevent livestock access to
available sources of water in the area.
The amount of surface disturbance which could impact livestock habitat constitutes a small
percentage of the grazing allotments. Effects of potential proposed actions on livestock
populations would be analyzed and mitigation measures developed to reduce impacts, or
restrictions developed to protect livestock. The contribution of the proposed Project to these
cumulative effects on grazing management would be minimal. Additionally, impacts would be
reduced when reclamation activities commence.
4.4.11 Recreation
The mineral exploration and activities conducted under the Plan of Operations would prevent
continued access by recreational users to some of the public lands within the CESA.
Fugitive dust from vehicle traffic on unpaved roads, as well as noise and traffic from cumulative
activities, could cause some recreational users to avoid those active portions of the area during
the cumulative project construction and operational activities. The contribution of the proposed
Project to these indirect cumulative effects on recreation would be minimal.
4.4.12 Visual Resources
The CESA is rated as VRM Class IV (modification). Construction activities associated with the
mineral exploration and other RFFAs would result in long-term modifications to the line, form,
color, and texture of the characteristic landscape. The creation of roads create strong horizontal
linear contrasts. Vegetation and soil removal create color, textural, and linear contrasts with
adjacent areas that could be visible long after all the facilities were removed. Constructed
structures would have strong geometric and linear shapes, and solid colors, all contrasting with
the natural landscapes and continuing throughout the life of the project.
All of these contrasts could be mitigated on a case-by-case basis in order to maintain the area
consistent with VRM Class IV. Project components could be sited and/or colored to blend in
with the natural and existing horizontal features of the landscape. Disturbed areas could be
revegetated to minimize the contrasts. Larger structures could be painted with colors that would
blend in with the surrounding landscape.
The contribution of the proposed Project to these cumulative effects on visual resources would
be minimal.
- 90 -