Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Ash Meadows, Desert, Moapa Valley, and Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuges Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Summary

              U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Ash Meadows, Desert, Moapa Valley, and Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuges
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Summary – August 2009
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.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-1832 Sacramento, CA 95825
August 2009 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) was made available for public review and comment from July 11, 2008, through September 9, 2008. The Draft CCP/EIS has been 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 NWR1, 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.
1 The official name is Desert National Wildlife Range; however, throughout this document, it is referred to by its common name, Desert National Wildlife Refuge.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-1 Summary
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 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 Final CCP/EIS
The Final 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 Final 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
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-7 Summary
• 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.
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).
S-8 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
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.
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.
Ash Meadows NWR is situated within the unincorporated township of 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
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-9 Summary
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, and virtual geocaching (use of geographic positioning systems for treasure hunting).
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.
S-10 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
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).
“...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 developed 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). Provide visitors with opportunities to 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
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-11 Summary
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.
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). Provide local communities and others with opportunities to 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.
S-12 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
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 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,
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-13 Summary
natural Mojave Desert community for the enjoyment of present and future
generations of Americans.
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?
•
How can refuge springs be protected from impacts of proposed groundwater development in the region?
•
Climate Change: How will climate change affect refuge resources?
Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved
The following areas of controversy have been identified and will need to be resolved prior to implementation of the management actions at each refuge:
•
Public comments revealed that there is concern and controversy about the potential conversion of the Pahranagat overnight camping facilities to day use only.
•
Potential impacts resulting from both existing and proposed groundwater development is an area of controversy reflected in the comments received regarding the Draft CCP/EIS.
S-14 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
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.
•
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 currently lacks adequate data on the impacts to wells and springs on the refuges as a result of groundwater developments. Further research and studies would need to be conducted to ensure the groundwater development activities do not.
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; continuing research activities through special use permits, and expanding visitor services and public use opportunities, specifically through construction of boardwalks and interpretive displays and development of environmental education 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.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-15 Summary
The Service would continue to allow research on a case-by-case basis. The Service would also continue to provide limited environmental education activities and off-Refuge outreach about the value of wildlife and the public’s involvement on the Refuge. Boat access for waterfowl hunting would continue to be allowed. 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, hydrology modification, 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 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. The Service will continue coordination with the Private Lands Program to assist private landowners with the removal of salt cedar and planting native species within the Refuge boundary. Pest species management (e.g., crayfish) would include the 10 most infested and important Refuge aquatic systems.
Research topics would be expanded under this alternative. Visitor services would be improved through development and implementation of Interpretive, 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 (40 to 65 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 under this alternative, three off-site programs would be provided to local public and home schools. Additional off-Refuge cooperative agreements would be developed with public, non-government entities and private partners to provide off-Refuge educational outreach to the local public.
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;
S-16 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
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.
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 in appropriate plant communities 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.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-17 Summary
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 Refuge, 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.
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 1,765 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.
S-18 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
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.
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, and habitat protection efforts. The Service would obtain waterfowl data collected by other agencies on a seasonal basis. A new refugium for Pahranagat roundtail chub is also considered under this alternative pending a feasibility assessment.
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. The campground would be maintained, and the Service would begin collecting fees and limit the length of stays to seven days. Generators would be prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a. m. 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, 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 improve habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher, the Service would monitor the impacts of fishing on bird use and the response of birds to the current habitat restoration and management plan.
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
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-19 Summary
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 acquiring additional water rights, expanding monitoring efforts for wildlife, and modeling climate change impact scenarios and adaptation strategies would be developed. Native upland habitat adjacent to Lower Pahranagat Lake 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 C, including conversion of the campground to day use only. In addition, the boat ramps would be closed, and a car-top boat launch would be designated. A new wildlife observation structure would be developed. 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.
S-20 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
Environmental Consequences
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 socio­economic 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.
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).
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.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-25 Summary
Table 1. Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource Alternative A Physical Environment
Alternative B
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Soils Minimal long-term beneficial effect due
Same as Alternative A, only slightly
Same as Alternative B, only more
to restoration activities. Temporary
more beneficial long-term effects due to
beneficial long-term effects and
adverse effects related to soil erosion
increased restoration. Slightly higher
temporary adverse effects due to
during restoration activities. Potential
temporary adverse effects. Best
additional restoration activities.
loss of topsoil from facility construction.
Management Practices (BMPs) would
reduce impacts on soil.
Surface Water Hydrology Minimal long-term beneficial effect from
Same as Alternative A, only slightly
Moderately improved beneficial effects
minor hydrology restoration.
greater intensity of effects due to
due to hydrology restoration throughout
Temporary surface water diversions
increased restoration.
the Refuge. Temporary adverse effects
during refugia construction.
due to diversions during refugia
construction and hydrologic restoration
projects. Improved long-term surface
flows from changes in hydrology.
Surface Water Quality Long-term improvement in water
Same as Alternative A, only slightly
Same as Alternative B, only moderately
quality with restoration of native
more intensity of long-term beneficial
greater intensity of long-term beneficial
vegetation on portions of the Refuge.
and temporary adverse effects from
and temporary adverse effects from
Potential temporary adverse effects on
increased restoration. BMPs would
increased restoration. BMPs would
water quality during construction,
reduce impacts on water quality.
reduce impacts on water quality.
restoration, and other ground-
disturbance activities near springs,
streams, and open water sources.
Air Quality Temporary adverse construction
Slightly more temporary adverse
Same as Alternative B.
emissions during restoration activities
construction emissions during
and facility construction. Similar traffic-
restoration activities and facility
related emissions and wildfire impacts as
construction. Minor long-term increase
current conditions.
in traffic-related emissions. Minor
temporary adverse impacts from
prescribed burns and wildfires. BMPs
Biological Resources
would reduce impacts on air quality.
Alkali Wet Meadow Temporary disturbance with long-term
Temporary disturbance with
Temporary disturbance with
benefit from restoration of 70 acres of
considerably higher long-term benefit
considerably higher long-term benefit
alkali wet meadow.
from restoration of 520 acres of alkali
from restoration of 650 acres of alkali
wet meadow.
wet meadow.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-26 Summary
Table 1. Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource
Mesquite Bosque/Lowland Riparian
Biological Resources, continued
Emergent Marsh
Upland Habitat
Sensitive Plants
Invasive Plants
Common Wildlife Species
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Temporary disturbance with long-term
Temporary disturbance with moderately
Temporary disturbance with
benefit from restoration of 30 acres of
higher long-term benefit from
considerably higher long-term benefit
mesquite bosque/lowland riparian.
restoration of 220 acres of mesquite
from restoration of 550 acres of mesquite
bosque/lowland riparian.
bosque/lowland riparian.
Same as existing conditions.
Temporary disturbance with slightly
Same as Alternative B.
higher long-term benefit from
restoration of 150 acres of emergent
marsh.
Temporary disturbance with long-term
Same as Alternative A, only slightly
Same as Alternative A, only slightly
benefit from restoration of 30 acres of
higher long-term benefit from 30% - 45%
higher long-term benefit from 40% - 65%
upland habitat and rehabilitation of 10%
old agricultural fields.
old agricultural fields.
– 25% of old agricultural fields.
Potential adverse impacts on sensitive
Greater potential for adverse impacts on
Same as Alternative B with a
plants from construction activities.
sensitive plants from increased
considerably higher benefit from
Long-term benefit from habitat
construction activities. Moderately
restoration, transplanting, and
restoration and protection.
higher long-term benefit from increased
modification of Crystal Reservoir.
habitat restoration, protection, and
transplanting. Pre-construction surveys
and facility design could reduce
substantial impacts to sensitive plant
populations.
Minimal long-term benefit from removal
Slightly greater long-term benefit from
Same as Alternative B with a
of invasive plants at restoration areas.
removal of invasive plants at restoration
considerably greater benefit from salt
areas and controlling salt cedar and
cedar and Russian knapweed control.
Russian knapweed populations.
Minimal long-term benefit from habitat
Same as Alternative A, only slightly
Same as Alternative B with moderately
restoration and protection. Potential
more adverse impacts and long-term
greater beneficial and adverse effects
minor temporary adverse impacts from
benefits from habitat restoration and
from restoration activities.
construction and restoration activities.
protection. Standard construction
measures would reduce impacts during
construction.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-27 Summary
Table 1. Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Management Priority Birds
Sensitive Fish
Invasive Fish
Cultural Resources
Buried Cultural Resources
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Minor long-term benefit from riparian
Slightly greater long-term benefit from
Same as Alternative B with a moderately
habitat restoration. Potential temporary
riparian habitat restoration. Greater
greater long-term benefit.
adverse impacts from construction and
potential for temporary adverse impacts
restoration activities.
from increased construction and
restoration activities. Pre-construction
surveys and standard construction
measures could reduce impacts during
construction and restoration.
Minor long-term benefit from habitat
Moderately greater long-term benefit
Same as Alternative B with a
restoration. Potential temporary
from increased habitat restoration.
considerably greater long-term benefit.
adverse impacts from construction and
Greater potential for temporary adverse
restoration activities.
impacts from increased construction and
restoration activities. Pre-construction
surveys and standard construction
measures could reduce impacts during
construction and restoration.
Minimal temporary adverse impacts
Greater potential for temporary adverse
Same as Alternative B with a
from construction and restoration
impacts from increased construction and
considerably greater long-term benefit
activities. Minimal effects from
restoration activities. Moderately
from additional restoration throughout
improved habitat conditions with
greater long-term benefit from habitat
the Refuge, including at Crystal
establishment of refugia and minimal
restoration on portions of the Refuge,
Reservoir.
control of predatory species.
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.
Minimal long-term beneficial impacts on
Slightly higher long-term beneficial
Considerably greater beneficial long-
sensitive fish with minimal invasive fish
impacts on sensitive fish with increased
term impacts on sensitive fish with
control efforts.
invasive fish control efforts.
increased invasive fish control efforts
and modification of Crystal Reservoir.
Potential adverse impacts on buried
Slightly increased potential adverse
Same as Alternative B only greater
cultural resources during ground-
impacts on buried cultural resources
potential with more activities.
disturbance activities.
during ground-disturbance activities.
Mitigation measures could reduce
impacts to resources during ground-
disturbance.
S-28 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex 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)
Aboveground Cultural
Same as existing conditions (vandalism
Reduced potential for vandalism or
Same as Alternative B only less potential
Resources
and degradation with minimal
degradation of cultural resources from
with increased law enforcement and
enforcement or protection efforts).
visitor use from increased law
protection.
enforcement and protection efforts.
Public Access and Recreation
Roads
Same as existing conditions with minor road improvements over the long-term.
Improved long-term access with road improvements and control with law enforcement and other control measures.
Same as Alternative B.
Mitigation measures would reduce access restrictions during construction and restoration.
Public Access, continued
Traffic
Same as existing conditions.
Slightly lower beneficial effects with
Moderately lower beneficial effects with
increased visitor traffic on and to the
great increase in visitor traffic.
Refuge.
Recreation
Visitor Use Facilities
Same as existing conditions.
Recreation Opportunities
Same as existing conditions.
Environmental Education/Interpretation Outreach
Same as existing conditions. Same as existing conditions.
Refuge Management and Local Economies
Refuge Budget and Staffing Same as existing conditions.
Local Economy Same as existing conditions.
Slightly more beneficial effects as more facilities are constructed over the long term.
Slightly higher beneficial effects as opportunities and services improve over the long term. Minimal temporary impacts during some management activities.
Slightly higher beneficial impacts as
more materials are available over time. Slightly higher beneficial impacts as more outreach occurs over time.
Minor increase in Refuge management budget and staff to implement the alternative.
Slight improvement to local economics with increase in visitors and projects.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B but on an accelerated schedule.
Same as Alternative B.
Considerable increase in Refuge management budget and staff to implement the alternative.
Slight improvement to local economics with increase in visitors and projects.
Land Use
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-29 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)
Service-managed Lands within
Same as existing conditions.
Slightly beneficial effects as land use
Same as Alternative B.
Boundary
conflicts are reduced with acquisition of
private parcels over the long term.
Aesthetics
Restoration Activities
Temporary adverse impacts during construction and restoration activities. Minimal long-term visual benefits from
Same as Alternative A, only more temporary adverse impacts and slightly greater long-term benefits from habitat
Same as Alternative B with a greater long-term benefit.
restoration activities.
restoration and improved facilities. Mitigation measures would reduce
impacts during construction.
Visitor Use Facilities
Minimal long-term visual benefits from facility improvements.
Slightly more improved visual character over the long term with temporary adverse effects during construction
Same as Alternative B.
disturbances.
S-30 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
Table 2. Desert National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Physical Environment
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative D
Soils Same as existing Moderately higher potential for
Moderately higher potential for soil
Same as Alternative C
conditions. soil erosion from construction
erosion from prescribed fire, but
with less erosion
activities. Best Management
reduced potential from construction.
potential from less
Practices (BMPs) would reduce
BMPs would reduce impacts on soil.
construction.
impacts on soil.
Surface Water Quality Same as existing Moderately higher temporary
Less adverse impacts from construction
Same as Alternative
conditions. adverse impacts to surface
activities and minor adverse impacts
C.
water quality from construction
from vegetation removal. BMPs would
activities. BMPs would reduce
reduce impacts on water quality.
impacts on water quality.
Air Quality Same as existing Temporary adverse
Reduced air quality impacts from
Same as Alternative C
conditions. construction emissions during
construction. Moderate temporary
with reduced air
construction activities. Minor
adverse impacts from prescribed burns.
quality impact from
long-term increase in traffic-
Minor long-term increase in traffic-
less construction.
related emissions. BMPs
related emissions. BMPs would reduce
would reduce impacts on air
impacts on air quality.
quality.
Biological Resources Upland Habitat
Same as existing conditions.
Sensitive Plants
Same as existing conditions.
Minor loss of vegetation from
Same as Alternative B but with reduced
Same as Alternative
construction. Long-term
loss of vegetation and greater long-term
C, only greater long-
benefit from habitat protection.
benefit from increased protection.
term benefit from
Temporary disturbance from prescribed
increased protection.
burns.
Potential for adverse impacts
Same as Alternative B with less potential
Same as Alternative
on sensitive plants from
for construction impacts and greater
C.
construction activities. Long-
benefit from increased protection.
term benefit from increased
habitat protection. Pre-
construction surveys and
facility design could reduce
substantial impacts to sensitive
plant populations.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-31 Summary
Table 2. Desert National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource
Common Wildlife Species and Managemetn Priority Birds
Biological Resources, continued
Desert Tortoise/Gila Monster
Birds
Gilbert’s skink
Bighorn Sheep
Sensitive Fish
Cultural Resources
Alternative A
Same as existing conditions.
Same as existing conditions.
Same as existing conditions.
Same as existing conditions.
Same as existing conditions.
Same as existing conditions.
Alternative B
Potential minor temporary adverse impacts from construction activities. Standard construction measures would reduce impacts during construction.
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.
Potential temporary adverse impacts from construction activities. Minor long-term benefit from habitat protection.
Potential temporary adverse impacts from construction activities. Minor long-term benefit from habitat protection.
Temporary disturbance during construction. Long-term improvement to habitat and populations.
Same as Alternative A.
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative D
Same as Alternative B, only less
Same as Alternative
potential for construction impacts.
C.
Same as Alternative B, only less adverse
Same as Alternative
construction impacts and greater long-
C.
term benefit from increased protection.
Same as Alternative B, only less adverse
Same as Alternative
construction impacts and greater long-
C.
term benefit from increased protection.
Increased impacts from prescribed
burns.
Same as Alternative B, only less adverse
Same as Alternative
construction impacts and greater long-
C.
term benefit from increased protection.
Increased impacts from prescribed
burns.
Same as Alternative B, only greater
Same as Alternative
benefit to sheep habitat and
C, only greater
management.
benefit to sheep
management, habitat,
and populations.
Potential expanded population of
Same as Alternative
Pahrump poolfish through
C.
reintroduction to Corn Creek.
S-32 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
Table 2. Desert National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource
Buried Cultural Resources
Aboveground Cultural Resources
Public Access
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative D
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.
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.
Access
Same as existing conditions.
Temporary access restrictions during construction activities. Improved long-term access with road improvements and control with law enforcement
Same as Alternative B with greater temporary access restrictions and increased control of access.
Same as Alternative C with increased control of access.
and other control measures.
Mitigation measures would reduce access restrictions
during construction.
Traffic
Same as existing conditions.
Slightly higher long-term adverse effects as increased
Same as Alternative B
Same as Alternative B.
visitor numbers would increase
traffic on and to the Refuge.
Recreation
Visitor Use Facilities
Same as existing conditions.
Moderately higher beneficial impacts as more facilities are constructed.
Slightly higher beneficial impacts as fewer facilities are constructed or improved than in Alternative B.
Same as Alternative C.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-33 Summary
Table 2. Desert National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource
Alternative A
Recreation Opportunities
Same as existing
conditions.
Outreach Same as existing conditions.
Refuge Management and Local Economies
Refuge Budget and Staffing Same as existing conditions.
Local Economy Same as existing conditions.
Land Use
RNAs
Same as existing
Moderate beneficial impacts
Minor land use change with de-
Same as Alternative
conditions.
with improved RNA use.
designation of a Research Natural Area.
C.
Aesthetics
Visitor Use Facilities
Same as existing
Minor adverse impacts om
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative
conditions.
visual quality.
B.
Habitat Protection
Same as existing
Minor improvement to
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative
conditions.
aesthetics with habitat
B.
protection.
Alternative B
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative D
Temporary restrictions on
Same as Alternative B with greater
Same as Alternative C
activities during construction
temporary activity restrictions and
with fewer long-term
activities. Improved and
fewer long-term opportunities.
opportunities.
expanded long-term recreation
opportunities. Mitigation
measures would reduce
restrictions during
construction.
Slightly higher beneficial
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative C
impacts due to some increased
with slightly increased
outreach efforts.
outreach efforts.
Minor increase in Refuge
Moderate increase in Refuge
Same as Alternative
management budget and staff
management budget and staff to
C.
to implement the alternative.
implement the alternative.
Minor improvement to local
Minor improvement to local economics
Same as Alternative
economics with increase in
with increase in visitors and projects.
C.
visitors and projects.
S-34 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
Table 3. Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource Alternative A Physical Environment
Alternative B
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
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. Slightly higher beneficial impacts over time as restoration efforts are
Same as Alternative B, only more adverse.
established. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would reduce impacts on soil.
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.
Same as Alternative B, only more adverse.
Minor temporary adverse impacts from prescribed burns. BMPs would reduce impacts on air quality.
Biological Resources
Riparian/Wetland 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.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-35 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)
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
Same as Alternative B.
impacts during construction.
Biological Resources, continued
Invasive Plants
Common Wildlife Species
Riparian Species
Desert Tortoise/Gila Monster
Southwest Willow Flycatcher and Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Management Priority Birds
Western Yellow Bat
Long-term benefit from removal of invasive plants at restoration areas.
Potential minor temporary adverse impacts from restoration activities. Long-term benefit from habitat restoration.
Potential temporary adverse impacts from restoration activities. Minor long-term benefit from riparian habitat restoration.
Same as existing conditions.
Same as existing conditions.
Same as existing conditions.
Same as existing conditions.
Same as Alternative A, only greater
Same as Alternative B.
benefit.
Same as Alternative A, only more
Same as Alternative B with a greater benefit
adverse impacts and greater long-term
from restoration and Refuge expansion.
benefits from habitat restoration and
protection. Standard construction
measures would reduce impacts during
construction.
Greater potential for temporary adverse
Same as Alternative B with a greater long-term
impacts from increased construction and
benefit from restoration and Refuge expansion.
restoration activities. Greater long-term
benefit from riparian habitat restoration.
Pre-construction surveys and standard
construction measures could reduce
impacts during construction and
restoration.
Potential for temporary adverse impacts
Same as Alternative B with a greater long-term
from construction activities. Long-term
benefit from Refuge expansion.
benefit from habitat protection. Pre-
construction surveys and standard
construction measures could reduce
impacts during construction.
Slightly higher beneficial impacts from
Same as Alternative B with greater beneficial
increased habitat availability on Refuge.
impact from more habitat availability.
Moderately higher beneficial impacts
Considerably higher beneficial impacts with
with increased native habitat.
increased native habitat.
Slightly adverse impact due to loss of
Same as Alternative B but with greater loss of
palm tree habitat on Refuge.
habitat.
S-36 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
Table 3. Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, or C
Resource
Sensitive Fish
Cultural Resources Buried Cultural Resources
Public Access
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C (Preferred Alternative)
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.
Same as Alternative B with a greater long-term benefit from restoration and Refuge expansion.
Seasonal construction and standard
construction measures, including BMPs, could reduce impacts during construction and restoration.
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.
Access Same as existing conditions.
Traffic
Same as existing conditions.
Recreation Visitor Use Facilities Recreation Opportunities Outreach
Same as existing conditions. Same as existing conditions. Same as existing conditions.
Refuge Management and Local Economies
Refuge Budget and Staffing Same as existing conditions.
Local Economy Same as existing conditions.
Improved long-term access with new
Same as Alternative B with greater access by
visitor facilities and opening the Refuge
opening the Refuge on a daily basis.
on a limited basis.
Slightly higher long-term adverse effects
Same as Alternative B
as increased visitor numbers would
increase traffic on and to the Refuge.
Slightly higher beneficial impact as more
Same as Alternative B.
facilities are constructed.
Expanded long-term recreation
Same as Alternative B with more long-term
opportunities.
opportunities.
Slightly higher beneficial impact as more
Same as Alternative B.
outreach occurs.
Minor increase in Refuge management
Same as Alternative B.
budget and staff to implement the
alternative.
Minor improvement to local economics
Same as Alternative B.
with increase in visitors and projects.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-37 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)
Aesthetics
Restoration Activities Same as existing conditions. Moderately improved visual quality as Considerable improvement to visual quality from restoration is established. restoration actions. Visitor Use Facilities Same as existing conditions. Minimal adverse impacts from Same as Alternative B. construction of facilities.
S-38 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
Table 4. Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource Alternative A Physical Environment
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)
Soils Potential for soil
Potential for soil erosion from
Same as Alternative B, only
Same as Alternative C.
erosion from
construction and restoration
greater potential for soil
restoration activities.
activities. Best Management
erosion from increased
Practices (BMPs) would reduce
activities.
impacts on soil.
Surface Water Hydrology Improved hydrology
Same as Alternative A.
Same as Alternative A.
Same as Alternative A, only greater
from restoration
improvement with additional restoration
activities.
Surface Water Quality Temporary impacts to
Temporary impacts to surface
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
surface water quality
water quality from chemical
from restoration
methods to control invasive plants
activities and chemical
and construction and restoration
methods to control
activities. BMPs would reduce
invasive plants.
impacts on water quality.
Water Use Same as existing
Modified and expanded water use
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B with additional
conditions.
from increased visitor use and
water rights.
restoration. Mitigation measures
could reduce impacts on the
groundwater table.
Air Quality Temporary adverse
Temporary adverse construction
Same as Alternative B, only
Same as Alternative C, only more
emissions during
emissions during construction and
slightly more adverse.
adverse.
restoration activities
restoration activities and
and prescribed burns.
prescribed burns. Minor long-
Similar traffic-related
term increase in traffic-related
emissions as existing
emissions. BMPs would reduce
conditions.
impacts on air quality.
Biological Resources Open Water/Marsh Habitat Spring Habitat
Temporary disturbance with long-term benefit from restoration. Temporary disturbance with long-term benefit from restoration.
Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.
Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B, only greater benefit over long-term with additional restoration.
Same as Alternative A with greater long-term benefit with additional restoration. Same as Alternative C with greater long-term benefit.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
S-39 Summary
Table 4. Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource Alternative A
Biological Resources, continued Cottonwood-Willow Same as existing Habitat conditions (100 acres).
Upland Habitat
Same as existing conditions. Potential minor temporary adverse impacts from restoration activities. Long-term benefit from restoration. Same as existing conditions.
Invasive Plants Common Wildlife Species
Desert Tortoise
Same as existing conditions.
Management Priority
Potential temporary
Birds
adverse impacts from
restoration activities.
Long-term benefit
from restoration.
Alternative B
Slightly higher beneficial impacts as the habitat quality is improved over time.
Minor loss of vegetation from construction. Long-term benefit from habitat protection. Standard construction measures would reduce impacts during construction.
Minor increase in invasive plant removal efforts.
Potential temporary adverse impacts from restoration and construction activities. Long-term benefits from habitat restoration. Standard construction measures would reduce impacts during construction.
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 A with slightly greater long-term beneficial impacts. Pre-construction surveys and standard construction measures could reduce impacts during construction.
Alternative C
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B with additional disturbance from construction, but greater benefit from increased protection.
Moderate increase in invasive plant removal efforts.
Same as Alternative B, only slightly greater potential for temporary impacts and greater long-term benefit.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B, only greater benefit over the long term with additional restoration.
Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative C with additional protection.
Same as Alternative C.
Same as Alternative C.
Same as Alternative C.
Same as Alternative C.
S-40 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex Summary
Table 4. Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource
Pahranagat Roundtail Chub
Waterfowl
Southwest Willow Flycatcher
Cultural Resources Buried Cultural Resources
Aboveground Cultural Resources
Public Access
Alternative A
Alternative B
Same as existing
Long-term benefit from refugium
conditions – not
construction.
present.
Same as existing
Slightly increased beneficial
conditions.
impacts to foraging habitat over
long-term.
Same as existing
Potential temporary adverse
conditions.
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 existing
Potential adverse impacts on
conditions.
buried cultural resources during
ground-disturbance activities.
Mitigation measures could reduce
impacts to resources during
ground disturbance.
Same as existing
Reduced potential for vandalism
conditions (vandalism
or degradation of cultural
and degradation with
resources from visitor use from
minimal protection
increased protection efforts.
efforts).
Alternative C
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B with greater beneficial impact over time.
Same as Alternative B with greater beneficial impact over time.
Same as Alternative B with slightly greater potential due to increased ground disturbance.
Same as Alternative B, only less potential with increased protection.
Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative C with greater beneficial impact over time.
Same as Alternative C.
Same as Alternative C with greater potential due to increased ground disturbance.
Same as Alternative C, only less potential with increased protection.
Access
Same as existing conditions.
Temporary access restrictions during construction activities. Improved long-term access with facility improvements. Mitigation measures would reduce access
Same as Alternative B with greater temporary access restrictions.
Same as Alternative C.
restrictions during construction.
Traffic
Same as existing conditions.
Slightly higher long-term adverse effects as increased visitor
Same as Alternative B
Same as Alternative C.
numbers would increase traffic on
and to the Refuge.
Recreation
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement S-41 Summary
Table 4. Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge: Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Alternatives A, B, C, or D
Resource Visitor Use Facilities Recreation Opportunities
Alternative A Same as existing conditions. Same as existing conditions.
Outreach
Same as existing conditions.
Refuge Management and Local Economies
Refuge Budget and Staffing
Same as existing conditions.
Local Economy
Same as existing conditions.
Aesthetics
Restoration Activities
Same as existing conditions.
Visitor Use Facilities
Same as existing conditions.
Alternative B
Slightly higher beneficial impacts
as more facilities are established. Temporary restrictions on activities during construction activities. Improved and expanded long-term recreation opportunities.
Slightly higher beneficial impacts as more outreach occurs.
Minor increase in Refuge management budget and staff to implement the alternative.
Minor improvement to local economics with increase in visitors and projects.
Long-term benefit to visual quality from restoration activities.
Temporary adverse impacts on aesthetics during construction activities. Minor long-term adverse impacts associated with new and improved facilities construction. Mitigation measures could reduce construction impacts.
Alternative C
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B with greater temporary activity restrictions and more long-term opportunities.
Same as Alternative B.
Moderate increase in Refuge management budget and staff to implement the alternative.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B with greater benefit from increased restoration.
Same as Alternative B.
Alternative D (Preferred Alternative)
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative C.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative C.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative C.
Same as Alternative B.
S-42 Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex