Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Summary

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Desert
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement
Summary
DES 08-24
Disclaimer
CCPs provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives,
and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate
of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially
above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning
and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing
increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Desert National Wildlife Refuge
Complex
Ash Meadows, Desert, Moapa Valley, and
Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuges
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement
Summary – July 2008
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission
To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans.
Refuge Purposes
...for the protection, enhancement, and maintenance of wildlife resources, including
bighorn sheep... (Public Land Order 4079, dated August 31, 1966, as amended by PL
106-65).
...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened
species...or (B) plants... (ESA, 16 USC Sec. 1534).
...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2)
the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or
threatened species... (16 USC Sec. 460k-1).
...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be
accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by
donors... (Refuge Recreation Act, as amended, 16 USC Sec. 460k-2).
…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds… (16 USC 715d).
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
California Nevada Region
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-1832
Sacramento, CA 95825
July 2008
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-1
Summary
Current Status of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) began the process of developing a Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Desert Complex) in fall
2001. Public, agency, and tribal involvement was an important part of the CCP process, with five
scoping meetings held during the first year of the planning process, and multiple interagency and
tribal meetings and workshops to address topics related to visitor services, cultural resources, and
wildlife and habitat management. The Draft CCP/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is available
for public review and comment starting in July 2008. The Draft CCP/EIS will be revised to respond to
public comments to produce the Final CCP and Final EIS. A Record of Decision will be signed within
30 days after the availability of the Final CCP and EIS is announced in the Federal Register.
Introduction
The Desert Complex, consisting of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Desert NWR,
Moapa Valley NWR, and Pahranagat NWR, is located in Nye, Clark, and Lincoln counties in southern
Nevada (Figure 1). Ash Meadows NWR is located northwest of Pahrump, Nevada, less than 5 miles
from the California-Nevada border and encompasses approximately 24,000 acres (Figure 2). Desert
NWR is located less than 10 miles north of Las Vegas and encompasses more than 1.6 million acres,
making it the largest refuge in the continental U.S. (Figure 3). Moapa Valley NWR is located
northwest of Moapa and encompasses approximately 116 acres of land (Figure 4). Pahranagat NWR is
located at the northeastern corner of the Desert NWR, just south of Alamo; this Refuge encompasses
more than 5,000 acres (Figure 5). Ash Meadows and Moapa Valley NWRs were established to protect
endangered and threatened species, Desert NWR was established to protect desert bighorn sheep and
other wildlife, and Pahranagat NWR was established to provide a habitat for migratory birds.
Ash Meadows NWR provides habitat consisting of spring-fed wetlands and alkaline desert uplands for
at least 25 plants and animals found nowhere else in the world. The Refuge has a greater concentration
of endemic life than any other local area in the U.S. and the second greatest concentration in all of
North America. Desert NWR provides a wide range of upland habitats, from saltbush scrub to
coniferous forests, as well as natural springs and wetlands. The Refuge provides one of the largest
contiguous blocks of habitat for desert bighorn sheep in the U.S. Moapa Valley NWR provides habitat
for the endemic Moapa dace, including streams and springs. Pahranagat NWR provides open water,
marsh, riparian, and upland habitats for migratory birds and a diversity of fish and wildlife. The
Refuge is an important stopover for numerous migratory birds during their fall and spring migrations.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Process
A CCP is prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
(NWRS Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 (Improvement Act) (Public Law [PL] 105-57), and an EIS is prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Improvement Act and
Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual provide
the directives and guidance for preparing CCPs and recommends that the CCP and EIS be
incorporated into one document. This approach, which provides for the direct integration of the
provisions of NEPA into the CCP process, complies with the requirement that Federal agencies
integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time.
The CCP/EIS is a programmatic document intended to analyze proposed actions on a conceptual level,
except in those cases where sufficient information is available to provide project-specific analysis.
Therefore, the extent of analysis provided for each restoration and/or visitor services proposal reflects
the level of detail currently available for the specific proposal. The habitat restoration proposals
Summary
S-2 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
analyzed in the CCP/EIS should be viewed as conceptual. It is during subsequent project level
planning, referred to as “step-down” planning, that additional studies would be conducted, additional
baseline data would be gathered, the appropriate project-level NEPA documentation would be
prepared, all necessary permits would be acquired, and final engineering and restoration planning
would be conducted. Step-down planning would also include a public involvement component similar to
that provided during the CCP process.
The CCP is intended to provide a clear and comprehensive statement of the desired future conditions
for the Refuge and to ensure public involvement in refuge management decisions. The public
involvement component of CCP planning encourages public input throughout the process from initial
scoping and public review of the Draft CCP to participating in refuge management decision and step-down
planning following formal adoption of the plan.
Availability of the Draft CCP/EIS
The Draft CCP/EIS is available online at http://desertcomplex.fws.gov. A compact disc (CD) or hard
copy of the document can be obtained by writing to: Mark Pelz, Chief, Refuge Planning, 2800 Cottage
Way, W-1832, Sacramento, California 95825. Other contact methods include: 916-414-6500 (telephone),
916-414-6497 (facsimile), or fw8plancomments@fws.gov (email).
The Draft CCP/EIS is also available at the following locations: Refuge Headquarters at Ash Meadows
NWR, Desert NWR, and Pahranagat NWR; Desert Complex office at 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive;
Clark County Library, 1401 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV; Las Vegas Library, 833 Las Vegas
Boulevard North, Las Vegas, NV; and North Las Vegas Library, 2300 Civic Center Drive, North Las
Vegas, NV.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of developing the CCP for the refuges is to provide managers with a 15-year strategy for
achieving refuge purposes and contributing to the mission of the NWRS, consistent with the sound
principles of fish and wildlife conservation and legal mandates. The CCP is flexible and will be revised
periodically to ensure that its goals, objectives, strategies, and timetables are valid and appropriate.
The Improvement Act requires that the Service develop a CCP for each refuge by 2012, and that
refuges be managed to ensure the long-term conservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats
and provides for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. The purposes for developing a CCP are:
􀂄􈑔 To provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the refuge;
􀂄􈑔 To provide long-term continuity in Desert Complex management;
􀂄􈑔 To communicate the Service’s management priorities for the refuges to its conservation partners,
neighbors, visitors, and the general public;
􀂄􈑔 To provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future management of the refuges;
􀂄􈑔 To ensure that management programs on the refuges are consistent with the mandates of the
NWR System (NWRS) and the purposes for which each refuge was established;
􀂄􈑔 To ensure that the management of the refuges fully considers resource priorities and management
strategies identified in other federal, state, and local plans;
􀂄􈑔 To provide a basis for budget requests to support the refuge’s needs, staffing, operations,
maintenance, and capital improvements; and
􀂄􈑔 To evaluate existing and proposed uses of each refuge to ensure that they are compatible with the
refuge purpose(s) as well as the maintenance of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health.
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-11
The National Wildlife Refuge System
The NWRS is the largest collection of lands and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife
conservation in the nation. Unlike other federal lands that are managed under a multiple use mandate
(e.g., lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service), the
NWRS is managed for the benefit of fish, wildlife, plant resources, and their habitats.
Operated and managed by the Service, the NWRS comprises more than 545 national wildlife refuges
with a combined area of more than 95 million acres. Most refuge lands (approximately 77 million acres)
are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several island territories.
The mission of the NWRS is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans” (16 USC 668dd et seq.).
Refuge Overview
The Desert Complex encompasses more than 1.6 million acres of land in southern Nevada in the
southern part of the Great Basin and northern extent of the Mojave Desert in the Basin and Range
Province. Each refuge within the Desert Complex provides important and unique habitat for wildlife,
including several endemic species (species native to the refuges and often not found anywhere else).
The prehistory and history of the Desert Complex region spans the last 12,000 years or more and
encompasses a number of major culture areas. Visitor services vary at each refuge and are primarily
focused on wildlife-dependent recreation. Each refuge also provides resources that are important to
local culturally affiliated tribes.
This section provides an overview of each refuge’s establishment, purpose(s), vision statement, goals,
and settings.
Ash Meadows NWR
Ash Meadows NWR was established on June 18, 1984, through the purchase of 11,177 acres of former
agricultural lands from The Nature Conservancy (TNC). According to the Service’s 1984
Environmental Assessment: Proposed Acquisition to Establish Ash Meadows National Wildlife
Refuge, the purpose of the acquisition was “. . . to protect the endemic, endangered, and rare
organisms (plants and animals) found in Ash Meadows . . .” Since the original acquisition from TNC in
1984, an additional 2,309 acres have been acquired from several different landowners. Many of the
Refuge’s seeps, springs, pools, and streams supporting sensitive species have been destroyed or
altered by human activities over the last 100 years. Habitat alterations during agricultural, municipal,
and mining development caused the extinction of one fish species, at least one snail species, and
possibly an endemic mammal species (Ash Meadows montane vole, Microtus montanus nevadensis).
The Refuge provides habitat consisting of spring-fed wetlands and alkaline desert uplands for at least
25 plants and animals found nowhere else in the world. The Ash Meadows NWR has a greater
concentration of endemic life than any other local area in the United States and the second greatest
concentration in all of North America.
Ash Meadows NWR derives its purpose from the ESA, which authorized its creation:
“...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened
species...or (B) plants...” (16 USC Sec. 1534).
Summary
S-12 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The Service established the following vision statement for the Refuge during the CCP development
process:
The springs, wetlands, and other native habitats of Ash Meadows National Wildlife
Refuge support and protect the highest concentration of endemic plant and animal
species anywhere in the United States. The Refuge’s natural communities are
restored to their historic extent and condition, and threatened and endangered species
populations are recovered and maintained at sustainable levels through innovative
coordination and partnerships. Refuge management continually responds to changes
in the environment through adaptive management. Water supplies are ample,
reliable, and of appropriate quality and temperature to sustain endemic and other
fish and wildlife populations.
Researchers are drawn to the Refuge where science-based management and
monitoring is used to guide habitat restoration and endangered species recovery
efforts and, in the process, further scientific knowledge of fields such as species
genetics, regional water flow, geology and even the cultural and historical significance
of this long inhabited area. Visitors find sanctuary among the crystal pools and
springs nestled among the expansive Mojave Desert landscape.
Local residents and visitors enjoy learning about and gaining an appreciation for the
Refuge and its unique wildlife and plant species. Local educators recognize the Refuge
as an exceptional regional resource for environmental education and for unique
wildlife and habitat community tours. Volunteers find a meaningful and personally
enriching application for their interests and talents in a responsive and appreciative
setting that contributes to the conservation of rare, unique and beautiful species of
wildlife and plants for the enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans.
The following goals provide guiding principles for the Ash Meadows NWR:
Species Management (Goal 1). Restore and maintain viable populations of all endemic, endangered and
threatened species within the Refuge’s Mojave Desert oasis ecosystem.
Habitat (Goal 2). Restore and maintain the ecological integrity of natural communities within the Ash
Meadows NWR.
Research (Goal 3). Encourage and provide opportunities for research which supports Refuge and
Service objectives.
Visitor Services (Goal 4). Provide visitors with wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and
environmental education opportunities that are compatible with, and foster an appreciation and
understanding of, Ash Meadows NWR’s wildlife and plant communities.
Ash Meadows NWR is situated in the Amargosa Valley near Death Valley National Park. The Refuge
provides a diversity of habitats, from springs and streams to desert uplands, and supports a variety of
endemic and sensitive plant, fish, and wildlife species. Examples of species unique to the Refuge’s
habitats include Ash Meadows milkvetch, spring-loving centaury, Devils Hole pupfish (found only in
Devils Hole, which is managed by the National Park Service), and Ash Meadows speckled dace. The
Refuge also contains remnants of the past, including nearly 300 known prehistoric and/or historic sites.
Several sites are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places because they contain
representative characteristics of the people that used the area in the past. The Refuge is a day use
area, open sunrise to sunset, with numerous recreational opportunities. Wildlife-dependent activities
include wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, interpretation, and hunting. Non–
wildlife-dependent activities include picnicking, recreational boating, and virtual geocaching (use of
geographic positioning systems for treasure hunting).
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-13
Desert NWR
On May 20, 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Desert Game Range for “the
conservation and development of natural wildlife resources” (Executive Order 7373). The 2.25 million
acre Game Range, under the joint administration of the Service and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), included most of the lands within the current Refuge boundary, but stretched south to include
portions of the Spring Mountains, including the area currently occupied by Red Rock Canyon National
Conservation Area.
In 1939, a 320-acre ranch at Corn Creek was acquired from a private landowner under the authority of
the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. This site became the administrative headquarters for the Game
Range. Between 1970 and 1985, 440 acres in the vicinity of Corn Creek were purchased from a variety
of private land owners under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (16 USC Sec. 1534) and
Refuge Recreation Act (16 USC Sec. 460k-460).
In October of 1940, approximately 846,000 acres of the Desert Game Range were reserved for the use
of the War Department (Department of Defense [DOD]) as an aerial bombing and gunnery range (now
known as the Nevada Test and Training Range [NTTR]). Public Land Order 4079, dated August 31,
1966, as amended by Public Law (PL) 106-65 (Sec. 3011[b][3]), established the Desert National Wildlife
Range under the sole administration of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (now the Service).
It also reduced the size of the refuge to 1,588,000 acres. The Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999
(PL 106-65) transferred primary jurisdiction of 112,000 acres of bombing impact areas on Desert NWR
from the Service to the DOD. However, the Service retained secondary jurisdiction over these lands.
On November 6, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Clark County Conservation of Public
Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (PL 107-282), which administratively transferred 26,433 acres
of BLM land adjacent to Desert NWR’s east boundary to the Service. Desert NWR’s land base
changed again with the passage of the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act
of 2004 (PL 108-424). As part of the Act, administrative jurisdiction over approximately 8,382 acres of
land along the eastern boundary of Desert NWR and west of U.S. Highway 93 was transferred from
the Service to the BLM for use as a utility corridor. In addition, 8,503 acres of BLM-administered land
were transferred to the Service to be managed as part of the Desert NWR. This land is located at the
northeastern boundary of the Desert NWR and the western boundary of Pahranagat NWR.
Desert NWR is the largest Refuge in the continental United States and the largest protected area in
Nevada. It encompasses six distinct mountain ranges with intervening valleys that provide a range of
upland habitats for large mammals, birds, reptiles, and several sensitive species, such as the desert
tortoise. Corn Creek Field Station, the Refuge headquarters, provides spring and pond habitat with
wetland and riparian vegetation. The Desert NWR is one of the largest intact blocks of habitat for the
bighorn sheep in the southwestern United States. The Refuge also contains two National Register
Districts (Corn Creek Campsite and Sheep Mountain), which contain prehistoric and historic resources
representative of past uses of the Refuge. Although only a small portion of the Refuge has been
surveyed for archaeological resources, approximately 450 prehistoric sites and several historic sites
have been recorded. The Refuge is also known to contain paleontological resources (fossils) dating back
to the Pleistocene era (1.8 million to 10,000 years ago). The Refuge offers the opportunity for a unique
and solitary desert experience. Primitive camping, picnicking, backpacking, and hiking are some of the
non–wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available on the Desert NWR. Wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities include wildlife observation, photography, and hunting.
Desert NWR has four purposes derived from laws under which it was established:
“...for the protection, enhancement, and maintenance of wildlife resources, including
bighorn sheep...” (Public Land Order 4079, dated August 31, 1966, as amended by PL
106-65).
Summary
S-14 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
“...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened
species...or (B) plants...” (ESA, 16 USC Sec. 1534).
“...suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2)
the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or
threatened species...” (16 USC Sec. 460k-1).
“...the Secretary...may accept and use...real...property. Such acceptance may be
accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by
donors...” (Refuge Recreation Act, as amended, 16 USC Sec. 460k-2).
The Service established the following vision statement for the Refuge:
As the largest refuge in the contiguous United States, Desert National Wildlife Range
provides the highest quality, intact habitat for desert bighorn sheep and other fish,
wildlife, plants and their habitats native to the Great Basin and Mojave Desert
ecosystems.
This rugged, arid landscape supports a full range of desert habitats from playas on
the valley floors through desert scrub and coniferous woodlands to ancient bristlecone
pine groves on the mountain peaks. The vast, rugged wild spaces provide wildlife and
people a refuge and a place for harmonious recreational opportunities.
The following goals provide guiding principles for the Desert NWR:
Bighorn Sheep (Goal 1). Maintain and, where necessary, restore healthy population levels of bighorn
sheep on Desert NWR within each of the six major mountain ranges.
Wildlife Diversity (Goal 2). Maintain the existing natural diversity of native wildlife and plants,
including special-status species, at Desert NWR.
Specially-designated Areas (Goal 3). Manage specially designated areas such that they augment the
purposes of the Desert NWR.
Visitor Services (Goal 4). Visitors understand, appreciate, and enjoy the fragile Mojave/Great Basin
Desert ecosystem.
Cultural Resources (Goal 5). Manage cultural resources for their educational, scientific, and traditional
cultural values for the benefit of present and future generations of refuge users, communities, and
culturally affiliated tribes.
Moapa Valley NWR
Moapa Valley NWR was established on September 10, 1979, to secure and protect habitat for the
endangered Moapa dace. The Refuge comprises multiple adjacent but visually distinct units. The
original Pedersen Unit was acquired in 1979 and is 30 acres in size. An additional 11 acres were
purchased in 2006 from Richard and Lorena Pedersen and are referred to as the Pedersen II unit. The
28-acre Plummer Unit was acquired in 1997, and the 48-acre Apcar Unit was acquired in 2000. Each
unit has a separate stream system supported by the steady and uninterrupted flow of several springs
that surface at various places throughout the Refuge. Due to the Refuge’s small size, fragile habitats,
ongoing restoration work, and removal of unsafe structures, the Refuge has been closed to the public
since its establishment.
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-15
Moapa Valley NWR is situated in the Moapa Valley, east of the Desert NWR. The Refuge is part of a
unique system of thermal springs that are part of the headwaters of the Muddy River, which
eventually flow into Lake Mead east of Las Vegas. These springs provide riparian and aquatic habitats
that support sensitive birds, bats, and fish, including the endemic Moapa dace. Most of the Refuge was
previously privately held and used as a resort with swimming pools and other developed features. As a
result, considerable alteration to the character of the landscape has occurred, and potential
archaeological sites that may have been present are likely buried or destroyed as part of resort
development. At present, due to its small size, fragile habitats, ongoing restoration work, and
construction activities related to the removal of unsafe structures, the Refuge is closed to the general
public. It is anticipated that the Refuge will be open to the public in the future to provide recreational
opportunities once the restoration work is complete. Staff-conducted tours are currently being offered
for interpretation and nature observation.
The purpose of Moapa Valley NWR derives from the ESA:
“...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened
species...or (B) plants...” (16 USC Sec. 1534).
The Service established the following vision statement for the Refuge:
Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge supports and protects a healthy, thriving
population of Moapa dace at the headwaters of the Muddy River. Stable flows from the
Refuge’s numerous warm springs fill meandering channels downstream that provide
ideal habitat for dace, Virgin River chub and other species of endemic fish and
invertebrates.
The spring bank and riparian plant communities provide habitat for southwestern
willow flycatcher as well as a rich diversity of migratory and resident songbirds,
colonial nesting species, and other native wildlife.
Local residents and visitors learn about and enjoy this restored desert oasis.
Volunteers take personal satisfaction from contributing to the conservation and
protection of Refuge wildlife and the unique spring system nourished habitats on
which they depend.
The following goals provide guiding principles for the Moapa Valley NWR:
Endemic and Special-Status Species (Goal 1). Protect and restore, when possible, healthy populations
of endemic and special-status species, such as the endangered Moapa dace, within the Muddy River
headwaters.
Visitor Services (Goal 2). Local communities and others enjoy and learn about the resources of Moapa
Valley NWR and participate in its restoration.
Pahranagat NWR
Pahranagat NWR was established on August 16, 1963, to provide habitat for migratory birds,
especially waterfowl. The Refuge is an important stopping point for numerous migratory birds during
their fall and spring migrations. It is also an important tourist attraction for visitors traveling on U.S.
Highway 93 to or from Las Vegas. An additional 1,466 acres were incorporated into the Refuge
boundary later, bringing the acreage of Pahranagat NWR to a total of 5,382 acres.
Pahranagat NWR is situated at the southern end of Pahranagat Valley, northeast of the Desert NWR.
The Refuge contains marshes, open water, native grass meadows, cultivated croplands, and riparian
habitat and is an important migratory bird stopover within the Pacific flyway. The Refuge is known to
Summary
S-16 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
support a population of federally endangered southwestern willow flycatchers and provides habitat for
other sensitive birds, bats, reptiles, and mammals. The Pahranagat NWR area is an extremely
important cultural landscape to many tribal people, and the Refuge contains a diversity of prehistoric
and historic resources, including the Black Canyon National Register District. The public is
encouraged to visit the “valley of many waters” to enjoy a variety of recreational opportunities and
experience the desert oasis. Wildlife-dependent activities include wildlife observation, photography,
fishing, hunting, environmental education, and interpretation. Currently, camping, boating, and
picnicking are common non–wildlife-dependent activities on the Refuge.
The purpose of Pahranagat NWR derives from the Migratory Bird Conservation Act:
“…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory birds…” (16 USC 715d).
The Service established the following vision statement for the Refuge:
The Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge is managed as a sanctuary where present
and future generations of people can discover a connection to the rhythms of life. In
spring, indigo bush and beavertail cactus bloom at the edges of verdant meadows and
wetlands, fed by brimming lakes. The vital, spring-fed waters of this Mojave Desert
oasis attract thousands of migratory birds each year. Pahranagat NWR’s seasonal
marsh, wet meadows, and alkali flats provide high quality resting and foraging
habitat for wintering and migrating waterfowl, shorebirds and other waterbirds along
the Pacific Flyway. Riparian gallery forests of willow, cottonwood, and associated
plant communities support a flourishing population of southwestern willow
flycatcher as well as a rich diversity of migratory and resident songbirds, colonial
nesting species and birds of prey. Coveys of Gambel’s quail emerge at dusk along with
abundant cottontails and jackrabbits as nighthawks, coyotes, and owls begin to hunt.
Each fall brings returning waterfowl and waterfowl hunters, while mountain lions
follow mule deer down into the valley.
Wetlands, wet meadows, upland plant communities, natural springs, and cultural
history entice scientists and scholars to study Refuge resources and further human
understanding of the processes and environments that are the foundation for the rich
diversity of life on Pahranagat NWR and how humans have interacted with that
environment over millennia.
Other researchers focus on understanding the role of southwestern wetlands and
diversity in the regional and national refuge system, the preeminent example of a
habitat conservation system in the United States and perhaps the world. This ever
expanding understanding contributes to conservation and management of Mojave
Desert environments important to southern Nevada, the southwest, and the United
States.
Visitors from near and far find sanctuary among the crystal pools and springs as
they learn about the Refuge's unique plant and animal communities. Local people
take pride in the Refuge, and visitors tell their families and friends about this
brilliant desert gem. Educators recognize the Refuge as an exceptional regional
resource for environmental education and observation of wildlife and the habitats
upon which they depend. Volunteers take great personal satisfaction from applying
their interests and abilities to the conservation and interpretation of a unique,
natural Mojave Desert community for the enjoyment of present and future
generations of Americans.
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-17
The following goals provide guiding principles for the Pahranagat NWR:
Wetland Habitat (Goal 1). Restore and maintain wetland habitat for waterfowl and other migratory
birds with an emphasis on spring and fall migration feeding and resting habitat requirements.
Wildlife Diversity (Goal 2). Restore and maintain the ecological integrity of natural communities within
Pahranagat NWR and contribute to the recovery of listed and other special-status species.
Visitor Services (Goal 3). Provide visitors with compatible wildlife-dependent recreation,
interpretation, and environmental education opportunities that foster an appreciation and
understanding of Pahranagat NWR’s wildlife and plant communities.
Cultural Resources (Goal 4). Manage cultural resources for their educational, scientific, and traditional
cultural values for the benefit of present and future generations of refuge users, communities, and
culturally affiliated tribes.
Issues
Based on input from the public, agencies, and affiliated tribes, the following list of planning issues is a
summary of the key issues that have guided the development of alternatives and preparation of the
Draft CCP/EIS:
􀂄􈑅 Endemic and Federally Listed Species: How will the Service protect and restore habitat? How will
the Service gather data on special-status and endemic species? What measures will the Service
take to protect and restore populations of special-status species? How will the Service monitor its
actions and the status of special-status species? What measures will be implemented for invasive
and pest species management?
􀂄􈑆 Fires and Fuel Management: How will the Service respond to fire events or use fire to manage the
refuges?
􀂄􈑒 Research: What research opportunities are available?
􀂄􈑖 Visitor Services: How will visitor service opportunities be improved or expanded? What types of
opportunities will be available at each refuge? How will the Service monitor visitor use?
􀂄􈑃 Cultural Resources: How will cultural resources be managed and protected at each refuge?
􀂄􈑒 Refuge Management: What staff are needed for each refuge?
􀂄􈑓 Special Management Areas: How will special management areas (proposed wilderness, research
natural areas, etc.) be managed?
􀂄􈑃 Climate Change: How will climate change affect refuge resources?
Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved
The Service has not identified any areas of controversy at this time.
The following issues will need to be resolved prior to implementation of management actions at each
refuge:
􀂄􈑔 The Service’s current refuge budgets and staffing would not be adequate to implement the number
of new management actions that are part of the preferred alternatives. Identification of a funding
source and allocation of adequate funding and staffing would be required to implement the actions.
􀂄􈑔 The Service currently lacks adequate data or information on the biological resources that occur at
each refuge, specifically the extent and requirements of special-status plant and wildlife
populations. Site-specific surveys of proposed restoration or affected areas would need to be
conducted prior to developing restoration plans or implementing management actions to ensure
the activities would benefit the species and result in minimal adverse impacts.
Summary
S-18 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
􀂄􈑔 The Service currently lacks adequate data or information on the cultural resources that occur at
each refuge, specifically the extent of buried or underground resources. Site-specific inventories of
affected areas would need to be conducted prior to site-specific planning and implementing
management actions to ensure minimal impacts on the resources.
The Service will review public comments on the Draft CCP/EIS and consider the comments during
preparation of the Final CCP and Final EIS and will resolve issues raised during the comment period
as appropriate.
Management Alternatives
An important step in the CCP process is the development and analysis of alternatives. Alternatives are
developed to explore and analyze different ways to achieve Refuge purposes, contribute to the mission
of the NWRS, meet Refuge goals, and resolve issues identified during scoping and throughout the
CCP process. The alternatives developed for each Refuge are summarized below; graphics depicting
the Preferred Alternatives for each refuge are included at the end of this section. Chapter 3 of the
Draft CCP/EIS provides more detailed descriptions of the alternatives and graphics for each
alternative.
Ash Meadows NWR
A number of current management actions would be implemented for the Ash Meadows NWR under
each of the alternatives. Common to all actions include species monitoring and baseline inventories;
establishment of new pupfish refugia; managing, monitoring, and restoring Refuge habitats;
monitoring water resources; protecting sensitive areas of the Refuge; implementing the Integrated
Pest Management Plan; completing the pending land and mineral withdrawal; acquiring private
inholdings from willing sellers; and expanding visitor services and public use opportunities, specifically
through construction of a boardwalk at Kings Pool and development of environmental education and
interpretation materials.
Alternative A – No Action: Species management on the Refuge is currently guided by the 2006
Geomorphic and Biological Assessment by Otis Bay and Stevens Ecological Consulting. This
document provides an overview of the resources on the Refuge and identifies recommendations for
species management. Management actions identified in the document are evaluated and implemented
as appropriate and as staffing and funding become available. The Service would restore 70 acres of
alkali/wet meadow habitat, 30 acres of mesquite bosques/lowland riparian habitat, and 30 acres of
native upland habitat in the Warm Springs and Jackrabbit/Big Springs Management Units. In
addition, approximately 10 to 25 percent of the old agricultural fields would be rehabilitated by
controlling invasive plants and planting native species.
The Service would continue to provide limited environmental education activities and off-Refuge
outreach about the value of wildlife and the public’s involvement on the Refuge. The Service would
continue to inventory, manage, and protect cultural and historic resources on the Refuge on a project-by-
project basis to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Appropriate educational information
on cultural resources would continue to be provided to visitors at the visitor contact station through
informal outreach.
Alternative B – Improve Habitat for Endemic Species on Portions of the Refuge and Increase Visitor
Services: Under this alternative, the Service would improve species management on portions of the
Refuge through habitat restoration and enhancement, modification of hydrology, invasive plant
control, additional plant and wildlife species monitoring and research, and expanded law enforcement
and protection efforts. The population of Ash Meadows speckled dace would be restored to a portion of
its historic range, and the range of the Ash Meadows naucorid population would be doubled. Endemic
plants would be transplanted to suitable habitat to expand their populations. Natural hydrology would
be restored on portions of the Refuge, and alkali wet meadow (520 acres), mesquite bosque/lowland
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-19
riparian (220 acres), emergent marsh (150 acres), and old agricultural fields (30 to 45 percent) would be
restored or rehabilitated. Salt cedar and Russian knapweed would be removed and controlled to
improve habitat conditions. Pest species management (e.g., crayfish) would include the 10 most
infested and important Refuge aquatic systems.
Visitor services would be improved through development and implementation of Visitor Services,
Outreach, and Environmental Education Plans. Educational and interpretive materials would be
developed for the public. A new Refuge headquarters and visitor contact station building, as well as
other visitor facilities, would be constructed, and Refuge roads would be improved to good condition.
Cultural resources management would be expanded through additional inventory, monitoring, and
protection efforts.
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) – Improve Habitat for Endemic Species Throughout Refuge and
Increase Visitor Services: Under this alternative, the Service would expand the management actions
identified in Alternative B to improve habitat throughout the Refuge. Species inventories and
monitoring would be increased, and habitat protection efforts would be expanded. The Service would
expand fish populations on the Refuge to restore endemic fish populations to a portion of their historic
range on the Refuge. In addition, the Service would reestablish Ash Meadows speckled dace to historic
habitats after restoration of springs and streams. Natural hydrology would be restored on larger
portions of the Refuge, and alkali wet meadow (650 acres), mesquite bosque/lowland riparian (550
acres), emergent marsh (150 acres), and old agricultural fields (30 to 45 percent) would be restored or
rehabilitated. Pest species management would be expanded to encompass more of the Refuge and use
more aggressive techniques.
Visitor services would be similar to Alternative B, except for an increase in off-site programs and a
reduction in roadway and parking area improvements. An on-site research facility may be constructed.
Boat use for waterfowl hunting would be restricted or eliminated.
Desert NWR
A number of current management actions would be implemented for the Desert NWR under each of
the alternatives. Common to all actions include maintaining current water sources for bighorn sheep
and other wildlife; continuing habitat protection measures; maintaining hunt permit limits for bighorn
sheep; conducting fall surveys for bighorn sheep; prohibiting livestock grazing; managing wildfires;
monitoring water resources, habitats, and wildlife; managing the Refuge to protect wilderness values;
and constructing and maintaining certain visitor facilities, including a visitor center.
Alternative A – No Action: The Service would continue current bighorn sheep, wildlife, and habitat
management actions that are common to all alternatives. The Air Force Overlay Area is currently
managed through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and
the Service. The current MOU would be renewed without changes. The Service would continue to
provide public outreach through participation in two major community events annually. The Service
would continue to manage and protect cultural resources on the Refuge on a project-by-project basis
prior to land-disturbing projects to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Appropriate
interpretive information on cultural resources would continue to be provided to visitors at the field
station through informal outreach.
Alternative B – Minor Improvement in Wildlife and Habitat Management and Moderate Increase in
Visitor Services: Under this alternative, the Service would improve bighorn sheep management and
expand wildlife diversity. The Service would conduct yearly spring helicopter surveys to identify
lambing and recruitment sites. Sheep would be translocated between subpopulations on the Refuge
and to populations outside of the Refuge, as needed. The Service would conduct regular bird surveys at
Corn Creek. Resource protection efforts would be expanded by constructing a boundary fence along
the southern boundary and increase law enforcement patrols.
Summary
S-20 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The MOU with the USAF would be modified to include elements for cooperative management of
natural and cultural resources. Management of Research Natural Areas (RNAs) on the Refuge would
be improved through boundary surveys and photographic documentation.
Visitor services would be improved through expanded environmental education and interpretive
programs and an increase in visitor facilities. The Service would create a Refuge environmental
education program and expand the volunteer program. Interpretation and educational efforts would be
expanded through the development of new materials for the public. New visitor facilities would include
wildlife viewing trails, an auto tour route, photography blinds, and parking turnouts. The Service
would compile available data on cultural resources on the Refuge and expand cultural resources
education and interpretive efforts.
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) – Moderate Improvement in Wildlife and Habitat Management
and Minor Increase in Visitor Services: Under this alternative, the Service would reduce some
management actions compared with Alternative B, but would increase monitoring and habitat
protection efforts. Bighorn sheep management would be improved through development of a Sheep
Management Plan. An Inventory and Monitoring Plan would be implemented for special-status
species. The Service would consider reestablishing Pahrump poolfish in the streams, ponds, or springs
at Corn Creek. The Service would use prescribed burns and naturally ignited fires above 5,000 feet to
restore vegetation characteristics representative of a natural fire regime. Additional resource
protection measures would include fencing the eastern boundary (post and cable) where necessary,
posting boundary signs along the entire southern, eastern, and northern boundaries, and expanding
law enforcement presence and patrols throughout the Refuge.
The Service would submit a request to the Service Director to de-designate the Papoose Lake RNA.
Visitor services would be improved similar to Alternative B; however, an auto tour route and wildlife
viewing trails would not be constructed under this alternative. The Service would distribute
educational materials to the public to inform them about the use of fire for habitat management.
Additional cultural resources inventories and studies would be implemented.
Alternative D – Moderate Improvement in Wildlife and Habitat Management and Limited Increase in
Visitor Services: Under this alternative, the Service would implement similar wildlife management
actions as Alternatives B and C with a slight increase in habitat protection. Instead of transplanting
sheep between populations, as identified under Alternative B, the Service would translocate sheep
from outside sources onto the Refuge as needed to maintain and increase Refuge subpopulations and
improve genetic diversity. Additional habitat monitoring would occur on the Refuge. The Service would
construct a post-and-cable fence along the northwest boundary of the East Pahranagat Range Unit.
Under this alternative, the Service would implement fewer management actions than Alternatives B
and C with regard to visitor services. Additional visitor services related to wildlife observation and
photography would be expanded as under Alternatives B; however, the Service would not improve
Mormon Well and Alamo Roads, construct an auto tour route or wildlife viewing trails in Gass Peak
and Sheep Range Units, or map trails at Gass Peak and Sheep Range. The volunteer program would
be expanded to a lesser extent than under the other action alternatives, and public outreach and
cultural resources education would be minimal.
Moapa Valley NWR
A number of current management actions would be implemented for the Moapa Valley NWR under
each of the alternatives. Common to all actions include restoring habitat on the Plummer Unit,
removing nonnative aquatic species from Refuge waters, surveying and monitoring Moapa dace and
Moapa White River springfish populations, monitoring water resources, protecting Refuge resources,
using volunteers for restoration projects, and managing cultural resources on a project-by-project
basis.
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-21
Alternative A – No Action: The Service would continue current management programs with no
additional habitat management. The Refuge would remain closed to the general public, and the Service
would continue limited participation in local community events. Information about Refuge resources
would be provided to visitors and the public upon request.
Alternative B – Improve Habitat and Wildlife Management on Portions of the Refuge and Increase
Visitor Services: Under this alternative, the Service would improve habitat and wildlife management
on portions of the Refuge. The alternative includes actions to restore habitat, gather baseline and
population data, manage water resources, and remove invasive species. The Service would restore
Moapa dace habitat on the Pedersen Unit. Inventories and monitoring would be expanded to include
other endemic fish, invertebrates, and wildlife species, focusing on federally listed or other special-status
species. The Service would develop a long-term Water Resources Management Plan for the
Refuge and implement additional actions to improve monitoring of the springs and streams. Habitat
protection efforts would also be expanded.
Visitor services would be expanded through opening of the Refuge to the public on a limited basis. New
facilities would be constructed to accommodate the increase in visitors, and the environmental
education and interpretation programs would be improved. The Service would develop an
environmental education program and create interpretive and environmental educational materials for
distribution to the public.
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) – Improve Habitat and Wildlife Management Throughout the
Refuge and Expand Visitor Services: Under this alternative, the Service would implement Refuge-wide
habitat restoration efforts and expand the Refuge boundary by approximately 1,500 acres. Step-down
habitat management plans would be prepared for habitats within the expanded boundary. In
addition to restoring the springs and streams on the Plummer and Pedersen Units, the Service would
complete restoration of the spring heads and channels on the Apcar Unit. Inventory and monitoring
efforts would be expanded to include additional wildlife species.
Visitor services would be improved beyond Alternative B by opening the Refuge daily to the public and
providing more programs for public use. The Service would develop an environmental education
program at the Refuge and develop interpretive and environmental education materials for
distribution to the public. A self-guided trail system would be constructed along the spring head, pools,
and riparian corridor on the Plummer Unit to accommodate visitors. The Service would expand
outreach through construction of a permanent environmental education display at the Moapa Valley
Community Center or other local public venue. In addition, the Service would conduct a cultural
resources inventory of the entire Refuge to assist in future planning efforts and improve management
and protection of significant sites from inadvertent public visitation impacts.
Pahranagat NWR
A number of current management actions would be implemented for the Pahranagat NWR under each
of the alternatives. Common to all actions include maintaining the current amounts of open water (640
acres), wet meadow (700 acres), and alkali flat (350 acres) habitats; implementing a wetland restoration
plan for open water habitat; continuing water resources management to maintain the habitats;
controlling carp populations; removing and controlling invasive plants; protecting Refuge habitats;
implementing spring habitat Restoration Plans; monitoring Refuge habitats and plant and wildlife
species; and providing a variety of recreational opportunities.
Alternative A – No Action: The Service would continue current management programs for habitat
management and public use opportunities. The Service would continue to implement limited
interpretation, environmental education, and outreach activities. The Service would continue to provide
appropriate interpretive information on cultural resources to visitors at the visitor contact station
through informal outreach and protect cultural resources on a case-by-case basis.
Summary
S-22 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Alternative B – Limited Improvements in Water Resource and Habitat Management and Minor
Increase in Visitor Services: Under this alternative, the Service would expand water monitoring,
invasive plant removal efforts, foraging habitat for sandhill cranes, bird surveys, and habitat protection
efforts. A new refugium for Pahranagat roundtail chub is also considered under this alternative
pending a feasibility assessment. To increase wildlife diversity, the Service would plant and irrigate 40
acres of grain crops between Upper Pahranagat Lake and Middle Marsh.
Visitor services would be improved to accommodate an increase in visitors and monitor visitor use. The
visitor contact station would be expanded to accommodate the growing number of visitors; new
interpretive panels would replace old panels at the kiosk; environmental education and interpretive
materials would be developed, including “least-wanted” posters for invasive plant species; and a
wildlife observation trail system would be constructed throughout the Refuge, possibly along the
historic farming and ranching roads. The campground would be maintained, and the Service would
begin collecting fees and limit the length of stays to seven days. Cultural resources management would
also be expanded to compile data on the resources at the Refuge, manage and protect the resources,
and educate the public on the resources.
Alternative C – Minor Improvements in Water Resource and Habitat Management and Minor
Increase in Visitor Services: Under this alternative, the Service would provide increased invasive
species control, additional species inventories, additional grain crops for foraging, improved water
resources management, and additional restoration of springs and riparian habitat. The Service would
implement a species Inventory and Monitoring Plan for marsh birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds. To
increase wildlife diversity, the Service would plant and irrigate 65 acres of grain crops. To improve
habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher, the Service would plant and establish 200 additional
acres of willow habitat between Upper Pahranagat Lake and Middle Marsh.
Visitor services would also be improved similar to Alternative B, except the campground would be
converted to a day use area. Visitor facilities would be improved and maintained for visitor safety,
including constructing an interpretive walking trail that connects Upper Pahranagat Lake with the
Headquarters Unit, constructing a new visitor contact station and office space at the Headquarters
Unit, constructing additional parking at the Headquarters Unit, and constructing photography and
observation blinds along the trail route. Turn lanes would be created along U.S. Highway 93 in
coordination with Nevada Department of Transportation to allow visitors to safely turn onto the
Refuge. Cultural resources would be inventoried, and the Service would expand cultural resources
management and protection efforts.
Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) – Moderate Improvements in Water Resource and Habitat
Management and Moderate Increase in Visitor Services: Under this alternative, the Service would
expand upon management actions presented in Alternatives B and C, including restoring additional
foraging habitat for sandhill cranes, acquiring additional water rights, expanding monitoring efforts
for wildlife, and expanding invasive plant control efforts. The Service would restore the historic stream
channel and riparian corridor (5–10 acres) through Black Canyon. After salt cedar is controlled around
Lower Pahranagat Lake, native upland habitat would be restored. To protect the Refuge’s habitats
and resources and prevent encroachment, a fence would be installed along the eastern boundary.
Visitor services would be similar to Alternative B, except the campground would be converted to a day
use area and vehicle access would not be allowed. In addition, the boat ramps would be closed, and a
car-top boat launch would be designated. To expand cultural resources management, the Service
would identify cultural resources that could educate visitors; coordinate with local affiliated tribes on
their educational, scientific, and traditional cultural needs; and conduct an ethnobotany and traditional
plant use study.
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-31
Implementation of the preferred alternative for each refuge in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable future actions in the southern Nevada region could result in cumulative impacts on
physical resources (primarily water resources), biological resources (habitats and special-status
species), cultural resources, and socioeconomic resources (including recreation). These impacts could
be cumulatively considerable, depending on the specific nature of each action and the resources that
would be affected. Larger development projects or activities that would result in a substantial amount
of ground disturbance would result in cumulatively significant impacts on water quality, sensitive
habitats and species, and cultural resources. Improved recreational opportunities in southern Nevada
would provide a cumulative benefit to the public, and a cumulative increase in visitor use and
development could improve the local economy.
Implementation of the Proposed Action (implementing the preferred alternative for each refuge)
would result in direct emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) during ground-disturbing activities
(temporary emissions) due to construction and restoration projects and fire management activities
(particularly fuels reduction). Fire management would help prevent catastrophic wildfire over the long
term and reduce long-term GHG emissions. Indirect, long-term emissions of GHG would occur due to
increased visitation by the public and increased employee vehicle trips (as staff grows).
The Service has conducted an analysis and evaluation of the environmental consequences of
implementing the various alternatives described for each refuge. This impact evaluation has
considered all aspects of the affected environment, including physical, biological, cultural, and socio-economic
resources. A summary of potential effects from implementing the alternatives proposed for
the Ash Meadows, Desert, Moapa Valley, and Pahranagat NWRs is presented in Tables 1 through 4.
Environmental Consequences
Summary
Table 1. Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Physical Environment
Soils Temporary adverse effects related to soil
erosion during restoration activities.
Potential loss of topsoil from facility
construction.
Same as Alternative A, only slightly
more adverse. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) would reduce impacts
on soil.
Same as Alternative B, only more
adverse.
Surface Water Hydrology Temporary surface water diversions
during refugia construction.
Same as Alternative A. Temporary diversions during refugia
construction and hydrologic restoration
projects. Improved long-term surface
flows from changes in hydrology.
Surface Water Quality Potential temporary adverse effects on
water quality during construction,
restoration, and other ground-disturbance
activities near springs,
streams, and open water sources. Long-term
improvement in water quality with
restoration of native vegetation.
Same as Alternative A, only slightly
more adverse. Greater long-term benefit
from increased restoration. BMPs would
reduce impacts on water quality.
Same as Alternative B, only more
adverse. Greater long-term benefit from
increased restoration.
Air Quality Temporary adverse construction
emissions during restoration activities
and facility construction. Similar traffic-related
emissions and wildfire impacts as
current conditions.
Temporary adverse construction
emissions during restoration activities
and facility construction (slightly more
adverse than Alternative A). Minor long-term
increase in traffic-related
emissions. Minor temporary adverse
impacts from prescribed burns and
wildfires. BMPs would reduce impacts
on air quality.
Same as Alternative B, only more
adverse.
Biological Resources
Alkali Wet Meadow Temporary disturbance with long-term
benefit from restoration of 70 acres of
alkali wet meadow.
Temporary disturbance with long-term
benefit from restoration of 520 acres of
alkali wet meadow.
Temporary disturbance with long-term
benefit from restoration of 650 acres of
alkali wet meadow.
Mesquite Bosque/Lowland
Riparian
Temporary disturbance with long-term
benefit from restoration of 30 acres of
mesquite bosque/lowland riparian.
Temporary disturbance with long-term
benefit from restoration of 220 acres of
mesquite bosque/lowland riparian.
Temporary disturbance with long-term
benefit from restoration of 520 acres of
mesquite bosque/lowland riparian.
Emergent Marsh Same as existing conditions. Temporary disturbance with long-term
benefit from restoration of 150 acres of
emergent marsh.
Same as Alternative B.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-32
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-33
Table 1. Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Biological Resources, continued
Upland Habitat Temporary disturbance with long-term
benefit from restoration of 30 acres of
upland habitat.
Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.
Sensitive Plants Potential adverse impacts on sensitive
plants from construction activities.
Long-term benefit from habitat
restoration and protection.
Greater potential for adverse impacts on
sensitive plants from increased
construction activities. Greater long-term
benefit from increased habitat
restoration and protection and
transplanting. Pre-construction surveys
and facility design could reduce
substantial impacts to sensitive plant
populations.
Same as Alternative B with a greater
benefit from restoration, transplanting,
and modification of Crystal Reservoir.
Invasive Plants Long-term benefit from removal of
invasive plants at restoration areas.
Greater long-term benefit from removal
of invasive plants at restoration areas
and controlling salt cedar and Russian
knapweed populations.
Same as Alternative B with a greater
benefit from salt cedar and Russian
knapweed control.
Common Wildlife Species Potential minor temporary adverse
impacts from construction and
restoration activities. Long-term benefit
from habitat restoration and protection.
Same as Alternative A, only more
adverse impacts and greater long-term
benefits from habitat restoration and
protection. Standard construction
measures would reduce impacts during
construction.
Same as Alternative B with a greater
benefit from restoration.
Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher
Potential temporary adverse impacts
from construction and restoration
activities. Minor long-term benefit from
riparian habitat restoration.
Greater potential for temporary adverse
impacts from increased construction and
restoration activities. Greater long-term
benefit from riparian habitat restoration.
Pre-construction surveys and standard
construction measures could reduce
impacts during construction and
restoration.
Same as Alternative B with a greater
long-term benefit.
Summary
S-34 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Table 1. Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Biological Resources, continued
Migratory Songbirds Potential temporary adverse impacts
from construction and restoration
activities. Minor long-term benefit from
habitat restoration.
Greater potential for temporary adverse
impacts from increased construction and
restoration activities. Greater long-term
benefit from increased habitat
restoration. Pre-construction surveys
and standard construction measures
could reduce impacts during
construction and restoration.
Same as Alternative B with a greater
long-term benefit.
Sensitive Fish Potential temporary adverse impacts
from construction and restoration
activities. Improved habitat conditions
with establishment of refugia and
minimal control of predatory species.
Greater potential for temporary adverse
impacts from increased construction and
restoration activities. Greater long-term
benefit from habitat restoration on
portions of the Refuge, increased control
of predatory and pest aquatic species,
and establishment of refugia. Seasonal
construction and standard construction
measures, including BMPs, could reduce
impacts during construction and
restoration.
Same as Alternative B with a greater
long-term benefit from additional
restoration throughout the Refuge,
including at Crystal Reservoir.
Invasive Fish Long-term adverse impacts on sensitive
fish with minimal invasive fish control
efforts.
Reduced long-term adverse impacts on
sensitive fish with increased invasive fish
control efforts.
Greater reduction in long-term adverse
impacts on sensitive fish with increased
invasive fish control efforts and
modification of Crystal Reservoir.
Cultural Resources
Buried Cultural Resources Potential adverse impacts on buried
cultural resources during ground-disturbance
activities.
Slightly increased potential adverse
impacts on buried cultural resources
during ground-disturbance activities.
Mitigation measures could reduce
impacts to resources during ground-disturbance.
Same as Alternative B only greater
potential with more activities.
Aboveground Cultural
Resources
Same as existing conditions (vandalism
and degradation with minimal
enforcement or protection efforts).
Reduced potential for vandalism or
degradation of cultural resources from
visitor use from increased law
enforcement and protection efforts.
Same as Alternative B only less potential
with increased law enforcement and
protection.
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-35
Table 1. Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Public Access and Recreation
Public Access Temporary access restrictions during
restoration and construction activities.
Long-term access same as existing
(generally unrestricted).
Increase in temporary access
restrictions during restoration and
construction activities. Improved long-term
access with road improvements and
control with law enforcement and other
control measures. Mitigation measures
would reduce access restrictions during
construction and restoration.
Same as Alternative B with greater
temporary access restrictions and
improved long-term access.
Recreation Temporary restrictions on activities
during restoration and construction
activities. Long-term recreation
opportunities same as existing.
Increase in temporary restrictions on
activities during restoration and
construction activities. Improved and
expanded long-term recreation
opportunities. Mitigation measures
would reduce restrictions during
construction and restoration.
Same as Alternative B with greater
temporary activity restrictions and
improved long-term opportunities.
Social and Economic Conditions
Refuge Management Same as existing conditions. Minor increase in Refuge management
budget and staff to implement the
alternative.
Moderate increase in Refuge
management budget and staff to
implement the alternative.
Local Economics Same as existing conditions. Minor improvement to local economics
with increase in visitors and projects.
Moderate improvement to local
economics with increase in visitors and
projects.
Environmental Justice Same as existing conditions. Minor benefit to local communities with
increased recreational opportunities and
improved access.
Moderate benefit to local communities
with increased recreational opportunities
and improved access.
Land Use Same as existing conditions. Reduced land use conflicts with
acquisition of private parcels.
Same as Alternative B.
Aesthetics Temporary adverse impacts during
construction and restoration activities.
Long-term benefits from restoration
activities.
Same as Alternative A, only more
temporary adverse impacts and greater
long-term benefits from habitat
restoration and improved facilities.
Mitigation measures would reduce
impacts during construction.
Same as Alternative B with a greater
long-term benefit.
Summary
Table 2. Desert National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) Alternative D
Physical Environment
Soils Same as existing
conditions.
Potential for soil erosion from
construction activities. Best
Management Practices (BMPs)
would reduce impacts on soil.
Potential for soil erosion from prescribed
fire, but reduced potential from
construction. BMPs would reduce
impacts on soil.
Same as Alternative C
with less erosion
potential from less
construction.
Surface Water Quality Same as existing
conditions.
Temporary impacts to surface
water quality from construction
activities. BMPs would reduce
impacts on water quality.
Less adverse impacts from construction
activities, and minor impacts from
vegetation removal. BMPs would reduce
impacts on water quality.
Same as Alternative
C.
Air Quality Same as existing
conditions.
Temporary adverse
construction emissions during
construction activities. Minor
long-term increase in traffic-related
emissions. BMPs would
reduce impacts on air quality.
Reduced air quality impacts from
construction. Minor temporary adverse
impacts from prescribed burns. Minor
long-term increase in traffic-related
emissions. BMPs would reduce impacts
on air quality.
Same as Alternative C
with reduced air
quality impact from
less construction.
Biological Resources
Upland Habitat Same as existing
conditions.
Minor loss of vegetation from
construction. Long-term
benefit from habitat protection.
Same as Alternative B, only reduced loss
of vegetation and greater long-term
benefit from increased protection.
Temporary disturbance from prescribed
burns.
Same as Alternative
C, only greater long-term
benefit from
increased protection.
Sensitive Plants Same as existing
conditions.
Potential for adverse impacts
on sensitive plants from
construction activities. Long-term
benefit from increased
habitat protection. Pre-construction
surveys and
facility design could reduce
substantial impacts to sensitive
plant populations.
Same as Alternative B with less potential
for construction impacts and greater
benefit from increased protection.
Same as Alternative
C.
Common Wildlife Species Same as existing
conditions.
Potential minor temporary
adverse impacts from
construction activities.
Standard construction
measures would reduce impacts
during construction.
Same as Alternative B, only less
potential for construction impacts.
Same as Alternative
C.
S-36 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-37
Table 2. Desert National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) Alternative D
Biological Resources, continued
Desert Tortoise/Gila Monster Same as existing
conditions.
Potential temporary adverse
impacts from construction
activities. Minor long-term
benefit from habitat protection.
Pre-construction surveys and
standard construction
measures could reduce impacts
during construction.
Same as Alternative B, only less adverse
construction impacts and greater long-term
benefit from increased protection.
Same as Alternative
C.
Resident Birds Same as existing
conditions.
Potential temporary adverse
impacts from construction
activities. Minor long-term
benefit from habitat protection.
Same as Alternative B, only less adverse
construction impacts and greater long-term
benefit from increased protection.
Increased impacts from prescribed
burns.
Same as Alternative
C.
Bighorn Sheep Same as existing
conditions.
Temporary disturbance during
construction. Long-term
improvement to habitat and
populations.
Same as Alternative B, only greater
benefit to sheep habitat and
management.
Same as Alternative
C, only greater
benefit to sheep
management, habitat,
and populations.
Sensitive Fish Same as existing
conditions.
Same as Alternative A. Potential expanded population of
Pahrump poolfish through
reintroduction to Corn Creek.
Same as Alternative
C.
Cultural Resources
Buried Cultural Resources Same as existing
conditions.
Potential adverse impacts on
buried cultural resources
during ground-disturbance
activities. Mitigation measures
could reduce impacts to
resources during ground
disturbance.
Same as Alternative B with slightly less
potential due to less ground disturbance.
Same as Alternative
C.
Aboveground Cultural
Resources
Same as existing
conditions (vandalism
and degradation with
minimal enforcement or
protection efforts).
Reduced potential for
vandalism or degradation of
cultural resources from visitor
use from increased law
enforcement and protection
efforts.
Same as Alternative B, only less
potential with increased law enforcement
and protection.
Same as Alternative
C, only less potential
with increased
protection.
Summary
S-38 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Table 2. Desert National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) Alternative D
Public Access and Recreation
Public Access Same as existing
conditions.
Temporary access restrictions
during construction activities.
Improved long-term access
with road improvements and
control with law enforcement
and other control measures.
Mitigation measures would
reduce access restrictions
during construction.
Same as Alternative B with greater
temporary access restrictions and
increased control of access.
Same as Alternative C
with increased control
of access.
Recreation Same as existing
conditions.
Temporary restrictions on
activities during construction
activities. Improved and
expanded long-term recreation
opportunities. Mitigation
measures would reduce
restrictions during
construction.
Same as Alternative B with greater
temporary activity restrictions and
fewer long-term opportunities.
Same as Alternative C
with fewer long-term
opportunities.
Social and Economic Conditions
Refuge Management Same as existing
conditions.
Minor increase in Refuge
management budget and staff
to implement the alternative.
Moderate increase in Refuge
management budget and staff to
implement the alternative.
Same as Alternative
C.
Local Economics Same as existing
conditions.
Moderate improvement to local
economics with increase in
visitors and projects.
Minor improvement to local economics
with increase in visitors and projects.
Same as Alternative
C.
Environmental Justice Same as existing
conditions.
Moderate benefit to local
communities with increased
recreational opportunities and
improved access.
Minor benefit to local communities with
increased recreational opportunities.
Same as Alternative
C.
Land Use Same as existing
conditions.
Reduced land use conflicts with
improved access control.
Same as Alternative B with greater
access control and minor land use
change with de-designation of a
Research Natural Area.
Same as Alternative C
with additional access
control.
Aesthetics Same as existing
conditions.
Minor improvement to
aesthetics with habitat
protection.
Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative
B.
Summary
Table 3. Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Physical Environment
Soils Temporary adverse effects
related to soil erosion during
restoration activities.
Same as Alternative A, only slightly
more adverse and potential loss of
topsoil from facility construction. Best
Management Practices (BMPs) would
reduce impacts on soil.
Same as Alternative B, only more adverse.
Surface Water Quality Potential temporary adverse
effects on water quality during
restoration near springs, streams,
and open water sources. Long-term
improvement in water
quality with restoration of native
vegetation.
Same as Alternative A, only slightly
more adverse with additional restoration
and facility construction. Greater long-term
benefit from increased restoration.
BMPs would reduce impacts on water
quality.
Same as Alternative B, only more adverse.
Greater long-term benefit from increased
restoration.
Air Quality Temporary adverse construction
emissions during restoration
activities. Similar traffic-related
emissions as current conditions.
Temporary adverse construction
emissions during restoration activities
and facility construction (more adverse
than Alternative A). Minor long-term
increase in traffic-related emissions.
Minor temporary adverse impacts from
prescribed burns. BMPs would reduce
impacts on air quality.
Same as Alternative B, only more adverse.
Biological Resources
Riparian Habitat Temporary disturbance with
long-term benefit from
restoration activities.
Temporary disturbance with long-term
benefit from restoration activities and
fire management actions. Potential
minor loss of vegetation from facility
construction. Standard construction
measures would reduce impacts during
construction.
Same as Alternative B with slightly more
disturbance and greater long-term benefit.
Upland Habitat Same as existing conditions. Minor loss of vegetation from facility
construction. Long-term benefit from
invasive plant control and habitat
protection efforts. Standard construction
measures would reduce impacts during
construction.
Same as Alternative B.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-39
Summary
S-40 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Table 3. Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Biological Resources, continued
Invasive Plants Long-term benefit from removal
of invasive plants at restoration
areas.
Same as Alternative A, only greater
benefit.
Same as Alternative B.
Common Wildlife Species Potential minor temporary
adverse impacts from restoration
activities. Long-term benefit from
habitat restoration.
Same as Alternative A, only more
adverse impacts and greater long-term
benefits from habitat restoration and
protection. Standard construction
measures would reduce impacts during
construction.
Same as Alternative B with a greater benefit
from restoration and Refuge expansion.
Riparian Species Potential temporary adverse
impacts from restoration
activities. Minor long-term
benefit from riparian habitat
restoration.
Greater potential for temporary adverse
impacts from increased construction and
restoration activities. Greater long-term
benefit from riparian habitat restoration.
Pre-construction surveys and standard
construction measures could reduce
impacts during construction and
restoration.
Same as Alternative B with a greater long-term
benefit from restoration and Refuge expansion.
Desert Tortoise/Gila Monster Same as existing conditions. Potential for temporary adverse impacts
from construction activities. Long-term
benefit from habitat protection. Pre-construction
surveys and standard
construction measures could reduce
impacts during construction.
Same as Alternative B with a greater long-term
benefit from Refuge expansion.
Sensitive Fish Potential temporary adverse
impacts from restoration
activities. Improved habitat
conditions with restoration.
Greater potential for temporary adverse
impacts from increased construction and
restoration activities. Greater long-term
benefit from habitat restoration.
Seasonal construction and standard
construction measures, including BMPs,
could reduce impacts during
construction and restoration.
Same as Alternative B with a greater long-term
benefit from restoration and Refuge expansion.
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-41
Table 3. Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Cultural Resources
Buried Cultural Resources Potential adverse impacts on
buried cultural resources during
ground-disturbance activities.
Slightly increased potential adverse
impacts on buried cultural resources
during ground-disturbance activities.
Mitigation measures could reduce
impacts to resources during ground-disturbance.
Same as Alternative B, only greater potential
with more activities.
Public Access and Recreation
Public Access Same as existing conditions. Improved long-term access with new
visitor facilities and opening the Refuge
on a limited basis.
Same as Alternative B with opening the Refuge
on a daily basis.
Recreation Same as existing conditions. Expanded long-term recreation
opportunities.
Same as Alternative B with more long-term
opportunities.
Social and Economic Conditions
Refuge Management Same as existing conditions. Minor increase in Refuge management
budget and staff to implement the
alternative.
Moderate increase in Refuge management
budget and staff to implement the alternative.
Local Economics Same as existing conditions. Minor improvement to local economics
with increase in visitors and projects.
Moderate improvement to local economics with
increase in visitors and projects.
Environmental Justice Same as existing conditions. Minor benefit to local communities with
increased recreational opportunities and
improved access.
Moderate benefit to local communities with
increased recreational opportunities and
improved access.
Land Use Same as existing conditions. Same as existing conditions. Improved Refuge management with expansion of
Refuge.
Aesthetics Same as existing conditions. Minimal adverse impacts from
construction and restoration. Long-term
benefits from habitat restoration.
Same as Alternative B with a greater long-term
benefit.
Summary
Table 4. Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)
Physical Environment
Soils Potential for soil
erosion from
restoration activities.
Potential for soil erosion from
construction and restoration
activities. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) would reduce
impacts on soil.
Same as Alternative B, only
greater potential for soil
erosion from increased
activities.
Same as Alternative C, only greater
potential for soil erosion from increased
activities.
Surface Water Hydrology Improved hydrology
from restoration
activities.
Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, only greater
improvement with additional restoration.
Surface Water Quality Temporary impacts to
surface water quality
from restoration
activities.
Temporary impacts to surface
water quality from construction
and restoration activities. BMPs
would reduce impacts on water
quality.
Same as Alternative B, only
increased impacts from
additional activities and
herbicide use.
Same as Alternative C.
Water Use Same as existing
conditions.
Modified and expanded water use
from increased visitor use and
restoration. Mitigation measures
could reduce impacts on the
groundwater table.
Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B with additional
water rights.
Air Quality Temporary adverse
emissions during
restoration activities
and prescribed burns.
Similar traffic-related
emissions as existing
conditions.
Temporary adverse construction
emissions during construction and
restoration activities and
prescribed burns. Minor long-term
increase in traffic-related
emissions. BMPs would reduce
impacts on air quality.
Same as Alternative B, only
slightly more adverse.
Same as Alternative C, only more
adverse.
Biological Resources
Wetland and Open Water
Habitat
Temporary
disturbance with long-term
benefit from
restoration.
Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A with greater long-term
benefit with additional restoration.
Riparian Habitat Temporary
disturbance with long-term
benefit from
restoration.
Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, only
greater benefit over long-term
with additional
restoration.
Same as Alternative C with greater long-term
benefit.
S-42 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-43
Table 4. Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)
Biological Resources, continued
Upland Habitat Same as existing
conditions.
Minor loss of vegetation from
construction. Long-term benefit
from habitat protection. Standard
construction measures would
reduce impacts during
construction.
Same as Alternative B with
additional disturbance from
construction, but greater
benefit from increased
protection.
Same as Alternative C with additional
protection.
Invasive Plants Same as existing
conditions.
Minor increase in invasive plant
removal efforts.
Moderate increase in
invasive plant removal
efforts.
Same as Alternative C.
Common Wildlife Species Potential minor
temporary adverse
impacts from
restoration activities.
Long-term benefit
from restoration.
Potential temporary adverse
impacts from restoration and
construction activities. Long-term
benefits from habitat restoration.
Standard construction measures
would reduce impacts during
construction.
Same as Alternative B, only
slightly greater potential
for temporary impacts and
greater long-term benefit.
Same as Alternative C, only greater
potential for temporary impacts and
greater long-term benefit.
Desert Tortoise Same as existing
conditions.
Potential temporary adverse
impacts from construction
activities. Minor long-term
benefit from habitat protection.
Pre-construction surveys and
standard construction measures
could reduce impacts during
construction.
Same as Alternative B, only
slightly greater potential
for construction impacts
and greater long-term
benefit from increased
protection.
Same as Alternative C with additional
protection.
Migratory Birds Potential temporary
adverse impacts from
restoration activities.
Long-term benefit
from restoration.
Same as Alternative A. Pre-construction
surveys and
standard construction measures
could reduce impacts during
construction.
Same as Alternative A, only
greater benefit over the
long term with additional
restoration.
Same as Alternative C with greater long-term
benefit.
Pahranagat Roundtail
Chub
Same as existing
conditions.
Long-term benefit from refugium
construction.
Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.
Summary
S-44 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Table 4. Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)
Cultural Resources
Buried Cultural
Resources
Same as existing
conditions.
Potential adverse impacts on
buried cultural resources during
ground-disturbance activities.
Mitigation measures could reduce
impacts to resources during
ground disturbance.
Same as Alternative B with
slightly greater potential
due to increased ground
disturbance.
Same as Alternative C with greater
potential due to increased ground
disturbance.
Aboveground Cultural
Resources
Same as existing
conditions (vandalism
and degradation with
minimal protection
efforts).
Reduced potential for vandalism
or degradation of cultural
resources from visitor use from
increased protection efforts.
Same as Alternative B, only
less potential with increased
protection.
Same as Alternative C, only less
potential with increased protection.
Public Access and Recreation
Public Access Same as existing
conditions.
Temporary access restrictions
during construction activities.
Improved long-term access with
facility improvements. Mitigation
measures would reduce access
restrictions during construction.
Same as Alternative B with
greater temporary access
restrictions.
Same as Alternative C with increased
control of access.
Recreation Same as existing
conditions.
Temporary restrictions on
activities during construction
activities. Improved and
expanded long-term recreation
opportunities.
Same as Alternative B with
greater temporary activity
restrictions and more long-term
opportunities.
Same as Alternative C.
Social and Economic Conditions
Refuge Management Same as existing
conditions.
Minor increase in Refuge
management budget and staff to
implement the alternative.
Moderate increase in
Refuge management budget
and staff to implement the
alternative.
Same as Alternative C.
Local Economics Same as existing
conditions.
Minor improvement to local
economics with increase in
visitors and projects.
Moderate improvement to
local economics with
increase in visitors and
projects.
Same as Alternative C.
Environmental Justice Same as existing
conditions.
Minor benefit to local
communities with increased
recreational opportunities and
improved access.
Moderate benefit to local
communities with increased
recreational opportunities
and improved access.
Same as Alternative C.
Summary
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement S-45
Table 4. Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)
Social and Economic Conditions, continued
Aesthetics Minor improvement to
aesthetics with habitat
restoration.
Temporary adverse impacts on
aesthetics during construction
activities. Long-term benefit from
restoration activities. Mitigation
measures could reduce
construction impacts.
Same as Alternative B, only
greater impacts with more
activities.
Same as Alternative C.
Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
4701 North Torrey Pines Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89130
Telephone: 710/515 5450
Fax: 702/515 5460
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1 800-344 WILD
www.fws.gov
July 2008
Photo: USFWS