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 brackishwater 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 wildliferelated 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 landuse 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 offrefuge problems cannot be addressed through refuge management, but need to be recognized

when setting wildlife and habitat objectives. Even though they cannot be addressed onrefuge, 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, highquality 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 wildlifedependent 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

1012345 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) andfall/winter (secondary)

Needs of Key Species infall/winter (primary) andbreeding season (secondary)

Approximation of Natural HabitatConditions (primary) and needs ofkey species (secondary)

Approximation of NaturalEcological Processes

 Hydrology Hydrology - Pattern of Inflow - Inflow Rate Operational

Maximum

 - Diking - Riparian Restoration - Contaminants

Agricultural (imposed byWetlands Water Rights EIS)up to 175 cfsup to 450 cfs (existing capacity)ExistingNoneMinimize

Fall Emphasis (and assumes carryover to spring)up to 150 cfsup to 450 cfsAdditional dikingLimited - Stillwater SloughMinimize

Modified Natural (modified to minimize nest flooding, and to ensure that wetland-habitat is provided in the fall/winter)up to 450 cfs800-1,000 cfsEvaluate existing for possible targetedadditions/reductionsModerate to high levelMinimize

Naturalup to 350 cfs1,000 cfsReductions to simulate a morenatural flow & geom.Moderate to highMinimize

 Average Wetland Habitat Acres in Stillwater Marsh, Nonspill Year - Spring - Fall/Winter

12,000-13,10012,300-13,100

11,100-13,50012,400-14,600

15,800-18,40010,000-11,500

13,000-26,3005,200-7,000
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

 Prescribed Burning Very Limited (<100 wetland

acres/5 years)

Moderate (for key spp.;100-400acres/year) 

Limited (to provide for needs of keyspecies;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 inriparian

Former farmland, & increased effortin riparian

Former farmland & riparian,w/ emphasis on naturalrevegetation

 Farming for Waterfowl None 300-400 acres (non-Service

water rights needed)

200-300 acres (non-Service waterrights 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 increasewaterfowl productionNot currently managed as acontrol measure (muskrattrapping provides recreation andcommercial opportunities)None to limitedNone

Moderate, to increase waterfowlproductionSimilar to Alternative AModerate, use of watermanagement and chemicalsNone, but contingency planwould be developed incase ofdisease outbreak

Limited (e.g., if demonstratedto limit natural production rates)Minimize damage to water-controlfacilities and roads (and rarely toreduce grazing of emergentvegetation)Limited to mod., use of water controland limited chemicalsNone, but contingency plan would bedeveloped incase of disease outbreak

NoneNoneNoneNone
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 sanctuarywould 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 DivisionRoadNoneFew restrictions (airboats &outboards permitted year-round)few restrictionsexisting

1st 4,000 acres to sanctuary

then all remaining wetlandhabitat could be produced in thehunt area (except that anadditional 500-1,000 acres ofwetland habitat could beproduced in the sanctuary)All units south of Division RoadNoneNo boating April 1 to August 1. No Airboats. Boats withoutboards motors (up to 15 hp)permitted during hunting season(but regulate more closely)camping limited to designatedareasexisting

1st 4,000 acres to sanctuaryOption 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 LakeOption 2: All units south of DivisionRoad, except Cattail LakeOption 1: NoneOption 2: West Marsh & Swan Lk.No boating March 1 to August 1,except non-motorized in Goose Lake. Boat operation during remainder ofthe year would be restricted to 15 hpmotors, and a 5 mph speed limit inopen wetland units, except:Option 1: no boating in one unitOption 2: no boating in West Marsh& Swan Lakecamping would be limited todesignated areas, and only in fullycontained unitsexisting closures, plus closure ofNorth 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 DivisionRoadNoneNo boats March 1 to August 1. Boat operation duringremainder of the year wouldbe restricted to non-motorizedboats & boats with electricmotorsno campingexisting, plus limitedadditional 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 DivisionRoad, Indian Lakes, along DLine Canal, & BattlegroundMarsh (occasional)7 days/week, all dayFew restrictions, airboats &other boats permitted in openarea; camping opportunitieswould abound

All units north of Division Road,& 40% of wetland-habitat inFallon NWR (on rare occasions). 7 days/week, all daySimilar to Alternative A, exceptthat additional regulations wouldbe imposed; camping available,but restrictive

Option 1: All units north of Div. Road(except Lead Lake & West Marsh), &along D-Line Canal (Indian Lakes notin boundary)Option 2: All units north of Div. Road& along D-Line Canal (Indian Lakesnot in boundary)7 days/week, all dayOption 2: Addition of a primitive huntarea (remote location, walk-in only);limited camping available

All units north of DivisionRoad (except Goose Lake,South Nutgrass, Swan Check,and Tule Lake)7 days/week, until noonEnhanced opportunities forhunters willing to walk-in oruse non-motorized craft

Environmental Education/Interpretation & Wildlife Observation/Photography - Facilities - On-site Environmental Education & Interpretation Program and Opportunities - Off-site Environmental Education Program - Observation & Photography Opportunities

Dirt roads, boat ramps, 2portable toiletsModerate, but limited by lack offacilities & from no separationfrom huntingModerateOpportunistic (roads and acrude 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 signsEnhanced, but only limitedseparation from hunting (none inStillwater Marsh)Improved over Alternative AEnhanced 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 anddesignated site for environmentaleducation outside of the hunt areaSame as Alternative BGreatly enhanced by facilities & adesignated area for non-huntingactivities (under Option 1)

Same as Alternative C, and: - enhanced visitor facility at Stillwater Point Reservoir - additional trailsGreatly enhanced by facilities,designated area for nonhunting activitiesImproved over Alternative CGreatly enhanced by facilities& a designated area for nonhunting activities

 Fishing Permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permittedCultural Resources Mgt. Basic protection measures Basic protection measures Basic protection measures, goals and

objectives for cultural resources, & astaff 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 longterm 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 socioeconomy. 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 waterrights 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 Reclamationadministered 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 highquality 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 wetlandhabitat 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 StationFallon 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

ExistingConditions

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% lower1.8% lower

2.5% lower1.9% lower

2.5% lower1.7% lower

2.5% lower1.4% 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% higher1.0% higher

5.4 lower

0.1% higher6.9% higher

5.6% lower3.7% lower

15.4% higher

 Hydropower Resources Power (GWh) 

Revenue ($) 

21,660 

875,010 

8.6% lower8.9% lower

8.6% lower

11.0% lower

11.0% lower22.0% lower

11.5% lower12.2% 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% higher90% higher

75% higher90% higher

75% higher90% 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% higher87% 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

similarsimilarsimilar

SH-MH1

similar

SH

SH-MH

similar

SH

StillwaterNWR 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 (contíd). Summary of potential impacts of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.Resource/Issue

ExistingConditions

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 protectedMinimal restoration

4 miles protectedMinimal restoration

30 miles protectedMaximum restoration

30 miles protectedHigh-level of restoration

 Desert Shrub Plant Communities 57,400 acres protected

Depleted understories

57,400 acres protectedDepleted understories

20,900 acres protectedDepleted understories

44,600 acres protectedEnhanced understories

53,900 acres protectedEnhanced 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 distributionof saltcedar and tallwhitetop in wetlandsand along ripariancorridors

similar slightly to moderately

lower distribution ofsaltcedar and tallwhite top in marsh andmeadows, but similarin riparian 

moderately lowerdistribution of saltcedarand tall whitetop inmarsh, meadow, andriparian habitats

slightly to moderatelylower distribution ofsaltcedar and tall whitetopin marsh, meadow, andriparian habitats

Stillwater NWR Complex CCP and Boundary Revision Summary Document

Draft EIS 43
Table 2 (contíd). 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 million3,000 - 5,000

75 -125% highersimilar to 150% higher

125-175% highersimilar to 200%higher

75-125% higher100-200% higher

10-20% lowersimilar

 Shorebirds Peak Spring Population 

Breeding Population 

 Fall Migration 

50,000EC25,000-50,000

MH-CHMH-CH100% higher

MH-CHMH-CH100% higher

CHCH100-125% higher

CHCH125-150% higher

 Wading Birds Migratory Population  Breeding Population 

ECEC

MH-CHMH-CH

MH-CHMH-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 

ECEC

MHMH

MHMH

CHMH

CHsimilar

 Passerines Riparian 

Upland 

ECEC

similarsimilar

similarsimilar

SH- MHsimilar to SH

SH-MHsimilar to SH

 Raptors Bald Eagles (winter) 

Marsh Raptors 

Riparian/Upland Raptors 

up to 30ECEC

SHMHsimilar

SH-MHMHsimilar

SHMH-CHSH-MH

similar to SLCH-MHSH-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 

ECECEC

SH-MH similar similar

SH-MHsimilarsimilar

M HMHSH

SH-MHSH-MHSH

 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) 

ECECEC (common-abundít)

MH-CH CHMH

MH-CHMH-CHSH(carp), MH(m. fish) 

CHMH-CHSH(carp), MH(m. fish) 

SH-MHsimilar similar

 Invertebrates Aquatic (Diversity/Abundance) 

Riparian (Diversity) 

Dune (Abundance) 

Moderate/HighECEC

SH/similar to SHsimilarsimilar

SH/similar to SHsimilarsimilar

SH-MH/similar to SHSH - MHsimilar

MH/similarSH - MHsimilar

 Endangered/Threatened Species On-refuge 

Truckee River basin (cui-ui index4) 

Truckee River basin (Lahontan cutthroat trout) 

EC692,200EC

similar75% higherSH

similar74% higherSH

similar84% higherSH

similar97% higherSH

 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 (contíd). Summary of potential impacts of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.

Resource/Issue

ExistingConditions

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 throughleader-condíd 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

SLBC (similar to EC)

SLsimilar

SLsimilar

SLsimilar

 Camping EC similar to SH ML ML ML Other Uses Stillwater Marsh/Fallon NWR area 

Stillwater WMA area 

ECEC`

similarsimilar

MLsimilar

SLML

SLML

CULTURAL RESOURCES/INDIAN TRUST ASSETS Cultural Resources Cultural resources

adequately protected

similar SH (increased law

enforcement)

MH (law enforcement, education, and moreinfo)

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 AUMs7,200 AUMs

similarsimilar

60-80% lower20-30% lower

90-95% lower37-47% lower

100% lower40-50% 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 similarSOCIOECONOMIC 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 similarEFFECTS ON REFUGE MANAGEMENT Habitat Management Tools Tools available 

Frequency of use 

Constraints on use (beyond laws and policy) 

Large numberLow-moderate Few

Large numberLow-moderateFew

similarSH - MHSH

similarSH - MHMH

MLSL - similarMH

 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