Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision Summary

              Summary
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Stillwater
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Boundary Revision
SUMMARY OF
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for the
STILLWATER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN and
BOUNDARY REVISION
March 2000
Prepared by:
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
REGION 1
PORTLAND, OREGON
Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex
P.O. Box 1236
Fallon, Nevada 89407
CA/NV Refuge Planning Office
2800 Cottage Way, Rm. W-1916
Sacramento, California 95825
Summary
of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
STILLWATER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN and
BOUNDARY REVISION
Churchill and Washoe Counties, Nevada
Type of Action: Administrative
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Officials: Anne Badgley, Regional Director, Region 1
Michael Spear, California/Nevada Operations Manager
For Further Information: Kim Hanson, Refuge Manager
Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge
P.O. Box 1236
Fallon, Nevada 89407
(775) 423-5128
Abstract: The draft environmental impact statement (Draft EIS) summarize in this document describes and evaluates four
alternative comprehensive conservation plans and boundary scenarios for the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
Complex, which is comprised of Stillwater NWR, Fallon NWR, Stillwater Wildlife Management Area, and Anaho Island
NWR. The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) would retain the existing boundaries and entails baseline management as
outlined in the 1987 Management Plan for Stillwater WMA and modified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
(Service’s) water-rights acquisition program. Alternative B would result in the lands within Stillwater WMA reverting back
to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation or public land status, and would focus on providing fall and winter habitat for waterfowl and
opportunities for waterfowl hunting on Stillwater NWR and breeding habitat for waterbirds on Fallon NWR. Under
Alternative C (Service’s Preferred Alternative), Stillwater NWR would be expanded to include most of Stillwater WMA
and Fallon NWR and to include additional riparian and dune habitat. This alternative would emphasize the approximation
of natural biological diversity, with adjustments to enhance breeding habitat for waterbirds and fall and winter habitat for
waterfowl, and would provide enhanced opportunities for wildlife observation and environmental education. Alternative D,
in which Stillwater NWR would be expanded to include all of Stillwater WMA and Fallon NWR and to include additional
riparian and dune habitat, would focus on restoring natural hydrologic patterns and other ecological processes. Public use
management would focus on providing opportunities for wildlife observation and environmental education. In all
alternatives, Anaho Island NWR would be managed much as it has in the past, with a continued emphasis on protecting the
nesting colony of American white pelicans and other colony-nesting birds that use the island.
The issues addressed in the Draft EIS include the potential effects of the alternatives on populations of fish, wildlife, plants,
and their habitat; priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System; other public uses; cultural resources;
Newlands Irrigation Project Operations; Naval Air Station-Fallon training; and the local economy. An insufficient volume
of water inflow, nonnative species (including livestock), and contaminants are the major factors limiting achievement of
refuge purposes of Stillwater NWR and Fallon NWR. Compatibility of public uses is also a major issue addressed in the
Draft EIS.
Commenting: Reviewers should provide the Service with their comments during the review period of the Draft EIS. This
will enable the Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use this input in the preparation of the
final impact statement and the comprehensive conservation plan, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process.
Reviewers have an obligation to structure their input so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer���s position
and contentions. Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until
after the completion of the final environmental impact statement. Comments on the Draft EIS should be specific and should
address the adequacy of the EIS and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3).
All comments received from the public will be placed in the Service’s record for this action. As part of the record,
comments will be made available for inspection by the general public, and copies may also be provided to the public. For
persons who do not wish to have their names and other identifying information made available, anonymous comments will
be accepted.
Comments on the Draft EIS should be mailed to Stillwater NWR no later than June 12, 2000
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 1
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) began the process of developing a comprehensive
conservation plan for the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex in early 1997.
The draft environmental impact statement (Draft EIS) summarized in this document identifies
and provides an evaluation of four alternative management approaches for managing the
Stillwater NWR Complex for the next 15 years. Each alternative consists of two main parts: (1)
a boundary revision for Stillwater NWR, and (2) the framework of a potential comprehensive
conservation plan, including refuge goals, objectives, and strategies for achieving the purposes
for which each refuge was established and for contributing toward the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). The Stillwater NWR Complex currently includes
Stillwater NWR, Stillwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Fallon NWR, and Anaho Island
NWR, which are located in west-central Nevada (Maps 1 and 2).
Together, these refuges and the wildlife management area contribute substantially to the
conservation of wildlife and their habitat in the western Great Basin. They encompass a great
diversity of habitats, from freshwater
marshes and river habitats to brackish-water
marshes and alkali playas, and
extensive saltdesert shrublands and a
25-mile long sand dune complex to a
small island in a desert lake. These
habitats attract nearly 400 species of
vertebrate wildlife (more than 260 bird
species) and countless species of
invertebrates. Waterfowl, shorebirds,
and other waterbirds are abundant,
especially during migration.
This immense richness and abundance
of wildlife and habitats in a desert
environment provides a striking setting
for hunting, observing, and learning
about wildlife in the Great Basin.
Waterfowl hunting has a long history at
Stillwater Marsh and this tradition will
continue. In recent years, birdwatching
and environmental education have been
growing in popularity.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 3
In addition to obtaining immense enjoyment from Stillwater NWR Complex’s wildlife and
habitats, individuals partaking in these activities have been very instrumental in ensuring the
long-term viability of the wetlands on Stillwater NWR, as well as other wetlands in the Lahontan
Valley. If it were not for the efforts of several Nevada-based conservation groups, it is likely that
the Service would not be acquiring much needed water rights for the refuge’s wetlands.
The human association with Stillwater Marsh goes back at least 12,000 years. The culture and
traditions of the Cattail-eater Northern Paiutes, or Toedokado, is embodied in the area’s cultural
resources. Because Stillwater Marsh was such an ideal place for humans to live over the
millennia, Stillwater NWR contains some of the richest cultural resources in the Great Basin.
The contiguous Stillwater NWR, Stillwater WMA, and Fallon NWR are located about 6 miles
northeast of Fallon, Churchill County. Stillwater NWR is about 79,570 acres of Federal land,
Stillwater WMA about 65,603 acres, and Fallon NWR about 17,848 acres, for a combined total
of 163,021 acres of Federal land. Non-Federal inholdings within the approved boundaries make
up about 59,708 acres.
Anaho Island NWR is in the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation and is about 30 miles northeast of
Reno, Washoe County. The Paiute name for Anaho Island is “Pai-sa-ka-tu-du” which means
roughly “... the dry island sitting out there all by itself..” The refuge encompasses the entire
island, which has fluctuated in size from 220 to 745 acres in recent history due to the fluctuating
water levels of Pyramid Lake. In the summer of 1999, the size of the island was approximately
490 acres.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to (1) identify a boundary configuration of Stillwater NWR that would
best facilitate the achievement of the purposes for which the refuge was established, and (2)
develop a comprehensive conservation plan for the Stillwater NWR Complex that best achieves
the purposes of the individual refuges that make up the complex, contributes to the mission of the
Refuge System, is consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management, and
addresses relevant mandates and the major issues identified during scoping. Any expansion of
the approved boundary of Stillwater NWR would allow the Service to negotiate with willing
participants within this boundary to acquire land. Lands acquired by the Service would be
managed as part of the Refuge System.
The comprehensive conservation plan will
emphasize two main factors. The top priority of
the plan will be to provide goals, objectives, and
strategies aimed at conserving and protecting
native wildlife and their habitat. This priority
stems from the purposes of Stillwater NWR and
the fundamental mission of the Refuge System,
which is the conservation of fish, wildlife, plants,
and their habitats.
“To ensure that the Refuge System’s fish,
wildlife, and plant resources endure, the
law of the land now clearly states that
their needs must come first.”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999)
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 4
Also important will be goals, objectives, and strategies aimed at facilitating opportunities for
wildlife-dependent public uses, such as hunting, environmental education and interpretation,
wildlife observation and photography, and scientific research. The direction to provide these
opportunities is especially clear for Stillwater NWR because this refuge was established in part to
provide opportunities for environmental
education and wildlife-dependent recreation.
Furthermore, continued use of Stillwater
NWR for wildlife-dependent recreation
provides people with a better understanding
and deeper appreciation of wildlife and the
importance of conserving their habitat.
Purpose of and Need For Action
The purpose of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for the Stillwater NWR Complex
is to provide managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing
toward the mission of the Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife
conservation and legal mandates. The purpose of revising the boundary of Stillwater NWR is to
help the Service achieve the purposes of the refuge.
A comprehensive conservation plan, required by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, as amended (Refuge System Administration Act), is needed
because (1) Stillwater NWR does not have a management plan that provides direction for
managing wildlife, habitat, and public uses on the refuge under the management direction
established by the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 (Title II
of Public Law 101-618) and the increased volume of water to be delivered to the refuge, as
authorized by the Public Law; (2) Fallon NWR does not have a management plan for managing
wildlife, habitat, and public uses on the refuge under the management direction established by
Executive Order 5606 in 1931; and (3) Anaho Island NWR does not have a management plan.
Compatibility determinations have not been
completed for any of the public uses
occurring on Stillwater NWR and Fallon
NWR. A comprehensive conservation plan
is needed to resolve several issues with
respect to wildlife and public-use
management on the Stillwater NWR
Complex, including water management
priorities, control of noxious weeds,
livestock grazing, contaminants, and
managing wildlife-dependent recreational
activities.
A compatible use is a public use of a refuge
that, in the sound professional judgement of the
Refuge Manager, will not interfere with or
detract from the ability to fulfill refuge purposes
and the mission of the Refuge System. A
compatibility determination is a document
signed by the Refuge Manager signifying that a
proposed or existing use is either compatible or
not compatible.
“...We will make refuges welcoming, safe,
and accessible, with a variety of opportunities
for visitors to enjoy and appreciate America’s
fish, wildlife, and plants...”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999)
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 5
Decisions to be Made
The decisions to be made by the Pacific Region Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
are (1) the selection of an alternative to implement as the Stillwater NWR Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and (2) the identification of the alternative boundary revision
that would best contribute to achieving the purposes for which the refuge was established.
These decisions would be made in full recognition of the environmental effects of each of the
alternatives considered. The decisions will be designated in a Record of Decision (ROD)
document no sooner than 30 days after the final EIS is filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and distributed to the public. The selected boundary-revision alternative will then
be submitted to the U.S. Congress as the Service’s recommended boundary revision for
Stillwater NWR. Implementation of the comprehensive conservation plan will begin
immediately upon publishing a summary of the ROD in the Federal Register.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Establishment History and Purposes of the Stillwater NWR Complex
Anaho Island NWR was established in 1913 by Executive Order 1819 as a " . . . preserve and
breeding ground for native birds." Public Law 101-618 (§210(b)(2)) more narrowly defined the
purpose of Anaho Island NWR, stating that it was to be managed and administered " . . . for the
benefit and protection of colonial-nesting species and other migratory birds." The Public Law
also recognized that Anaho Island is part of the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation, but it is to be
managed and administered by the Service as a component of the Refuge System. A
memorandum of understanding between the Service and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe was
signed in March 1992 that outlined the terms of the Service’s management and administration of
the island.
Fallon NWR is about 17,850 acres of Federal land and was established in 1931 by Executive
Order 5606 “as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and other wild animals.” It has been
managed as part of the Stillwater WMA.
Stillwater WMA and Stillwater NWR were established through a 50-year agreement (1948
Tripartite Agreement) signed in 1948 by the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID), Nevada
State Board of Fish and Game Commissioners (Nevada Division of Wildlife), and the Service.
Although the agreement expired in November 1998, the Service continues to cooperatively
manage the Stillwater WMA with the Bureau of Reclamation under most provisions of the 1948
Tripartite Agreement (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2000). When Stillwater WMA was
established, it encompassed about 200,000 acres of land, of which about 140,000 acres were
Public Land that was originally withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation for Newlands Irrigation
Project purposes. Stillwater WMA was established in 1948 for the purposes of conserving and
managing wildlife and their habitat, and for public hunting. Under the Tripartite Agreement,
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 6
livestock grazing and muskrat production were to be managed commensurate with wildlife
conservation and management. Adjacent to the public hunting area located in Stillwater WMA,
Stillwater NWR was established in 1949 as a wildlife sanctuary (closed to hunting). It
encompassed about 24,200 acres of Federal land, and comprised the southern end of the existing
boundary of Stillwater NWR.
In 1990, the approved boundary of Stillwater NWR was expanded, under subsection 206(b)(1) of
the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (Title II of Public Law 101-618),
to encompass Stillwater Marsh, most of which was previously in the Stillwater WMA. Map 3
identifies the existing boundary of Stillwater NWR. In addition to the boundary expansion,
Public Law 101-618 also outlined four purposes for which the Service must manage Stillwater
NWR: (1) maintaining and restoring natural
biological diversity within the refuge; (2) providing
for the conservation and management of fish and
wildlife and their habitats within the refuge;
(3) fulfilling international treaty obligations of the
United States with respect to fish and wildlife; and
(4) providing opportunities for scientific research,
environmental education, and fish and wildlife
oriented recreation.
Enactment of Public Law 101-618 shifted the legal authority for managing the lands now within
Stillwater NWR from the Tripartite Agreement to the Refuge Administration Act and the refuge
purposes identified in Public Law 101-618. Four of the most marked changes in legal directives
are as follows. The Public Law enacted a shift in priorities whereby wildlife conservation
became the single highest priority. It directed that all wildlife-dependent public uses be given
equal emphasis in planning and management, that these priority public uses be given higher
consideration than all other public uses, and that all uses must be shown to be compatible with
refuge purposes before they can be allowed to occur on the refuge. Livestock grazing and
muskrat trapping are only to be permitted to the extent they can help in achieving refuge
purposes. The Public Law also mandated that the Service make recommendations to Congress
on any boundary revisions that may be needed to help carry out refuge purposes and other
provisions of the law.
Status of the Wetlands Water-Rights Acquisition Program
In partnership with the State of Nevada, The Nature Conservancy, and the Nevada Waterfowl
Association, the Service has been acquiring water rights for the protection and enhancement of
Lahontan Valley wetlands. The first water rights for the wetlands were purchased in 1989 by the
Nevada Waterfowl Association. To date, approximately 28,080 acre-feet of water rights in the
Carson Division had been acquired, including 19,650 acre-feet by the Service for Stillwater
Refuge, 8,150 acre-feet by the State of Nevada and Nevada Waterfowl Association for Carson
Lake, and 280 acre-feet for the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Indian
Reservation wetlands.
The natural biological diversity of
the Stillwater area refers to the
variety within and among biological
communities that evolved in the area
under geological, evolutionary, and
other ecological processes.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 8
The ongoing water-rights acquisition program for Stillwater NWR and other designated
Lahontan Valley wetland areas was authorized and directed by Public Law 101-618.
Specifically, subsection 206(a) of Public Law 101-618 directs the Secretary of the Interior to
acquire enough water and water rights, in conjunction with the State of Nevada and other parties,
to sustain a long-term average of 25,000 acres of primary wetland-habitat in the Lahontan Valley.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for Water Rights Acquisition for Lahontan Valley
Wetlands (WRAP EIS; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996a) describes a water-rights
acquisition program that was implemented by the Service in November 1996 when the record of
decision was signed for the WRAP EIS decision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996b) . The
WRAP EIS estimated that 125,000 acre-feet of water would be needed to sustain 25,000 acres of
wetland-habitat. Water sources include agricultural drainwater, spill-water, water rights from the
Carson Division and from the Middle Carson River just above Lahontan Reservoir, leased water
from the Carson Division, and groundwater. Spill-water refers to water that is released or spilled
from Lahontan Reservoir during high-water conditions to minimize flood potential.
Of the 25,000-acre target identified in Public Law 101-618, an average of 14,000 acres of
wetland-habitat would be sustained over the long term on Stillwater NWR, which is estimated to
take about 70,000 acre-feet of the 125,000 acre-feet for the Lahontan Valley wetlands. Another
10,200 acres would be sustained on Carson Lake Wildlife Management Area, and the remaining
800 acres would be sustained on the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Indian Reservation. In the
comprehensive conservation planning process for Stillwater NWR, the Service examined four
alternative strategies for managing the water being acquired for the refuge.
PLANNING ISSUES
Summary of Public Involvement
In March 1997, three public scoping meetings were conducted in Fallon, Fernley, and Reno,
Nevada. The Service subsequently conducted six open-house workshops, three each in Fallon
and Reno, in March, April and July. Prior to the open-house workshops, the Service sent letters
to all individuals, organizations, and agencies that were on the Lahontan Valley Wetlands Water
Rights Acquisition EIS mailing list to ask if they would like to be placed on the comprehensive
conservation plan/boundary revision mailing list. The Service also sent letters to the landowners
within the boundaries of Stillwater NWR and Stillwater WMA, and adjacent areas, summarizing
the boundary revision assessment, inviting them to the workshops, and encouraging input on
issues and alternatives to consider.
The Service also met with a variety of other Federal agencies, the Nevada Division of Wildlife,
Tribes, municipal governments, and several private groups on a number of occasions. A total of
five planning updates were sent to people on the mailing list.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 9
Summary of Major Issues
Six major issues were identified during the internal and public scoping process. Each of the
major issues described below identify potential effects that a revised boundary or comprehensive
conservation plan could have on a particular resource area. They were considered during the
development of alternatives and evaluation of potential impacts.
• Potential Effects on Populations of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants. Wildlife management at
Stillwater NWR, Stillwater WMA, and Fallon NWR has traditionally focused on game
species, especially waterfowl. Thus, concern was raised that any changes to this traditional
focus, such as any changes in water management strategies, controlling or not controlling
certain nest predators, and fisheries management, may affect waterfowl. In recent years,
other migratory birds such as shorebirds and colonial-nesting species have been receiving
more management attention. Given the directive to manage Stillwater NWR to conserve the
natural biological diversity within the refuge, which includes all native species of fish,
wildlife, and plants, there is interest in the effects that future management may have on these
other groups of organisms. Continued protection of colony-nesting birds at Anaho Island is
the main issue with respect to Anaho Island NWR.
Boundary revisions within the Stillwater NWR Complex can also affect populations of
animals and plants, primarily through increased protection and restoration of sensitive
habitats such as riparian and dune habitats. Other potential effects of a boundary revision
include the enhanced protection afforded to reptile populations from commercial collection in
Churchill County.
Another issue of concern, given the high importance of providing wildlife-dependent
recreational uses on Stillwater NWR, is the potential adverse impacts to wildlife resulting
from people walking, driving, boating, hunting, and approaching wildlife in wildlife habitat.
• Potential Effects on Habitat and Ecosystem Functioning. Methods of managing water
and vegetation can have major effects on animal and plant populations, positive and negative.
Therefore, the effects of the comprehensive conservation plan on habitat management,
including the selection of management methods and intensity of use, is of concern to many
people. Most public comments on habitat management addressed the management of water
and livestock, and their effects on habitat quality. Another important habitat issue on the
Stillwater NWR Complex is the effect that different management strategies have on the
distribution and abundance of several nonnative invasive plant species, such as saltcedar,
perennial pepperweed, and cheatgrass. This issue applies to all units in the complex. Several
water-born contaminants are also of concern. There is much interest in the effects that
managing newly acquired water rights will have on wetland-habitat on Stillwater NWR. The
major habitat areas that could be affected by a boundary revision are the Carson River
corridor, the sand dune complex, a vast expanse of saltdesert shrub habitat, and the
southwestern portion of the Carson Sink.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 10
• Potential Effects on Recreational, Educational, and Interpretive Opportunities. Many
people, including Service personnel, recognize the great potential that the Stillwater NWR
Complex has for providing high-quality opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreational
uses. The Service has clear direction to facilitate compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
uses on Stillwater NWR. Two main issues surfaced during scoping: (1) members of the
hunting public and others have asked that the waterfowl hunt program remain much as it is
today, including no change in the boundary of the hunt zone; and (2) people representing a
variety of interests have asked that the Service provide better facilities and information for
birdwatchers, environmental educators, wildlife photographers, and other people interested in
learning about the refuge’s wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources. Although many issues
were brought to the attention of the Service, these appear to be the central issues. Interest
was also expressed in raising the limit on motorboats to 15 horespower during the hunting
season.
Other issues include the potential effects on opportunities for horseback riding, camping,
access to desert areas, and hunting in upland habitats. For example, in contrast to some
people envisioning additional opportunities created by expansion of Stillwater NWR’s
boundary (e.g., for birdwatching along the Carson River), others expressed concern that it
would diminish opportunities by restricting road access and disallowing certain activities
(e.g., coyote and jackrabbit hunting, and off-road vehicles).
• Potential Effects on Cultural Resources. Habitat management activities, facilities
maintenance, recreational use on the refuge, and a variety of environmental factors have the
potential to affect cultural resources on the refuge. Cultural resources on Stillwater NWR
and WMA are essential elements of individual and group identity for members of the Fallon
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe. The cultural resources on Stillwater NWR and WMA are some of
the most important cultural resources in Nevada, and the entire Stillwater Marsh has been
placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Although cultural resources, especially
archeological sites, pervade Stillwater Marsh, they are fragile, easily disturbed and destroyed,
and are nonrenewable. Cultural resources are small and subtle compared to the surrounding
landscape and contemporary features like roads, ditches, and visitor facilities.
The most critical issue with respect to the comprehensive conservation plan being prepared
and potential boundary revision revolves around the basic question: How should cultural
resources be protected and interpreted, given the need to manage wildlife habitat and public
use of Stillwater NWR? Specific issues that need to be addressed include, (a) providing
adequate protection of cultural resources from inadvertent disturbance by the public, while
still allowing the public to enjoy a wildlife and cultural experience on the refuge; (b) reducing
illegal artifact collecting and looting, while still allowing hunters and other recreationists to
access the most archaeologically sensitive areas of the marsh; (c) implementing an
environmental education program that incorporates accurate archaeological and cultural
information including appropriate consultation with the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe; and
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 11
(d) the effects of manipulating water levels, and the replacement and construction of
necessary infrastructure on cultural resources, and the potential mitigation of these activities.
• Potential Effects on the Local Agriculture and Socio-Economy, and the Newlands
Irrigation Project. The Service was encouraged to look into ways to explore the use of
spill-water and to reassess the volume and water quality of drainwater and groundwater
reaching Stillwater NWR. Another suggestion was to reevaluate water-rights acquisitions
based on recent adjustments to the 1988 Operating Criteria and Procedures (OCAP) for the
Newlands Irrigation Project. Because the Service will have a considerable portion of water
rights in the Carson Division, changes in the seasonal water-delivery pattern has the potential
to affect Newlands Project operations and Truckee River resources. Any changes to livestock
grazing management on Stillwater NWR and Fallon NWR, in combination with any revisions
to the boundary of Stillwater NWR could potentially affect the local economy. The most
direct economic effects of changes would be on livestock grazing permittees. Changes in
recreational opportunities could also affect the local economy.
• Potential Effects on Naval Air Station-Fallon Operations. The U.S. Navy expressed
concern that a boundary revision of Stillwater NWR could potentially affect their tactical
training at the Bravo-20 Bombing Range. A 3,000-foot ceiling currently exists over
Stillwater NWR, Fallon NWR, and Stillwater WMA, meaning that aircraft are not permitted
to fly lower than 3,000 feet over this area. The 3,000-foot ceiling would not apply to any
northward extension of Stillwater NWR.
Further Analysis of Issues
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that all major issues identified during
scoping be identified and described, but it does not specify which particular issues should be
addressed in any given situation. The Refuge System Administration Act, however, does specify
two issues that are to be addressed in the comprehensive conservation planning process: (1)
identification and description of significant problems that may adversely affect populations and
habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants within the planning unit, and the actions necessary to correct
or mitigate such problems; and (2) identification, description, and facilitation of opportunities for
wildlife-dependent recreation and a determination that allowed levels and distribution of these
uses will be compatible with refuge purposes. Of the issues identified during scoping, these two
issues provided the primary guidance in developing objectives and strategies to achieve refuge
goals and purposes, and are therefore described in a little more detail on the following pages.
The compatibility determination process was incorporated into the comprehensive conservation
planning effort and draft compatibility determinations are included in the Draft EIS.
Significant Problems Adversely Affecting Fish, Wildlife, and Plants
To ascertain significant problems within the Stillwater NWR Complex, existing conditions
were compared with desired, future conditions as reflected by refuge purposes and provisions
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 12
of the Refuge System Administration Act (such as the directive to ensure the maintenance of
biological integrity and environmental health). For the purposes of the Draft EIS and this
summary, significant problems were defined as the underlying factors impeding the
achievement of wildlife and habitat-related purposes of Stillwater NWR and Fallon NWR.
The underlying factors hindering achievement of these purposes are:
• Reduced volume and altered timing of inflows, and flow restrictions in Stillwater Marsh,
and along the lower Carson River and its delta, as compared to natural conditions;
• Prevalence and spread of nonnative plant and animal species in wetlands, riparian areas,
and uplands;
• Altered chemistry of wetland inflows.
The first two are the major habitat issues that must be resolved or otherwise addressed in
order to meet statutory requirements. Because several contaminants have been found to
exceed thresholds associated with adverse effects to wildlife, they are also of concern. In
addition to management implications, they also have implications to the potential boundary
revision.
Several other factors have the potential to limit the Service’s ability to achieve wildlife-related
purposes. One of these is the effects of human activity on wildlife and their habitat.
Other problems that will continue to have adverse effects on wildlife on the refuges are land-use
practices and human activities that occur outside the refuges and throughout North,
Central, and South America. Included are alterations to Carson River flow caused by
agricultural, municipal, and industrial activities and Lahontan Reservoir, and habitat
destruction, pollution, and pesticide use throughout the Western Hemisphere. These off-refuge
problems cannot be addressed through refuge management, but need to be recognized
when setting wildlife and habitat objectives. Even though they cannot be addressed on-refuge,
the effects that these off-refuge problems have on refuge resources highlights the need
for the Service to continue its involvement in water allocation and management issues in the
Truckee-Carson River basins, development and implementation of international bird
conservation initiatives, and other large scale efforts.
Opportunities for Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Recreation
The Refuge System Administration Act requires the Service to (1) facilitate high-quality and
safe opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and (2) ensure that this is done in a way
that is compatible with refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission.
These two requirements may at first seem to oppose each other because one involves
facilitation of uses and the other involves constraints on uses, one viewed as positive and the
other viewed as negative. However, a closer examination reveals that they complement each
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 13
other. One of the dominant principles of refuge management is that, taken together, high-quality
wildlife-dependent recreational experiences depend on a rich diversity and abundance
of wildlife and habitat. Without this resource, traditional uses of refuges could not be
sustained. Additionally, continued use of refuges for wildlife-dependent recreation provides
people with a better understanding and deeper appreciation of wildlife and the importance of
conserving their habitat, which ultimately contributes to the conservation mission of the
Refuge System through increased public support.
The direction provided in the Refuge System Administration Act and the Stillwater NWR
purposes (Public Law 101-618) is very clear: opportunities for scientific research,
environmental education, and other wildlife-dependent recreational uses are to be facilitated
on Stillwater NWR. “The term ‘facilitate’ was deliberately chosen [for the Refuge System
Improvement Act] to represent a strong sense of encouragement, but not a requirement, that
ways be sought to permit wildlife-dependent uses to occur if they are compatible” (House
Report 105-106). The Refuge System Administration Act also specifically requires that the
priority general public uses of the Refuge System (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation) receive enhanced
consideration over other general public uses in planning and management.
Conversely, high levels of human activity on refuges can diminish the benefits the refuge can
potentially provide to wildlife, and this is the reason why compatibility determinations are
such an important part of refuge management. A quote from the first Refuge Manual (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1943) shows that examining and attempting to resolve potential
conflicts between wildlife and public uses is not a new issue for national wildlife refuges:
“Public use of refuge areas will in varying degrees result in disturbances to wildlife
populations, but this adverse effect will be offset on many refuges by the public relations
value of limited public use.” To make sure that the fundamental mission of the Refuge
System is not materially impaired, some constraints need to be imposed on uses.
With these factors in mind, the ultimate aim of this planning process for public use
management is to create a plan that truly facilitates and promotes an array of wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities, the combined effects of which the Service can
confidently demonstrate are compatible and consistent with refuge purposes. This has proven
to be a challenge given the limited amount of relevant site-specific biological data and the
controversy that has resulted from exploring this issue. What is known from the available
information is that hunting is generally compatible with refuge purposes and that boating has
the greatest potential to hinder achievement of refuge purposes. Boating is not a priority
public use of the Refuge System and tends to be more restrictive on refuges. An estimated 20
percent of hunters used boats during the 1999-2000 hunting season. The main impacts
caused by boating stem from their noise, speed, and easy access to all open habitats.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 14
ALTERNATIVES BEING CONSIDERED
Four alternatives were developed by the Service for the boundary of Stillwater NWR and the
comprehensive conservation plan for the Stillwater NWR Complex. Thus, each alternative
consists of: a potential boundary, refuge goals, objectives, and management strategies. Major
program areas are wildlife and habitat management, public-use management, and cultural
resource management.
Factors Considered in Alternative Development
Alternative boundary revisions and management approaches were shaped by a number of factors,
including:
• Legal requirements for refuge management;
• Resource management principles and philosophies, including those identified during
scoping;
• Existing plans and agreements;
• Assessments of existing and natural ecological conditions;
• Problems impairing the achievement of refuge purposes;
• Other comments and recommendations from the public during scoping;
• Future funding and staffing.
Differences between alternatives stem from differing management approaches identified during
the scoping process, and thus the alternative selected for implementation will define the broad
management approach to be carried out for the life of the plan. Alternatives also differed in the
way that public use would be managed on in the Stillwater NWR Complex.
A priority system for managing the Stillwater NWR Complex and other refuges (e.g., refuge
purposes provide the primary direction for managing national wildlife refuges) is spelled out in
laws and executive orders. It is this priority system that guided alternative development for the
Draft EIS. According to pertinent laws and policy, the focus of the comprehensive conservation
plan, in order of priority, must be to:
1. Conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitat in the manner specifically outlined in the
purposes of Stillwater NWR, Fallon NWR, and Anaho Island NWR, the Refuge System
Administration Act, international treaties, and other management authorities;
2. Provide opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities; and
3. Resolve other issues identified during scoping.
The Stillwater NWR boundary-revision effort focused on delineating alternative boundaries that
would, in order of priority:
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 15
1. Contribute to achieving the purposes of Stillwater NWR and provisions of section 206(a)
of Public Law 101-618, which addresses the maintenance of a long-term average of 25,000
acres of primary wetland-habitat in designated Lahontan Valley wetland areas; and
2. Resolve other issues identified during scoping.
Alternatives Considered in Detail
The four alternatives that are considered in detail in the Draft EIS are summarized on the
following pages and in Table 1 (which starts on page 26). All of the alternatives would have
several features in common, including:
• The status and management of private, county, and state inholdings that are within the
approved boundaries of Stillwater NWR and Stillwater WMA, or within the proposed
expansion of the approved boundary of Stillwater NWR, would not be affected by any
boundary changes.
• The water-rights acquisition program would continue until a long-term average of 14,000
acres of wetland-habitat is being sustained on Stillwater NWR. It is anticipated that this
will require an average of 70,000 acre-feet/year of wetland inflows from all sources of
water, including acquired water-rights, drainwater, leased water, groundwater, spill-water.
• Anaho Island NWR would be managed much as it has been in the past, with an emphasis
on protecting the nesting colony of American white pelicans and other colony-nesting birds
that use the island and monitoring the annual production of colony-nesting bird production
and trends in their populations.
Alternative A (No Action Alternative)
Boundaries of Stillwater NWR, Stillwater WMA, and Fallon NWR would remain the same as
they are today. The Bureau of Reclamation has the primary withdrawal on lands within
Stillwater WMA and Fallon NWR for Newlands Irrigation Project drainage purposes. The
Service has extended provisions of the Tripartite Agreement, with respect to managing and
administering these lands, through a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation
(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2000). The combined acreage of Stillwater NWR, Stillwater
WMA, and Fallon NWR is 222,729 acres, of which 163,021 is under Federal ownership.
This alternative represents baseline management as outlined in the 1987 Management Plan
for Stillwater WMA and modified by the Service’s water-rights acquisition program.
Stillwater NWR, Fallon NWR, and Stillwater WMA would continue to be managed
according to the 1987 Management Plan for Stillwater WMA and provisions of the 1948
Tripartite Agreement and, therefore, this alternative represents the No Action Alternative. It
provides a baseline from which to evaluate changes proposed by any of the other alternatives.
The focus of habitat management at Stillwater NWR, Stillwater WMA, and Fallon NWR
1 Bureau of Reclamation currently holds the primary withdrawal on Federal lands within Stillwater WMA and Fallon
NWR.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 16
under Alternative A would be on providing nesting, migration, and wintering habitat for
waterfowl and other waterbirds. The water-delivery schedule would approximate agricultural
delivery pattern as specified in the WRAP EIS. Revegetation of former farmland to native
vegetation would continue. Other management practices permitted under this alternative,
such as prescribed burning, saltcedar control, and predator control would be implemented on
a limited basis.
Hunting would continue to be the priority public use of the area, although muskrat trapping
would also be an emphasized use. The hunt area would comprise up to 72 percent of the
available wetland-habitat during October-January (Map 4). Opportunities would also be
provided for other uses such as fishing, camping, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental education, and horseback riding. Very few facilities are provided for these
other activities, including the tour loop which is only passable in fair weather. The
environmental education program would continue to grow and increase in emphasis to some
degree. Livestock grazing would continue to be phased out in some areas, especially on
Stillwater NWR, but within the boundaries of Stillwater WMA and Fallon NWR, livestock
grazing would continue to be weighted more heavily than wildlife conservation. Livestock
grazing and muskrat trapping opportunities have been managed more as commercial uses
than as wildlife and habitat management tools, which is consistent with the 1948 Tripartite
Agreement and subsequent amendments.
Cultural resources would remain a basic component of land management at the Stillwater
NWR complex. The Service, in consultation with the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, would
continue to manage cultural resources so they are preserved, and the strong tradition of
archaeological and ethnographic research would continue.
Alternative B
Under this alternative, only Stillwater NWR and Fallon NWR would be retained. The
management and operation of the area within the Stillwater WMA would be conveyed to the
jurisdiction of Bureau of Reclamation1 or Public Land status, with the possible exception of
the Indian Lakes area which may be transferred to Churchill County and ultimately to the
City of Fallon or another entity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996c). The Bureau of
Reclamation’s primary withdrawal on lands within Fallon NWR would be rescinded and
replaced with a primary withdrawal by the Service. The acreage of Federal lands managed
primarily for wildlife in the Lahontan Valley would decline by about 66,000 acres (40
percent). Under this proposal, the approved boundaries of Stillwater NWR and Fallon NWR,
combined, would be about 107,954 acres, of which about 97,418 acres would be Federal.
The acreage of nonFederal inholdings within the boundaries of Federal wildlife areas in the
Lahontan Valley would decline by about 80 percent.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 18
This alternative focuses on providing fall and winter habitat for waterfowl and opportunities
for waterfowl hunting on Stillwater NWR and breeding habitat for waterbirds on Fallon
NWR. Much of the same management emphasis of Alternative A would be maintained in
this alternative, except that fall and winter habitat for waterfowl would be emphasized over
breeding habitat on Stillwater NWR. Water deliveries would be managed to create peak
acreage in the fall and early winter to enhance waterfowl habitat and maximize the amount of
wetland-habitat during this season. On Fallon NWR, greater emphasis would be placed on
providing breeding habitat for waterfowl and other waterbirds during years when adequate
water is available, such as during precautionary releases or spills from Lahontan Reservoir.
Control of saltcedar and noxious weeds would receive more attention, including on Fallon
NWR, as would prescribed burning. Livestock grazing would be used as a management tool
and would be reduced considerably from the level of livestock grazing that has occurred in
recent years.
Hunting would continue to be the focal point of the public use program, except
improvements would be made in providing opportunities for other wildlife-dependent
recreational uses such as environmental education and wildlife observation. The hunt area
would remain where it is under existing conditions (Map 5), but additional boating
restrictions would be imposed. An exception would be Fallon NWR, on which up to 40
percent of the available fall wetland-habitat would be open to hunting. Due to the effects of
boating on wetland wildlife, several changes to boating regulations would be implemented.
Under both options, a 15 horsepower limit would be enforced for motorboats (higher than the
existing 10 horsepower regulation) and airboats would not be permitted. These restrictions
would minimize adverse effects on wetland wildlife while still allowing motorboat access to
the marsh.
A visitor center, containing an environmental education center, would be constructed, the
existing tour loop would be improved, and observation points and towers would be
constructed. Opportunities for muskrat trapping would continue much as they were provided
in the past, except that trapping would be used more as a management tool.
Fishing would not be permitted, primarily due to the high level of mercury contamination in
the Lahontan Valley, for which an advisory was issued by the State of Nevada noting that
eating any fish caught in the Lahontan Valley is not safe. If the health advisory is lifted,
fishing would be reevaluated.
Cultural resources would continue to be managed as under Alternative A.
Alternative C
This is the Service’s preferred alternative. Under this boundary-revision alternative, the
approved boundary of Stillwater NWR would be expanded to most of the lands that are now
inside Stillwater WMA and Fallon NWR. Major habitats added to Stillwater NWR would be
the lower Carson River and its delta marsh, the sand dunes along the southern edge of the
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 20
Carson Sink, and the stabilized dunes and salt desert shrub habitat between the Carson River
and Stillwater Marsh. In addition to lands already in Stillwater WMA and Fallon NWR, the
boundary would expand to include six sections of land along the lower Carson River and 26
sections north of the existing Stillwater NWR. Although the size of Stillwater NWR would
increase, the acreage of Federal lands managed primarily for wildlife in the Lahontan Valley
would decline by about 25,517 acres. The most important lands with respect to refuge
purposes and wetlands protection would be retained. Under this proposal, the approved
boundary of Stillwater NWR would be about 172,254 acres, of which about 137,504 acres
would be Federal. The acreage of nonFederal inholdings within the boundaries of Federal
wildlife areas in the Lahontan Valley would decline by about 40 percent.
Under this alternative, the Service would manage the wetlands to approximate the area’s
natural biological diversity, as outlined in refuge purposes, which would greatly benefit
breeding and migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds as well as wintering
waterfowl. Habitat objectives would focus on providing a range of habitat conditions in the
marshes, with an emphasis on breeding habitat, as well as restoring and protecting riparian,
wet meadow, and sensitive upland areas such as the dunes. An emphasis of water
management would be placed on mimicking the natural seasonal pattern of inflow, modified
somewhat to minimize nest flooding and to provide fall and winter habitat for waterfowl and
waterfowl hunting. Second to water management, control of saltcedar and noxious weeds
would be a focal point of management in meeting habitat objectives. Management would
recognize the important role that muskrats play in marsh ecology, but trapping would be used
to minimize damage to water-control facilities and roads. Livestock grazing would be
curtailed substantially on refuge lands, and would only be used as a habitat management tool.
In addition to maintaining hunting as an integral part of the public use program, this
alternative would provide enhanced opportunities for a range of wildlife-dependent public
uses such as environmental education and interpretation, and wildlife observation and
photography. Two options are being considered under this alternative for public use. Under
both options, the auto tour route would be located closer to the entrance of Stillwater NWR
than it is now, allowing quicker access to wetland-habitats (Maps 6 and 7). Under Option 1,
the tour route would allow birdwatchers, educators, and others to view wildlife outside the
hunt area during the hunting season. The tour loop would be an all-weather road, equipped
with pullouts, wildlife viewing sites, and interpretive facilities. A visitor center, containing
an environmental education center, would be constructed under both options, and
environmental education would be an added focal point of the public use program.
The hunt area under both options would be in the same location as it is today, with one
exception under Option 1. Under Option 1, two wetland units (Lead Lake and Willow Lake)
that are now within the hunt area would be converted to sanctuary in large part to make up for
the sanctuary converted to the general public use area (nonhunted area) noted above (Map 6).
Under Option 2, the hunt area boundary in Stillwater Marsh would remain as it now exists
(Map 7). To provide a range of hunting experiences on Stillwater NWR and in the Lahontan
#þ %[
%[
%[
#Y
#þ
Public Use
   Area
Hunt Area
Sanctuary
Potential Research  
   Natural Area
Non-Federal Lands
Water
Tour Route
Boundaries
Visitors Facility
Observation Area
Environmental 
  Education Center
Map 6 Stillwater Public Use Zones 
Alternative C-1
Fallon
Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers #Y
%[
#þ
N
W E
S
Nevada
Stillwater
GIS Analysis by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
#þ
#þ
%[
%[
%[
%[
#Y
Public Use
   Area
Hunt Area
Walk-in Hunt
   Area
Sanctuary
Potential Research  
    Natural Area
Non-Federal Lands
Water
Seasonal Tour Route
Boundaries
Visitors Facility
Observation Area
Environmental
  Education Center
N
W E
S
Stillwater Summary Map 7 
Public Use Zones Alternative C-2
Fallon
Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers
%[
#Y
#þ
GIS Analysis by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Nevada
Stillwater
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 23
Valley and to ensure that hunting remains compatible with refuge purposes, several changes
to boating regulations would be implemented. Under both options, a 15 horsepower limit
would be enforced for motorboats (higher than the existing regulations), airboats would not
be permitted, and a 5 mile-per-hour speed limit over the water would be imposed to minimize
adverse effects on wetland wildlife while still allowing access to the marsh using this form of
transport. Under Option 2, a walk-in-only area would be provided, consisting of two wetland
units (West Marsh and Swan Lake). As under Alternative B, fishing would not be permitted.
Under Alternative C, the cultural resource program would become more proactive than under
Alternatives A and B. The goal of the cultural resource management program would be to
manage cultural resources for the benefit of present and future generations, and an
archaeologist would be added to the staff to help support this program.
Alternative D
Under this alternative, the boundary of Stillwater NWR would be expanded to include all of
Stillwater WMA and Fallon NWR, except the Indian Lakes area, as well as the six sections of
land along the lower Carson River and 26 sections north of the existing Stillwater NWR
identified under Alternative C. Major habitats added to Stillwater NWR would be the lower
Carson River and its delta marsh, the sand dunes along the southern edge of the Carson Sink,
and the stabilized dunes and salt desert shrub habitat between Highway 95 and Stillwater
Marsh, and the southwestern part of the Carson Sink, including the inlet of the Humboldt
Slough. In addition to lands already in Stillwater WMA and Fallon NWR, the boundary
would expand to include six sections of land along the lower Carson River and 26 sections
north of the existing Stillwater NWR. Under this proposal, the approved boundary of
Stillwater NWR would be about 231,731 acres, of which about 167,806 acres are Federal,
which would increase the amount of Federal lands managed primarily for wildlife in the
Lahontan Valley by about 3 percent. The acreage of nonFederal inholdings within the
boundaries of Federal wildlife areas in the Lahontan Valley would increase by about 7
percent.
Under this alternative, the Service would focus on approximating natural ecological
processes as the primary means to restore the area’s natural biological diversity. The aim of
habitat management would be to approximate a natural seasonal pattern of water inflow into
the refuge’s wetlands, assuming that habitat and wildlife would respond accordingly.
Considerable emphasis would also be placed on restoring riparian habitats and protecting
sensitive upland areas. Noxious weed control would be limited to nonintrusive methods and
would not include chemicals or nonnative biological controls. Management would recognize
the important role that muskrats play in marsh ecology, and trapping would be limited to
minimize damage to water-control facilities and roads. Livestock grazing would not be
permitted on refuge lands.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 24
As compared to the other alternatives, Alternative D would emphasize nonconsumptive
public uses. Environmental education and wildlife observation would become the focal point
of public use management, as conditions would not be as favorable for waterfowl hunting as
under other alternatives (lesser amount of wetland-habitat acreage in the fall) except in spill
years. A visitor facility, containing an environmental education center, would be constructed,
the existing tour loop would be improved, and observation points and trails would be
constructed. The tour loop would be an all-weather road, equipped with pullouts, wildlife
observation points, and interpretive facilities.
During years when adequate water exists during October-January, opportunities for hunting
would be provided. In these years of high water, hunting would be provided in the northern
wetland units of the refuge (Map 8). To minimize impacts from boating, restrictions would
be placed on boat use and some wetland units in the hunt area would be closed to boating.
As under Alternative C, a 15 horsepower limit would be enforced for motorboats, airboats
would not be permitted, and a 5 mile-per-hour speed limit would be imposed to minimize
adverse effects on wetland wildlife while still allowing access to the marsh using this form of
transport. As under Alternatives B and C, fishing would not be permitted.
The cultural resource management program of this alternative would be similar to that of
Alternative C.
Summary of Alternatives Considered in Detail
Table 1 provides a summary of the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS.
#·
&\
%a
%[ %[
%[
%[
%[
%[
%[
#þ
Public Use
   Area
Hunt Area
Sanctuary
Potential Research 
   Natural  Area
Non-Federal Lands
Water
Tour Route
Boundary
Observation Area
Visitors Facility
Admin/Shop
Research Facility
Photo Blind
%[
#þ
Map 8  Stillwater Public Use Zones 
Alternative D
N
W E
S
&\
%a#
·
Fallon
Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers
Nevada
Stillwater
GIS Analysis by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Table 1. Summary of the alternatives considered in detail.
Alternative A
(No Action)
Alternative B Alternative C
(Preferred Alternative)
Alternative D
Boundary Stillwater NWR
(acres of Stillwater WMA
Federal land) Fallon NWR
Total
79,570 ac.
65,603 ac.
17,848 ac.
163,021 ac.
79,570 ac.
0 ac.
17,848 ac.
97,418 ac.
137,504 ac.
0 ac.
0 ac.
137,504 ac.
167,806 ac.
0 ac.
0 ac.
167,806 ac.
Ave. Wetland Habitat Acreage 14,000 ac. 14,000 ac. 14,000 ac. 14,000 ac.
Ave. Annual Water Supply 70,000 AF 70,000 AF 70,000 AF 70,000 AF
WILDLIFE/HABITAT MGT.
Biological Focus Key Species Key Species Natural Biodiversity Natural Biodiversity
Focus of Habitat Mgt. Needs of Key Species in the
breeding season (primary) and
fall/winter (secondary)
Needs of Key Species in
fall/winter (primary) and
breeding season (secondary)
Approximation of Natural Habitat
Conditions (primary) and needs of
key species (secondary)
Approximation of Natural
Ecological Processes
Hydrology
Hydrology
- Pattern of Inflow
- Inflow Rate Operational
Maximum
- Diking
- Riparian Restoration
- Contaminants
Agricultural (imposed by
Wetlands Water Rights EIS)
up to 175 cfs
up to 450 cfs (existing capacity)
Existing
None
Minimize
Fall Emphasis (and assumes
carryover to spring)
up to 150 cfs
up to 450 cfs
Additional diking
Limited - Stillwater Slough
Minimize
Modified Natural (modified to
minimize nest flooding, and
to ensure that wetland-habitat
is provided in the fall/winter)
up to 450 cfs
800-1,000 cfs
Evaluate existing for possible targeted
additions/reductions
Moderate to high level
Minimize
Natural
up to 350 cfs
 1,000 cfs
Reductions to simulate a more
natural flow & geom.
Moderate to high
Minimize
Average Wetland Habitat Acres in
Stillwater Marsh, Nonspill Year
- Spring
- Fall/Winter
12,000-13,100
12,300-13,100
11,100-13,500
12,400-14,600
15,800-18,400
10,000-11,500
13,000-26,300
5,200-7,000
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Prescribed Burning Very Limited (<100 wetland
acres/5 years)
Moderate (for key spp.;100-400
acres/year)
Limited (to provide for needs of key
species;75-100 acres/ year)
No prescribed burning
Livestock Grazing 5,500-11,000 AUMs/yr
- throughout Stillwater WMA
- throughout Fallon NWR
- Stillwater NWR sanctuary
- no habitat objectives
500-1,000 AUMs/yr
- agricultural areas for geese
- reduce emergent vegetation
0-500 AUMs/yr
- agricultural areas for geese
- very limited to reduce
emergent vegetation
- goats & sheep in IPM
- no cattle in riparian & uplands
0 AUMs/yr
Revegetation Continued on former farmland,
& limited in riparian
Former farmland, & limited in
riparian
Former farmland, & increased effort
in riparian
Former farmland & riparian,
w/ emphasis on natural
revegetation
Farming for Waterfowl None 300-400 acres (non-Service
water rights needed)
200-300 acres (non-Service water
rights needed)
None
Nonnative Vegetation Control Limited Moderate, cont’d use of
mechanical & herbicides
IPM – mechanical, biological (goats,
sheep, insects), water management,
mechanical, fire, & herbicides
IPM – no herbicides, &
limited mechanical
Nuisance Animal Management
- Raven & Coyote Control
- Muskrat Control
- Carp Control
- Mosquito Control
None to limited, to increase
waterfowl production
Not currently managed as a
control measure (muskrat
trapping provides recreation and
commercial opportunities)
None to limited
None
Moderate, to increase waterfowl
production
Similar to Alternative A
Moderate, use of water
management and chemicals
None, but contingency plan
would be developed incase of
disease outbreak
Limited (e.g., if demonstrated
to limit natural production rates)
Minimize damage to water-control
facilities and roads (and rarely to
reduce grazing of emergent
vegetation)
Limited to mod., use of water control
and limited chemicals
None, but contingency plan would be
developed incase of disease outbreak
None
None
None
None
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Human Disturbance
- Apportionment of Wetland-habitat
- Wetland Units in Sanctuary
- Wetland Units in Restricted-
Access Areas
- Boating
- Camping
- Road Closures
1st 500 acres to sanctuary
then the amount of sanctuary
would be maintained as follows:
Amount in
Total Acres Sanctuary
<4,000 55-75%
>4,000-11,000 35-40%
>11,000  30%
All units south of Division
Road
None
Few restrictions (airboats &
outboards permitted year-round)
few restrictions
existing
1st 4,000 acres to sanctuary
then all remaining wetland-habitat
could be produced in the
hunt area (except that an
additional 500-1,000 acres of
wetland habitat could be
produced in the sanctuary)
All units south of Division Road
None
No boating April 1 to August 1.
No Airboats. Boats with
outboards motors (up to 15 hp)
permitted during hunting season
(but regulate more closely)
camping limited to designated
areas
existing
1st 4,000 acres to sanctuary
Option 1:
next 3,000 acres to hunt area
each additional 2,000 acres to:
1) general public use (500 ac.)
2) sanctuary (500 ac.)
3) hunt area (1,000 ac.)
Option 2:
each additional 5,500 acres to:
1) general hunt area (2,500 ac.)
2) primitive hunt area (2,500 ac.)
3) sanctuary (500 ac.)
Option 1: Stillwater Point Reservoir,
Upper Foxtail Lake, West Marsh, &
Lead Lake
Option 2: All units south of Division
Road, except Cattail Lake
Option 1: None
Option 2: West Marsh & Swan Lk.
No boating March 1 to August 1,
except non-motorized in Goose Lake.
Boat operation during remainder of
the year would be restricted to 15 hp
motors, and a 5 mph speed limit in
open wetland units, except:
Option 1: no boating in one unit
Option 2: no boating in West Marsh
& Swan Lake
camping would be limited to
designated areas, and only in fully
contained units
existing closures, plus closure of
North Road & Willow Dike Road
1st 4,000 acres to sanctuary
each additional 3,500 acres to:
1) gen. public use (1,000 ac.)
2) hunt area (2,000 ac.)
3) sanctuary (500 ac.)
All units south of Division
Road
None
No boats March 1 to August 1.
Boat operation during
remainder of the year would
be restricted to non-motorized
boats & boats with electric
motors
no camping
existing, plus limited
additional closures
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
PUBLIC USE MGT.
Hunting
- Wetland Units Open to
Waterfowl Hunting
- Days/Times
- Special Features
All units north of Division
Road, Indian Lakes, along D-Line
Canal, & Battleground
Marsh (occasional)
7 days/week, all day
Few restrictions, airboats &
other boats permitted in open
area; camping opportunities
would abound
All units north of Division Road,
& 40% of wetland-habitat in
Fallon NWR (on rare occasions).
7 days/week, all day
Similar to Alternative A, except
that additional regulations would
be imposed; camping available,
but restrictive
Option 1: All units north of Div. Road
(except Lead Lake & West Marsh), &
along D-Line Canal (Indian Lakes not
in boundary)
Option 2: All units north of Div. Road
& along D-Line Canal (Indian Lakes
not in boundary)
7 days/week, all day
Option 2: Addition of a primitive hunt
area (remote location, walk-in only);
limited camping available
All units north of Division
Road (except Goose Lake,
South Nutgrass, Swan Check,
and Tule Lake)
7 days/week, until noon
Enhanced opportunities for
hunters willing to walk-in or
use non-motorized craft
Environmental Education/Inter-pretation
& Wildlife Observation/
Photography
- Facilities
- On-site Environmental
Education & Interpretation
Program and Opportunities
- Off-site Environmental
Education Program
- Observation & Photography
Opportunities
Dirt roads, boat ramps, 2
portable toilets
Moderate, but limited by lack of
facilities & from no separation
from hunting
Moderate
Opportunistic (roads and a
crude map are provided)
Same as Alternative A and:
- visitor contact station &
environmental educ. center
- outdoor classroom
- all-weather tour route
- constructed wetlands
- boardwalks and towers
- trail at visitor contact station
- modern restrooms
- interpretive signs
Enhanced, but only limited
separation from hunting (none in
Stillwater Marsh)
Improved over Alternative A
Enhanced by improved facilities
Same as Alternative B and:
- outdoor classroom in Stillwater
Marsh
- interpretive kiosks
- wildlife observation trails (in
marsh and along Carson River)
Much enhanced by facilities and
designated site for environmental
education outside of the hunt area
Same as Alternative B
Greatly enhanced by facilities & a
designated area for non-hunting
activities (under Option 1)
Same as Alternative C, and:
- enhanced visitor facility at
Stillwater Point Reservoir
- additional trails
Greatly enhanced by facilities,
designated area for non-hunting
activities
Improved over Alternative C
Greatly enhanced by facilities
& a designated area for non-hunting
activities
Fishing Permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted
Cultural Resources Mgt. Basic protection measures Basic protection measures Basic protection measures, goals and
objectives for cultural resources, & a
staff archeologist
Same as Alternative C
Anaho Island NWR Monitoring of colony nesters Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 30
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
BEING CONSIDERED
This section, including Table 2, presents a summary of impacts that could potentially result from
implementing the alternatives. Assessments were made of the potential effects of alternatives on
existing and baseline conditions. Existing conditions are those conditions that exist now and that
existed in the recent past, or that could happen in the near future with the continuation of existing
management on the Stillwater NWR Complex and land-use practices outside the complex.
Existing conditions assume that the 20,000 acre-feet of water rights acquired for Stillwater NWR
have been transferred to wetlands and that 17,000 acre-feet are available for wetland use on the
refuge. However, at present, only about 7,900 acre-feet of water rights are permitted for delivery
to the wetlands. The other acquired water rights are either under protest, recently filed, or
pending application. Therefore, the existing conditions identified in this Draft EIS are overstated
with respect to actual existing conditions. Due to the high year-to-year variability and the early
stages of the water-rights acquisition program, the existing hydrologic conditions presented in
this Draft EIS are modeled conditions and are used to estimate changes in environmental
conditions due to changes in management that would occur under different alternatives.
Baseline conditions refer to those conditions that would result from continued management under
Alternative A (No Action Alternative), including the completion of the ongoing water-rights
acquisition program, which may take another 15 years or more to complete. More specifically,
baseline conditions assume that existing management of Stillwater NWR, Stillwater WMA, and
Fallon NWR continue as it has in the recent past and as generally outlined in the 1987
Management Plan for Stillwater WMA, and that sufficient water is available to maintain a long-term
average of 14,000 acres of wetland-habitat (i.e., completion of the water-rights acquisition
program), and that the efficiency targets identified in the Newlands Project OCAP (U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation 1997) are being achieved.
Because baseline conditions will not be achieved for another 15 years or more, the changes from
existing conditions to each alternative are presented. For each action alternative, this percent
change is compared with the percent change estimated to occur under the No Action Alternative
(Alternative A). This is done to give readers an indication of the difference in change that would
occur under the No Action Alternative as compared to the action alternatives. The effects of the
ongoing water-rights acquisition program (the same program under all alternatives) have already
been analyzed in the WRAP EIS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996a).
Environmental consequences are direct and indirect adverse and beneficial effects that would
result from the action alternatives. Direct consequences are those that are caused by the action,
and occur at the same time and place. Indirect consequences are also caused by the action, but
occur later in time or are further removed from the action. In addition to assessing the potential
impacts on the environment, an assessment is also made of the effects of alternatives on the
Service’s capability to meet relevant legal mandates.
The assessment of environmental consequences includes the potential consequences of
alternatives on the Newlands Project operations and other environmental resources in the EIS
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 31
study area; physical components of the refuge complex environment (for example, water
resources); fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats; public uses on the refuge complex; cultural
resources and Indian trust assets; Naval Air Station-Fallon operations; and the local socio-economy.
Also assessed is the Service’s ability to meet relevant legal and policy mandates under
each alternative and potential limitations of the alternatives on a refuge manager’s ability to
manage. The following resources were examined during scoping and the impact analysis process
and found not to be affected by any of the alternatives: geology, climate and meteorology,
groundwater, and secondary wetlands.
Physical Environment
Newlands Project Operations and Infrastructure
Because of the large amount of water rights that will eventually be acquired for Stillwater
NWR wetlands, altering the seasonal delivery pattern of acquired water has the potential to
affect several components of Newlands Project Operations. For the parameters assessed in a
computer model (Below Lahontan Reservoir model, Bureau of Reclamation), all of the
alternatives would have nearly the same effects as would Alternative A, the No Action
Alternative. An exception is the estimated change in hydroelectric power generation, for
which Alternative C would have greater adverse impacts than would Alternatives B and D in
the long term.
For the actions being considered in the Draft EIS, headgate demand would remain unchanged
between all of the alternatives. Under Alternatives A, B, and C, headgate delivery in the
Carson Division of the Newlands Project would decline over the long term from existing
conditions by an estimated 1.7 to 1.9 percent, with Alternative B being at the higher end of
this estimate and Alternative C at the lower end. This compares with Alternative D, which
would result in a decline of an estimated 1.4 percent over the long-term compared to
estimated existing conditions. Project efficiency would increase under all alternatives
compared to existing conditions (an estimated 64.8 percent). Under Alternatives A, B, and
C, Project efficiency would improve to about 67.4 percent by the completion of the water-rights
acquisition program. It would improve to an estimated 67.7 percent under Alternative
D.
As compared to estimated existing conditions, June 30 storage volumes in Lahontan
Reservoir would remain nearly the same under Alternative C, increase slightly under
Alternative A (1 percent) and slightly more under Alternative B (2.3 percent), but would
decline under Alternative D (3.7 percent). November 30 storage volumes, as compared to
estimated existing conditions, would increase slightly under Alternative B, somewhat more
under Alternative A (4 percent) and C (6.9 percent), and especially under Alternative D (15.4
percent).
Hydropower generation, according to the Below Lahontan Reservoir model, would also
decline under all alternatives over the long-term. Under Alternatives A and B, hydroelectric
power generation would decline by nearly 9 percent and under Alternatives C and D, it would
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 32
decline by about 11 percent. Changes to revenues associated with hydroelectric power
generation would be slightly higher than these percentage reductions, except under
Alternative C in which there would be an estimated 22 percent reduction from existing
conditions.
Lower Truckee River and Pyramid Lake
As with Newlands Project operations, modifications in the seasonal inflow pattern to
Stillwater NWR has the potential, in the long term, to alter lower Truckee River flows and
Pyramid Lake elevations, although effects would be slight under Alternatives B and C.
Alternative B could result in slightly lesser flow volumes in the lower Truckee River and
slightly lower water levels in Pyramid Lake, as compared to Alternative A. Conversely,
Alternative C could result in slightly higher flow volumes in the lower Truckee River and
slightly higher water levels in Pyramid Lake, as Alternative A. Effects of Alternative D
would be similar to Alternative C, except effects would be slightly more beneficial to the
lower Truckee River and Pyramid Lake.
Air Quality
Only minor, short-duration, and localized reductions in air quality would be anticipated under
Alternatives B and C related to prescribed burning. Slight, immeasurable improvements
could result from Alternative D due to no prescribed burning.
Refuge Land Base
Each of the action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D), would result in considerable
changes to the land base of the Stillwater NWR Complex. Alternatives B and C would result
in a reduction in the acreage of Federal wildlife areas in the Lahontan Valley. Alternative B
would result in about 65,000 acres being shifted from a Service and Bureau of Reclamation-administered
wildlife management area to Bureau of Reclamation lands being administered
by their contractor. Under Alternative C, nearly 40,000 acres of Federal lands would shift
from Federal lands set aside for wildlife management to lands generally administered by the
Bureau of Reclamation. This would be counteracted by more than 15,000 acres of Bureau of
Reclamation lands (currently outside the Stillwater NWR Complex boundary) being
incorporated into Stillwater NWR, for a net reduction of about 24,000 in Federally-owned
lands dedicated to wildlife management in the Lahontan Valley. Indian Lakes would not be
included in Stillwater NWR Complex under any of the action alternatives. The size of Anaho
Island would not be measurably affected under any of the alternatives, except possibly
Alternative D which could result in the water level of Pyramid Lake rising by an estimated
0.4 feet more than would occur under Alternative A. However, this would only result in less
than an estimated ten fewer acres of land on Anaho Island.
Refuge Wetlands and Waters
None of the alternatives would affect the 14,000-acre wetland-habitat target for the Stillwater
NWR Complex, although Alternatives B and D could affect the Service’s ability to achieve
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 33
this target. Alternative B would enhance efforts by reducing the annual wetland demand to
sustain 14,000 acres of wetland-habitat, whereas Alternative D would make it more difficult
to achieve the targeted acreage. Alternative D might ultimately require additional water to be
acquired above the amount specified in the WRAP EIS. This summary and the Draft EIS for
the Stillwater NWR Complex comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision
assumes that 70,000 acre-feet of water rights would be needed in average per year.
Alternative C’s annual water demand for 14,000 acres of wetland-habitat would be similar to
that of Alternative A and would not require any additional water as compared to the amount
specified in the WRAP EIS. Water chemistry would not be affected markedly by the
alternative selected. An estimated average of 12,500 acres of wetland habitat would be
sustained in Stillwater Marsh during nonspill years, and this would be supplemented by an
estimated average of 16,500 acres of wetland habitat in the marsh during spill years. A spill
year refers to a year in which water is released or spilled from Lahontan Reservoir to
minimize the potential of downstream flooding.
Because the water-rights acquisition program would be a component of all alternatives, they
would all result in increased acreages of wetland-habitat in all seasons of the year, except
possibly during the fall and winter for Alternative D (Figure 1). Differences from the effects
of the No Action Alternative would be as follows. Spring wetland-habitat would be highest
under Alternative D, with Alternative C also producing more wetland-habitat during the
spring than would be produced under Alternatives A and B. During the fall and winter,
Alternative B would produce the most wetland-habitat, followed by Alternative A, then C,
with Alternative D producing the least amount of fall wetland-habitat.
Biological Communities
Because biological communities of wetland systems are integrally related to the seasonal
dynamics of wetland inflow and other factors affecting wildlife habitat, each alternative would
provide for higher quality habitat for some communities and species at particular times of the
year, while habitat for other communities and species would be of lesser quality compared to
baseline conditions. After presenting each alternative’s effects on the Service’s ability to
approximate natural biological diversity, the effects of each alternative on each major component
of biological diversity are summarized.
Vegetation
As compared to existing conditions, all types of wetland vegetation would increase in amount
and diversity through additional water-rights acquisitions under all of the alternatives
considered in the Draft EIS. The effects that each alternative would have on marsh
vegetation would vary depending on a variety of factors, including differences in timing of
water inflow, rate and timing of wetland subsidence, acreages and depths by season, and
water chemistry. Some alternatives would result in closer approximations than others to the
natural vegetative diversity.
The water inflow scenario and water management strategies of Alternative B would, as
compared to baseline conditions, provide deep and shallow emergent vegetation and moist
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000 Alternative B
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000 Alternative D
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Alternative A
(Baseline)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000 Alternative C
Figure 1.  Estimated average wetland-habitat acreages in Stillwater Marsh during nonspill years resulting from existing conditions (i.e.,
assumes that all existing water rights are available for use in the wetlands) and alternative water-delivery schedules that assume completion
of the ongoing water-rights acquisition program,  Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.  The verticaldashed line represents the onset
of the nesting season for waterbirds, and the vertical dashed and dotted line represents the fall migration and wintering season for waterfowl
and the onset of the waterfowl hunting season.  Average annual acreage in the top graph is 6,600 acres and is 12,500 acres in all of the other
graphs. 
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000 Existing Conditions
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 35
soil vegetation that is flooded in the fall. As compared to baseline conditions, Alternative C
would tend to produce more shallow emergent vegetation, wet meadow vegetation, spring
flooded moist soil vegetation, possibly more fall-flooded moist soil vegetation, and slightly
lesser amounts of submergent aquatic vegetation. Alternative D would tend to produce more
shallow emergent vegetation, wet meadow vegetation, and spring-flooded moist soil
vegetation than Alternative C, but would result in less submergent aquatic vegetation and no
fall-flooded moist soil vegetation would be produced.
Riparian vegetation would be enhanced to the greatest extent under Alternative C through the
expansion of Stillwater NWR’s boundary to include the lower Carson River (an additional
three miles of riverine habitat) and increased restoration emphasis, including an integrated
program to reduce saltcedar and other invasive exotic vegetation and elimination of cattle
grazing along riparian corridors. Several plant communities now absent or in low
distribution would be produced or their distribution increased. Restoration efforts under
Alternative D would provide similar benefits to riparian vegetation, but would be slightly
impaired by restrictions on biological and chemical controls. Riparian vegetation under
Alternative B would continue in a degraded condition, as only four miles of the 27 miles now
within the Stillwater NWR Complex would be retained.
Upland vegetation would be enhanced to the largest degree under Alternative D because this
alternative would protect the largest amount of upland vegetation. Alternative C would
protect slightly less, but would still result in restoration of some upland plant communities
through the elimination of livestock grazing in upland areas. Alternative B would protect the
least amount of upland vegetation.
The connection between the Humboldt River System and the Carson River system, a unique
ecological area, which occurs where the Humboldt Slough flows into the Carson Sink, would
be provided long-term protection under Alternative D, but would be foregone under
Alternatives B and C.
Wildlife
Overall, as compared to baseline conditions, Alternative C would provide the most benefits
for marsh and riparian wildlife during the breeding season and Alternative B would provide
the most benefits for fall migrating and wintering birds using Stillwater Marsh. The amount
and quality of wetland-habitat for an array of breeding waterbirds would be considerably
higher under Alternative C as compared to existing and baseline conditions. Greater
protection of the lower Carson River and more attention on restoring riparian habitat under
Alternative C would benefit migratory birds, small mammals, and other wildlife associated
with this habitat. Under Alternative B, the amount of breeding habitat would be slightly
higher than it would be under baseline conditions, although the amount and diversity of
habitats would not be as high as under Alternative C. Even though the acreage of springtime
wetland-habitat would be significantly higher under Alternative D, the peak would occur well
after most birds have started nesting, and the acreage would decline rapidly during the
summer months, thereby markedly reducing the quality of the habitat produced.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 36
Alternative D would be the most favorable alternative for fall migrating shorebirds due to the
vast expanse of wetland-habitat experiencing declining water levels throughout the shorebird
migration period. Alternative C would be the next most favorable for similar reasons,
followed by Alternative B and A, respectively. Alternatives A and B would be the least
desirable for shorebirds because water levels during the migration period would not fluctuate
substantially and, where water levels change, they would generally be rising (Alternative B).
Alternative B would be the most favorable to fall migrating and wintering waterfowl. The
highest concentrations of waterfowl on Stillwater NWR occur during September through
November, and Alternative B would provide the highest amount of wetland-habitat during
this period, of the alternatives being considered. Alternatives A and C would also improve
habitat conditions for fall and winter waterfowl markedly compared to existing conditions.
Alternative A would eventually provide more wetland-habitat during the fall and winter, but
management under Alternative C would provide higher-quality habitats, which would tend to
equalize the benefits to waterfowl during this period. Alternative D would have few benefits
to fall and winter waterfowl, as compared to existing conditions.
Alternative D would be the most favorable alternative for upland species, and the benefits of
Alternative C would be close to this level. Both alternatives would protect, within one
contiguous jurisdiction, a 25-mile-long sand dune system at the southern edge of the Carson
Sink. This dune system provides habitat for several species of endemic dune beetles and
other species associated with dune habitats. Under Alternatives A and B, the dune system
would extend through different jurisdictions.
No adverse impacts to endangered or threatened species, as compared to baseline conditions,
would be anticipated under any of the alternatives being considered. Bald eagles, Federally
listed as threatened, would benefit under all of the alternatives, except Alternative D. As
compared to existing conditions, all of the alternatives would benefit cui-ui (an endangered
species) and Lahontan cutthroat trout (a threatened species), both inhabiting the Truckee
River and Pyramid Lake. Although differences in effects would be slight, cui-ui would
benefit most from the implementation of Alternative D, followed by Alternatives C, A, and
B, respectively. Similarly, Lahontan cutthroat trout would benefit most from Alternatives C
and D, followed by Alternatives A and B, respectively.
Natural Biological Diversity
In general, Alternative C would most approximate the natural biological diversity of any of
the alternatives. A majority of the water being delivered to Stillwater NWR wetlands in late
winter or early spring would emulate a spring pulse of water followed by summer drawdown.
This would contribute toward habitat and associated biological communities that this
hydrologic regime produced under natural conditions. Fall and winter habitat was also a
major component of the Lahontan Valley wetland system under natural conditions and would
be provided under Alternative C. Relatively low volume and flow rate of springtime flows
would continue to be a limiting factor under Alternative C.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 37
Each of the other alternatives would highlight other aspects of the natural biological diversity
and would diminish other aspects. For example, Alternative A would simulate year-round
wetland-habitat, which existed at times under natural conditions during periods when the
Carson River flowed directly into Stillwater Marsh. However, the biological communities
produced by flushing flows that occurred during spring and by the seasonal fluctuations in
water levels characteristic of the Lahontan Valley wetlands in most years, would be poorly
simulated. Alternative B would enhance biological diversity during the fall and winter, but
this would be a tradeoff with early season flushing flows, breeding habitat, and other
conditions that would be produced through a spring pulse of water. Alternative D highlight
the habitat conditions making Great Basin wetlands ideal for shorebirds, that is, declining
water levels during August and September. It would also to some extent enhance biological
diversity during the late spring and early summer, but because of lower-than-natural winter
flows, wetland-habitat acreage would increase sharply during the nesting season, thereby
flooding nests.
Recreation
Hunting
The size and location of the hunt area was a major concern to waterfowl hunters. The
amount of area open to hunting varies by alternative. The amount of wetland-habitat open to
hunting under the different alternatives is a function of the boundary of the hunt area, the
acreage of wetland-habitat on the entire refuge during the hunting season, and the allocation
of wetted acres among the hunt area, wildlife sanctuary, and general public use area (for
alternatives including this zone). Nonspill and spill years are treated separately because of
the vastly different conditions they can produce. Compared to existing conditions, the
amount of wetland-habitat available for hunting during nonspill years would increase under
all alternatives, except Alternative D. In the long term (at the completion of the water-rights
acquisition program), Alternative B would result in the most wetland-habitat available during
the hunting season—more than twice the amount anticipated with the existing water rights in
a full-allocation nonspill year (up to an estimated 9,500 acres compared to 4,100 acres), and
slightly higher than what is estimated under Alternative A at the completion of the
acquisition program (an estimated 8,900 acres).
Of the two options being considered under Alternative C, Option 2 would provide the
greatest benefits to hunters in the long term, with an estimated increase in huntable fall and
winter wetland-habitat of about 50-80 percent over the amount of wetland-habitat available
for hunting under existing conditions in a full-allocation, nonspill year (an estimated 6,000 to
7,400 acres). Increases under Option 1 of Alternative C would be an estimated 10 to 20
percent over existing conditions. In spill years (about one of four years), the amount of
wetland-habitat available for hunting would be similar for Alternatives A, B, and Option 2 of
Alternative C. Available hunting opportunities would decline from existing conditions under
Alternative D. Additional boating restrictions under Alternatives C and D could enhance the
hunting experience for some hunters while it would impair the opportunity for other hunters.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 38
The year-to-year reliability of Stillwater NWR for providing suitable hunting conditions,
compared to existing conditions and past conditions, would continue to increase under all of
the alternatives, except Alternative D. In the past, the amount of wetland-habitat available for
hunting varied tremendously from year to year, from less than 1,000 acres in some years to
over 10,000 acres in other years. This resulted in the number of hunter visits fluctuating
widely, from less than 800 in some years to over 10,000 in other years. Under Alternatives A
and B, it is estimated that the amount of wetland-habitat open to hunting would exceed 8,000
acres in 8-9 out of 10 years, with the remaining 1-2 years having more than half this amount.
Under Option 2 of Alternative C, it is estimated that wetland-habitat open to hunting would
exceed 6,000 acres in 8-9 out of 10 years, with the remaining 1-2 years having at least half this
amount. In all of these alternatives, the amount of wetland-habitat open to hunting would be
as high as 10,000 or more acres in 2-3 years out of 10, as has occurred in the past due to spills.
Under Option 1 of Alternative C, the amount of wetland-habitat open to hunting would be at
least 4,500 acres in 8-9 out of 10 years, with acreages reaching 7,000 or more in spill years. In
most years under Alternative D, it is estimated that there would be less than 1,500 acres in
most years, with up to 6,000 acres of open habitat in 2-3 years out of 10.
Environmental Education and Interpretation
Alternatives B, C, and D would enhance environmental education opportunities as compared
to baseline conditions (Alternative A). Option 1 of Alternative C and Alternative D would
enhance the environmental education and interpretation program to the largest degree. For
example, Option 1 of Alternative C would provide a higher quality, year-round tour loop
closer to the entrance of Stillwater NWR and would provide wetland-related environmental
education opportunities outside the hunt area. Option 2 of Alternative C would also provide
a high-quality tour loop close to the refuge entrance, but it would not be open during the
hunting season, except on a limited basis, and it would not access as much wetland-habitat as
would the tour loop of Option 1. Alternative D would provide additional opportunities,
especially during spring and early summer. However, wetlands along the tour loop would be
further from the refuge entrance, and less wetland-habitat would be available for viewing
during the late summer, fall, and winter.
Wildlife Observation and Photography
Alternatives B, C, and D would enhance wildlife observation and photography opportunities
above those provided under baseline conditions (Alternative A). Option 1 of Alternative C
and Alternative D would enhance wildlife observation opportunities to the largest degree.
Option 1 of Alternative C would provide a higher quality tour loop closer to the entrance of
Stillwater NWR and would provide wildlife observation opportunities outside the hunt area.
Alternative D would provide additional opportunities, but wetlands along the tour loop would
be further from the refuge entrance. Option 2 of Alternative C would also provide a high-quality
tour loop close to the refuge entrance, as would Option 1, but it would not be open
during the hunting season, and it would not access as much wetland-habitat as would the tour
loop of Option 1. Alternatives C and D would provide the best viewing opportunities during
the spring (breeding waterbirds) and late summer (shorebirds).
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 39
Construction of an all-weather tour route and viewing towers would enhance wildlife viewing
opportunities under Alternative B, but other parts of the alternative would offset some of
these additional opportunities. For example, viewing opportunities during the spring would
be reduced because portions of Stillwater Marsh would be closed to public access during the
breeding season and viewing opportunities during the fall and winter would continue to be
hampered due to hunting throughout the portion of the marsh open to public access.
Fishing
Fishing would not be permitted under any of the action alternatives. This would slightly
reduce fishing opportunities in the Lahontan Valley because little fishing presently occurs on
Stillwater NWR, Stillwater WMA, and Fallon NWR at present. Of major concern is the
health advisory against eating fish in the Lahontan Valley, due to mercury contamination, and
conflicts with wetland management and waterbird production.
Camping and Boating
Opportunities for camping in the Stillwater Marsh area would be highest under Alternative A,
and would be reduced considerably under Alternatives B and C, and would be completely
eliminated under Alternative D. Under Alternative B, overnight stays would only be
permitted during the hunting season at designated sites and, under Alternative C, would be
permitted year-round in designated areas. Reductions in camping could result in increased
camping in other nearby areas, possibly including the Indian Lakes area, private entities and
adjacent Bureau of Land Management lands.
Alternative A would similarly provide the most boating opportunities during the hunting
season and throughout the year. Under Alternative B, boating opportunities would be
reduced somewhat because airboats would not be permitted, motorboats would be limited to
15 horsepower, and boating by the public would not be permitted from the end of the hunting
season through July 31. Alternative C could reduce boating opportunities further through the
implementation of a 5 mile-per-hour speed limit, and one to three units closed to motorized
boating. Boating opportunities would be significantly reduced under Alternative D because
boating would be restricted to motorless craft and because of lower acreages of wetland-habitat
during the hunting season.
Other Uses
Alternative A would provide the most opportunities for other uses such as horseback riding,
picnicking, swimming, and trapping. These are non-priority public uses of the Refuge
System. Under all action alternatives, activities occurring on the Indian Lakes area (where
most of the “other uses” occur) would presumably continue as they have in the recent past.
Actions being considered in the Draft EIS would not affect these activities, as the boundary
revision alternatives would not include the Indian Lakes area. Because Alternative B would
include the least amount of land in national wildlife refuge status, it would have the least
impact to the other uses, whereas Alternatives C and D would have the most impact. In the
latter two alternatives, horseback riding, mountain bike riding, and street-legal vehicles
would be permitted, but would only be allowed on open roads.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 40
Cultural Resources and Indian Trust Assets
Under Alternative A, the Service would continue to provide a required level of protection of
cultural resources for its cultural resource management program, except as funds become
available for additional work. Alternative B would be similar except that the addition of a law
enforcement officer would enhance protection of these resources. Under Alternatives C and D,
the Service would place additional emphasis on cultural resources and they would be more
effectively protected. No adverse impacts to Indian trust assets would occur under any of the
alternatives
Socio-Economics
With respect to anticipated changes in hunting, other recreation, livestock grazing, and muskrat
trapping on Stillwater NWR, Stillwater WMA, and Fallon NWR, implementation of Alternative
C would result in a net benefit to the local economy of an estimated $88,000 to $200,000, which
is a 5-12 percent increase above the contribution estimated for Alternative A at the completion of
the water-rights acquisition program. Although revenues from livestock grazing and muskrat
trapping would be reduced on the Federal lands now encompassed within the Stillwater NWR
Complex, revenues from general recreation would be anticipated to increase. Implementation of
Alternatives B and D would result in an anticipated reduction in contributions to the local
economy, and estimated 1-2 percent reduction (Alternative B) and 2-10 percent reduction
(Alternative D). Benefits associated with general recreation would be highest under Alternative
D, but these benefits would be more than offset by reductions in hunting, livestock grazing, and
muskrat trapping. Benefits under Alternative C would be offset and reductions under
Alternatives B and D would be worsened by reductions in hydroelectric power generation at the
New Lahontan Power Plant.
Naval Air Station-Fallon Operations
Alternatives C and D would result in the northern boundary of Stillwater NWR moving six miles
closer to the Bravo-20 Bombing Range. This bombing range is used by the Naval Air Station-
Fallon for tactical combat training and the Navy had expressed concerns about the effects of
revising Stillwater’s boundary on these operations. Because the boundary of the 3,000-foot
ceiling that now exists over Stillwater NWR and Fallon NWR would not be moved with any
northward expansion of Stillwater NWR, the boundary revision and ensuing management of
these lands would not impair Naval Air Station-Fallon operations. An existing memorandum of
understanding would be modified to formalize this agreement between the Navy and the Service.
Ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to Meet Legal Mandates
Alternative C would, compared to the other alternatives being considered, provide the best
framework for the Service to meet legal mandates. This would include the highest potential for
approximating natural biological diversity, fulfilling international treaty obligations with respect
to wildlife, otherwise conserving wildlife, and providing opportunities for scientific research,
environmental education, and other wildlife-dependent recreation. Alternative B would hold
equally high potential for conserving wildlife, although toward different goals, except that a
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 41
considerable amount of important habitats would not be protected within the refuges.
Alternatives A and D would hold the least potential for meeting legal mandates.
A concern was raised that placing limitations on certain management tools could hinder a refuge
manager’s ability to achieve refuge goals and objectives. Alternatives A and B would provide
managers with the most flexibility and Alternative D would provide the least. Alternatives A and
B would place few restrictions beyond those established through laws and Service policy.
Although Alternative C would impose more restrictions on the use of some management tools,
such as livestock grazing and prescribed burning, the constraints were designed as part of the
strategy to emphasize management practices that mimic ecological processes and the conditions
they naturally produced. Regarding the examples given in the preceding sentence, grazing and
browsing by large herbivores, other than mule deer (still present), and fire shaped the habitats of
the Lahontan Valley only to a limited degree under natural conditions.
1 The estimated changes from baseline presented in this matrix were calculated for the sole purpose of illustrating differences in potential effects of each of the alternatives being
considered..  The numbers are estimates only and are used as indices for assessing broad differences among alternatives.
2 EC = existing conditions; BC = baseline conditions, SH = slightly higher than baseline conditions, MH = moderately higher than baseline, CH = considerably higher than baseline, SL =
slightly lower than baseline, ML = moderately lower than baseline, CL = considerably lower than baseline.
Table 2.  Summary of potential impacts of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.
Resource/Issue
Existing
Conditions
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Long-term Average Change from Existing Conditions1,2
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (EIS Study Area)
    Newlands Project (acre-feet)
    Irrigated Acreage Base (acres) 59,075  similar1 similar similar similar
    Headgate  Demand  
 Deliveries  
174,500 
169,290 
2.5% lower
1.8% lower
2.5% lower
1.9% lower
2.5% lower
1.7% lower
2.5% lower
1.4% lower
    Project Efficiency (%) 64.8  2.6% higher (67.4%) 2.6% higher 2.6% higher 2.9% higher (67.7%)
    Lahontan Reservoir Releases  
June 30 Storage  
November 30 Storage  
261,100 
216,160 
108,070 
5.5% lower
1% higher
4.0% higher
5.6% lower
2.3% higher
1.0% higher
5.4 lower
0.1% higher
6.9% higher
5.6% lower
3.7% lower
15.4% higher
    Hydropower Resources Power (GWh)  
Revenue ($)  
21,660 
875,010 
8.6% lower
8.9% lower
8.6% lower
11.0% lower
11.0% lower
22.0% lower
11.5% lower
12.2% lower
        Newlands Project Canal Capacities EC2 increase needed similar similar-MH SH-MH
        Truckee Canal at Derby Dam 88,250  15.7% lower 15.0% lower 16.3% lower 19.9% lower
    Lower Truckee River at Derby Dam
          Pyramid Lake Elevation (feet)
475,660 
3,836.9 
2.8% higher
3.1 ft. higher
2.7% higher
2.6 ft. higher
2.9% higher
3.2 ft. higher
3.1% higher
3.6 ft. higher
    Air Quality (micrograms/meter3) EC   111 similar similar similar
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (ON REFUGE)
    Service Lands Acreage Base  
        Stillwater NWR/WMA and Fallon NWR (acres) 163,021  no change 40% lower 16% lower 3% higher
        Anaho Island NWR (acres) EC (490 ac. in 1999)  245 <1% lower <1% higher 2% lower
    Refuge Wetlands
    Average Wetland-Habitat Acreage  overall 
nonspill year, Stillwater Marsh only 
8,000 
6,600 
75% higher (14,000)
90% higher (12,500)
75% higher
90% higher
75% higher
90% higher
75% higher
90% higher
    Wetland deliveries and incidental inflows (ave.)    39,900  75% higher (70,000) 75% higher 75% higher 75% higher
    Seasonal Wetland-Habitat Apr-Jun  
               (Stillwater Marsh, nonspill year) Oct-Dec  
6,700 
6,800 
87% higher
87% higher
95% higher
100% higher
153% higher
55% higher
183% higher
15% lower
    Flushing Action
Total Dissolved Solids 
Mercury 
limited 
EC 
potential problem 
limited
BC1
similar
similar
similar
similar
SH-MH1
similar
SH
SH-MH
similar
SH
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 42
3 Seasonal ranges in vegetation acreages are a component of vegetation dynamics.  This table considers only an estimated average peak acreage and the season when
the peak would occur.
Table 2 (cont d).  Summary of potential impacts of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.
Resource/Issue
Existing
Conditions
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Conditions Resulting from Each Alternative
BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
    VEGETATION
        Marsh Plant Communities 
             (Peak acreage / Season of Peak Acreage)3
 
            Submergent Vegetation 660-2,640 / similar 2,500-5,080 / similar 1,320-4,110 / similar 2,100-3,675 / similar 2,900-3,920 / similar
            Deep Emergent Vegetation 990-1,980 /similar 1,875-3,750 / similar 1,980-5,010 / similar 2,550-4,200 / similar 2,610-2,850 / spring
            Shallow Emergent Vegetation 660-2,310 / similar 1,250-3,125 / similar 1,320-4,110 / fall 1,050-5,100 / spring 0-6,860 / spring
            Moist-Soil Vegetation 670-2,040 / fall 625-1,900 / fall 1,980-4,110 / fall 1,050-4,250 / spring 0-3,920 / spring
            Wet Meadow Vegetation 0-1,360 / spring 0-1,250 / spring 660-2,060 / fall 1,050-4,250 / spring 0-5,700 / spring
            Wetland Shrub Vegetation 0-330 / similar 0-625 / similar 0-411 / fall 0-850 / spring 0-980 / spring
            Unvegetated Alkali Mudflat Habitat 330-660 / similar 625-1,250 / similar 660-1,370 / fall 525-2,550 / late spring 0-2,940 / late spring
            Deep, Open-Water Habitat 0-67 / spring 0-125 / spring 0-132 / spring 105-680 / spring 116-980 / spring
            Playa Habitats (excl. Carson Sink) 0-8,900 / spring 0-8,900 / spring 0-4,520 / spring 0-6,450 / spring 0-8,470 / spring
      Riverine/Riparian Plant Communities 27 miles protected
No restoration
27 miles protected
Minimal restoration
4 miles protected
Minimal restoration
30 miles protected
Maximum restoration
30 miles protected
High-level of restoration
      Desert Shrub Plant Communities 57,400 acres protected
Depleted understories
57,400 acres protected
Depleted understories
20,900 acres protected
Depleted understories
44,600 acres protected
Enhanced understories
53,900 acres protected
Enhanced understories
      Agricultural Vegetation  0 acres 0 acres 300-400 acres alfalfa,
small grains
200-300 acres alfalfa,
small grains
0 acres
       Composition of Plant Communities 65 % native species 65-70 % native species similar proportion, but
different species
moderately higher  moderately higher
      Invasive Exotic Vegetation Abundant and
increasing distribution
of saltcedar and tall
whitetop in wetlands
and along riparian
corridors
similar slightly to moderately
lower distribution of
saltcedar and tall
white top in marsh and
meadows, but similar
in riparian 
moderately lower
distribution of saltcedar
and tall whitetop in
marsh, meadow, and
riparian habitats
slightly to moderately
lower distribution of
saltcedar and tall whitetop
in marsh, meadow, and
riparian habitats
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 43
Table 2 (cont d).  Summary of potential impacts of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.
Resource/Issue
Existing
Conditions
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Changes from Existing Conditions1,2
  WILDLIFE  (all estimates are for nonspill years)
      Birds
          Waterfowl  Waterfowl Use Days  
           Waterfowl Produced  
8 - 10 million
3,000 - 5,000
75 -125% higher
similar to 150% higher
125-175% higher
similar to 200%
higher
75-125% higher
100-200% higher
10-20% lower
similar
          Shorebirds Peak Spring Population  
Breeding Population  
             Fall Migration  
50,000
EC
25,000-50,000
MH-CH
MH-CH
100% higher
MH-CH
MH-CH
100% higher
CH
CH
100-125% higher
CH
CH
125-150% higher
          Wading Birds      Migratory Population  
                                             Breeding Population  
EC
EC
MH-CH
MH-CH
MH-CH
MH-CH
CH (spring) MH (fall)
CH
CH (spring) similar (fall)
CH
          White pelicans nests/year on Anaho Island  2,000 - 5,000 similar similar similar similar
          Other Waterbirds Spring 
Fall 
EC
EC
MH
MH
MH
MH
CH
MH
CH
similar
          Passerines Riparian 
Upland 
EC
EC
similar
similar
similar
similar
SH- MH
similar to SH
SH-MH
similar to SH
          Raptors                        Bald Eagles (winter) 
Marsh Raptors 
Riparian/Upland Raptors 
up to 30
EC
EC
SH
MH
similar
SH-MH
MH
similar
SH
MH-CH
SH-MH
similar to SL
CH-MH
SH-CH
          Other Bird Species EC similar similar - SH SH SH
          Avian Diseases number birds lost /year  1,000 - 10,000 similar similar similar similar - SL
      Mammals Marsh 
Riparian  
 Upland 
EC
EC
EC
SH-MH 
similar 
similar
SH-MH
similar
similar
M H
MH
SH
SH-MH
SH-MH
SH
      Reptiles EC similar similar SH SH
      Amphibians EC similar similar similar - SH SH-MH
      Fish Native 
Game Fish (non-native) 
Carp and Mosquito Fish (non-native) 
EC
EC
EC (common-abund t)
MH-CH         
CH
MH
MH-CH
MH-CH
SH(carp), MH(m. fish) 
CH
MH-CH
SH(carp), MH(m. fish)  
SH-MH
similar 
similar
      Invertebrates Aquatic (Diversity/Abundance) 
Riparian  (Diversity) 
Dune (Abundance) 
Moderate/High
EC
EC
SH/similar to SH
similar
similar
SH/similar to SH
similar
similar
SH-MH/similar to SH
SH - MH
similar
MH/similar
SH - MH
similar
      Endangered/Threatened Species On-refuge 
Truckee River basin (cui-ui index4) 
Truckee River basin (Lahontan cutthroat trout) 
EC
692,200
EC
similar
75% higher
SH
similar
74% higher
SH
similar
84% higher
SH
similar
97% higher
SH
      Fish and Wildlife Toxicity EC similar similar similar similar
      Natural Biological Diversity EC SH-MH similar - MH MH similar to SH
4 The cui-ui index is a modeled estimate that refers to the number of adult female cui-ui at the end of a 95-year simulation period.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 44
Table 2 (cont d).  Summary of potential impacts of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.
Resource/Issue
Existing
Conditions
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Changes from Existing Conditions1,2
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
    Hunting EC MH-CH MH-CH Option 1: SH than EC
Option 2: MH than EC 
similar to ML
    Environmental Education and Interpretation 600-800 individuals
reached/year through
leader-cond d activities
similar SH MH CH
    Wildlife Observation and Photography EC SH-MH SH SH-MH MH
    Fishing  Stillwater Marsh 
Indian Lakes 
EC (very few anglers)
EC
SL
BC (similar to EC)
SL
similar
SL
similar
SL
similar
    Camping EC similar to SH ML ML ML
    Other Uses Stillwater Marsh/Fallon NWR area 
Stillwater WMA area 
EC
EC`
similar
similar
ML
similar
SL
ML
SL
ML
CULTURAL RESOURCES/INDIAN TRUST ASSETS
    Cultural Resources Cultural resources
adequately protected
similar SH (increased law
enforcement)
MH (law enforcement, 
education, and more
info)
MH (law enforcement,
education, and more info.)
    Indian Trust Assets
        Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Indian Reservation EC similar similar similar similar
        Pyramid Lake (refer to Truckee River, Pyramid
                Lake and cui-ui resources addressed earlier  
EC SH SH SH SH
COMMERCIAL HARVEST OF RESOURCES
    Livestock Grazing On lands retained by Service 
 Total (incl. lands not retained by Service) 
7,200 AUMs
7,200 AUMs
similar
similar
60-80% lower
20-30% lower
90-95% lower
37-47% lower
100% lower
40-50% lower
    Muskrat Trapping   (number trapped annually)  4,000 - 40,000 similar similar 90% fewer 100% fewer
    Commercial Fishery (Indian Lakes area) Carp and Blackfish similar similar similar similar
SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
    Commercial Use Revenues $68,200-124,000/year $68,200-124,000/year 10-25% lower 40-65% lower 45-75% lower
    Outdoor Recreation Expenditures   EC $740,000/year 1% higher 17% higher 5% higher
    Total Contribution to Local Economy5 EC $1,675,000/year 0.9-1.7% lower 5.2-11.8% higher 2.3-9.5% lower
NAVAL AIR STATION-FALLON OPERATIONS EC similar similar similar similar
EFFECTS ON REFUGE MANAGEMENT
    Habitat Management Tools    Tools available 
Frequency of use 
Constraints on use (beyond laws and policy) 
Large number
Low-moderate 
Few
Large number
Low-moderate
Few
similar
SH - MH
SH
similar
SH - MH
MH
ML
SL - similar
MH
    Ability of the Service to Meet Legal Mandates Limited Limited SL CH MH
5 Does not include factors such as reductions in revenues from hydroelectric power generation.
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 45
Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document
Draft EIS 46
REFERENCES CITED
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1997. Adjustments to 1988 operating criteria and procedures
(OCAP) for the Newlands Irrigation Project in Nevada. Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 237,
64815-64958.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. Memo re: Extension of the Tripartite Agreement, Newlands
Project, Nevada. Area Manager, Lahontan Basin Area Office, to: Project Leader, Stillwater
National Wildlife Refuge Complex, March 2000.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1943. Wildlife Refuge Manual. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Water Rights
Acquisition for Lahontan Valley Wetlands. Churchill County, NV. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996b. Record of Decision for: Final Environmental Impact
Statement: Water Rights Acquisition for Lahontan Valley Wetlands. Churchill County, NV.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996c. Final Environmental Assessment for Transfer of Indian
Lakes Area to Churchill County, Nevada. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 1, Portland Oregon. 35 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fulfilling the promise: The National Wildlife Refuge
System: Visions for Wildlife, Habitat, People, and Leadership. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 92 pp.
Contact: Kim Hanson, Project Leader
Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex
P.O. Box 1236
Fallon, Nevada 89407
(775) 423-5128
Don DeLong, Planning-team Leader
CA/NV Refuge Planning Office
2800 Cottage Way, Rm. W-1916
Sacramento, California 95825
(916) 414-6502
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1(800) 344-WILD
March 2000