Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

              Sheldon
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Our Vision for the Future
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge will foster a strong land ethic and provide scientific
leadership through collaboration with a diverse network of partners and utilize the
highest principles of conservation. Sheldon Refuge will promote opportunities for people
to actively seek and discover natural and cultural treasures in the vast and rugged high
desert characterized by solitude, abundant wildlife, and wildlands free from human
influences. Management will focus on Sheldon Refuge’s wild character, biological
integrity, and contribution within the larger landscape of the Great Basin as driven by
natural ecological processes. As a result, Sheldon Refuge will perpetuate its unique
cultural history and critical role in the preservation and study of the sagebrush-steppe
ecosystem with its diverse and vital native species.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best
estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels
that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations
and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and
program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a
commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance
increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
Humboldt and Washoe counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon
Type of Action: Administrative
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official: Robyn Thorson, Regional Director
For Further Information: John Kasbohm, Project Leader
Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
PO Box 111
Lakeview, Oregon 97630
Abstract: We developed alternatives, including preferred and no action alternatives, as required by
National Environmental Policy Act regulations, for the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. We
addressed issues, opportunities, and Refuge management options in the alternatives. Summaries of
the alternatives follow.
Alternative 1 (No Action). Under Alternative 1 we would maintain current Refuge management
programs and where feasible, restore habitats, including maintaining populations of approximately
800 horses and 90 burros. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation,
environmental education, commercial outfitting and guiding, rock collecting, scientific research and
study, camping, boating, backpacking, horseback riding, and vehicle use would continue. The area
referred to as “Little Sheldon” and lands near the refuge headquarters at Dufurrena would remain
closed to all hunting. In addition, Catnip and Big Springs reservoirs would remain closed to
waterfowl hunting.
Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative). Under Alternative 2 we would maintain current wildlife and
habitat management, with the following improvements: Removal of all feral horses and burros within
five years, removal of abandoned livestock developments, relocation of campgrounds away from
riparian habitats and prehistoric cultural sites, restoration of riparian habitats, aggressive reduction of
encroaching western juniper, and closure of some primitive unmaintained routes to motorized vehicle
public uses. Improvements to wildlife-dependent public uses would include improving existing
campground facilities, developing an accessible interpretive trail, designating a self-guided auto tour
route, and relocating the visitor contact station.
Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3 we would maintain current wildlife and habitat management,
with the following improvements: Removal of all feral horses and burros within 15 years,
establishment or improvement of fuel breaks to allow greater use of wildland fire and less aggressive
fire suppression, consolidation of campgrounds, discontinued stocking of non-native fish, and closure
of additional primitive routes to public use of motorized vehicles. Improvements to wildlife-dependent
public uses would include increased opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation.
Public Comments: We will accept comments from the public for a period of 60 days following
publication of the Notice of Availability for the Sheldon Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex
P.O. Box 111
Lakeview, OR 97630
.........September 2011
This page left blank intentionally.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Executive Summary ES-i
Executive Summary
This document is a summary of the combined Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement (Draft CCP/EIS) for long-term management of the Sheldon
National Wildlife Refuge located in northwest Nevada. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
is required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (as amended) to
develop and implement a CCP for the long-term management of all national wildlife refuges. This
Draft CCP/EIS evaluates and compares three draft alternatives for the conservation of fish, wildlife,
and plants within Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (referred to here as Sheldon Refuge) primarily
through monitoring of their populations, management and restoration of their habitats, and control of
invasive and feral species. The three draft alternatives also include management of public uses such
as wildlife observation and photography, hunting, fishing, environmental education, interpretation,
and rock collecting in a manner that is compatible with the primary conservation purposes for
Sheldon Refuge. The environmental consequences section of the Draft CCP/EIS evaluates the
impacts from management activities and public uses on refuge resources, including wilderness and
cultural resources and is the basis for determining the compatibility of public uses and the minimum
administrative actions necessary for the management of the eight proposed wilderness areas within
Sheldon Refuge. Appropriateness findings, compatibility determinations, and minimum tool analysis
for public uses and activities that are part of the Service’s preferred alternative (Alternative 2) are
included with the Draft CCP/EIS as appendices.
The three draft alternatives presented are the outcome of a public planning process, which was
initiated in 2007 and has involved thousands of individuals, non-profit organizations, state and local
agencies, and tribal governments. Effects from the management activities and public uses under
consideration are identified and evaluated, with attention to those effects that are potentially
significant.
The Final CCP/EIS will be approved and a Record of Decision signed by the Service’s Regional
Director in Portland, Oregon. The Final CCP will guide management of Sheldon Refuge for the next
15 years.
Refuge Information and Background
Located in a remote area of northwestern Nevada, Sheldon Refuge encompasses 575,000 acres of
sagebrush-steppe habitat within the Great Basin and is managed by the Service. Originally
established in 1931 for the conservation and protection of the once-imperiled pronghorn (Antilocapra
americana), Sheldon Refuge (along with its refuge complex companion, the Hart Mountain National
Antelope Refuge) now conserves habitat for a number of additional native, rare, and imperiled
species of fish, wildlife, and plants that depend upon the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem.
Blanketing high basalt tablelands and mountains, which average 6,000 feet in elevation, the vast
expanses of sagebrush habitats are dotted with springs, pockets of aspen (Populus spp.), and isolated
stands of mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius ledifolius). Only at its edges does the refuge
vary noticeably, with the pale rhyolite of Virgin Valley on the eastern edge, which holds highly
prized black opal, and the high escarpment on the western edge where western juniper (Juniperus
occidentalis occidentalis) dominates.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
ES-ii Executive Summary
Beginning in the late 1800s and lasting until the mid-1990s, homesteading and ranching had a
noticeable influence on habitats through ranching operations, livestock grazing, and wildland fire
suppression. Influence from these activities remain in the form of abandoned water developments,
feral horses, and continued fire suppression—all of which continue to influence habitat and natural
conditions throughout Sheldon Refuge.
With the exception of a two-lane paved highway, a few scattered buildings, abandoned water
troughs, and some primitive dirt roads, Sheldon Refuge appears today much as it has for the past
12,000 years or more that people have lived in this region. This long history of habitation is apparent
throughout the refuge from the prehistoric stone tools, petroglyphs, and ancient campsites that
remain. Today people continue to hunt, hike, and camp within Sheldon Refuge but for recreation
rather than subsistence. Management of eight proposed wilderness areas continues to protect the
remoteness, primitive character, and opportunities for solitude within 341,500 acres of Sheldon
Refuge.
Wildlife observation and photography are two of the most popular activities enjoyed by nearly all
visitors either by vehicle, or on foot in the refuge backcountry. A number of visitors also participate
in hunting for big-game and upland birds during the fall seasons throughout much of Sheldon
Refuge. Areas closed to hunting include approximately 34,000 acres in the western portion of the
refuge, which represents the original refuge established in 1931, and the area surrounding the Refuge
Headquarters at Dufurrena. Opportunities for waterfowl hunting exist but are constrained by the lack
of habitat and limited areas of open water for hunting. Fishing at the Dufurrena Ponds, Catnip
Reservoir, and at Big Spring Reservoirs (when water is available) is another activity popular with
Nevada residents mostly during the summer months. During the spring and early summer, rock
collecting is the primary public use activity within the Virgin Valley area of Sheldon Refuge.
Public uses throughout Sheldon Refuge are supported by various facilities, including 13 designated
primitive, semi-primitive and developed campgrounds, informational kiosks, the Refuge
Headquarters at Dufurrena, and a network of roads ranging from paved highway to rugged two-track
routes suitable only for high-clearance four-wheel-drive vehicles. Hunting guides and outfitters
provide additional visitor services under Special Use Permits from the Service.
As a large and relatively undeveloped area, Sheldon Refuge provides rare opportunities to study and
research the fish, wildlife, and plants that occur in the sagebrush-steppe. Current and recent work
conducted by the Service and in partnership with other federal agencies, the State of Nevada,
universities, and non-profit organizations include studies of Greater sage-grouse (Centrocerus
urophasianus) populations, American pika (Ochotona princeps) distribution, desert lizard
populations, amphibian distribution, bat species distribution, feral horse and burro population
movements and impacts, and effects from fire.
Refuge Purposes, Vision, and Management Goals
The primary purposes for Sheldon Refuge are:
 “...as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and birds...” Executive Order (EO) 5540
dated January 26, 1931
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Executive Summary ES-iii
 “...set apart for the conservation and development of natural wildlife resources and for the
protection and improvement of public grazing lands and natural forage resources...” EO 7522
dated December 21, 1936
 “...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened
species....or (B) plants...” 16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1534 (Endangered Species Act of
1973)
 “...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
The Service’s vision for Sheldon Refuge included in the Draft CCP/EIS is stated as follows:
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge will foster a strong land ethic and provide scientific
leadership through collaboration with a diverse network of partners and utilize the highest
principles of conservation. Sheldon Refuge will promote opportunities for people to actively
seek and discover natural and cultural treasures in the vast and rugged high desert
characterized by solitude, abundant wildlife, and wildlands free from human influences.
Management will focus on Sheldon Refuge’s wild character, biological integrity, and
contribution within the larger landscape of the Great Basin as driven by natural ecological
processes. As a result, Sheldon Refuge will perpetuate its unique cultural history and critical
role in the preservation and study of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem with its diverse and
vital native species.
This vision for Sheldon Refuge would be achieved through management toward the following goals
as stated in the Draft CCP/EIS:
Goal 1: Manage feral horse and burro populations consistent with the purposes for Sheldon
Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, national wildlife refuge
policy, and to protect and preserve a diverse assemblage of native plant and wildlife species,
habitats, and naturally functioning systems characteristic of the Great Basin Ecosystem.
Goal 2: Protect, maintain, and restore sagebrush-steppe and associated upland communities
characteristic of the Great Basin Ecosystem.
Goal 3: Restore, protect, and maintain the structure and function of riparian and aquatic
habitats characteristic of the Great Basin Ecosystem.
Goal 4: Protect unique and rare habitats, wildlife, and communities.
Goal 5: Using an integrated approach, prevent, control, or eliminate non-native species that
threaten Sheldon Refuge resources.
Goal 6: Collect information and create partnerships necessary to support adaptive
management decisions at a landscape scale.
Goal 7: Provide an active fire management program.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
ES-iv Executive Summary
Goal 8: Provide visitors of diverse interests and abilities with the opportunities to experience
a variety of quality wildlife-dependent recreational and interpretive activities on vast, rugged,
and remote high desert landscapes. These experiences will enhance visitors’ understanding
of and appreciation for the unique natural and cultural resources conserved by Sheldon
National Wildlife Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Goal 9: Protect and manage Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Study Areas to
maintain wilderness character and values.
Goal 10: Protect and manage the prehistoric, historic, and paleontological resources of
Sheldon Refuge to ensure present and future generations recognize the significance of the
area’s past.
Goal 11: Reduce illegal and unauthorized activities on Sheldon Refuge.
Management Issues
Development of the Draft CCP/EIS was driven primarily by the need to address several important
management issues as identified by the Service, local tribal governments, state governments, other
federal agencies and the public. The following major issues were identified and expressed by the
public, various constituents, and Service staff, and have been analyzed and addressed during CCP
development.
 Management of feral horses and burros
 Western juniper encroachment into adjacent sagebrush-steppe habitats
 Wildland fire and its management related to both lightning-caused and prescribed burning
 Control of invasive non-native plants
 Management of sport fishing
 Management of campgrounds
 Recommendations for proposed wilderness areas
 Public access, especially vehicle access
Management Alternatives
The Draft CCP/EIS includes three alternatives. Alternative 1 reflects the current management of
Sheldon Refuge and would continue to implement applicable management direction from other
existing management plans. Alternative 1 is the baseline against which the other alternatives are
evaluated. Alternative 2 is the Service’s preferred management alternative and is generally a more
intensive approach to management of refuge resources when compared with current management
under Alternative 1. The primary emphasis of Alternative 2 is the restoration of native habitats
throughout Sheldon Refuge for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and plants. Alternative 3 is generally a
less intensive management approach when compared with Alternative 1 or Alternative 2.
The Service has selected Alternative 2 as its preferred alternative because it would more likely
restore degraded habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge currently being adversely impacted by:
populations of feral horses and burros; the presence of abandoned and unnecessary commercial
livestock developments; continued long-term suppression of lightning-caused wildland fire; the
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Executive Summary ES-v
introduction and rapid spread of invasive non-native weeds along road corridors; and designated
camping areas located within riparian areas and/or prehistoric cultural sites.
Alternative 2 would best implement Service policy for the removal of feral horses and burros from
Sheldon Refuge; for management for self-sustaining high quality sport fishing opportunities; and for
designation of roads and motorized vehicle routes in support of wildlife-dependent public uses that
minimize adverse impacts to refuge resources. The recommendation for proposed wilderness areas
in Alternative 2 would allow intensive management and manipulation of habitats within those
portions of Sheldon Refuge where action is most needed, while at the same time protecting and
preserving wilderness values within those portions of the Refuge where only minimal manipulation
of habitats or management activity is needed or anticipated.
Alternative 1 (the no action alternative). Populations of approximately 800 feral horses and 90
feral burros would continue to be maintained within Sheldon Refuge. Control methods would
continue to include helicopter and horseback gathers, followed by shipment to private facilities for
adoption or fertility control and release. Prescribed fire, mowing of sagebrush, and thinning of
encroaching juniper and mountain mahogany would continue to be the primary management
activities to maintain, restore, or improve habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge. The majority of water
control structures would remain abandoned and unmaintained throughout Sheldon Refuge. Other
water developments (primarily reservoirs, ponds, and rain-collecting guzzlers) would continue to be
maintained for wildlife and recreation opportunity.
Nearly the entire Sheldon Refuge would continue to be available for public wildlife viewing and
photography. Hunting and fishing harvest seasons and limits would continue to be coordinated with
the Nevada Department of Wildlife, and reservoirs and ponds that support recreational fisheries
would continue to be maintained and restocked with fish as needed. Environmental interpretation
and outreach within Sheldon Refuge would continue to be conducted mostly through signs,
brochures, and occasional volunteer projects. In addition, Sheldon Refuge would remain one of the
only national wildlife refuges in the Refuge System where opportunities for surface collection of
rocks and minerals are provided. Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and
unconfined wildlife-dependent recreation would remain available in the various proposed wilderness
areas, as well as in other remote portions of Sheldon Refuge. All existing designated campgrounds
and roads would continue to be maintained at their current locations.
Sheldon Refuge would continue to manage the existing 341,500 acres of proposed wilderness areas
to protect and preserve their natural primitive character, solitude, opportunities for primitive
recreation, and other special resource values. Occasional intrusions to provide fire suppression, and
conduct fish, wildlife, and habitat management necessary to fulfill the primary purposes for Sheldon
Refuge are anticipated. Management activities within the wilderness areas would include aerial
population surveys, habitat monitoring, habitat restoration and rehabilitation, research studies and
associated temporary structures, law enforcement activities, prescribed burning, and thinning of
encroaching trees and shrubs.
Alternative 2 (Service’s preferred alternative). The primary habitat management action under this
alternative would be the removal of feral horses and burros from Sheldon Refuge. Other actions
would rehabilitate and restore a variety of sites and small areas to improve habitat conditions,
including the removal of abandoned livestock water developments from springs throughout Sheldon
Refuge. In addition spring, springbrook, playa, wet meadow, and stream habitats throughout
Sheldon Refuge would be restored to more natural conditions. A broad range of management tools
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
ES-vi Executive Summary
would be available for application including prescribed and natural fire, mechanical treatment, and
water management as necessary to meet native wildlife life history requirements. In many cases,
management would restore, maintain, or mimic natural ecosystem processes. Under this alternative,
Sheldon Refuge would increase efforts to control, reduce, and remove feral, invasive, exotic, and
noxious non-native species.
Wildlife-dependent public uses would be highlighted with opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education maintained or improved from
present conditions. Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) in Big Spring Reservoir and Virgin Creek
would be replaced with trout indigenous to the region (i.e., Lahontan cutthroat trout [Oncorhynchus
clarki henshawi] or redband trout [O. mykiss spp.]). Up to nine designated campgrounds would be
relocated and some road segments realigned to reduce erosion and impacts to sensitive riparian areas,
but the size, general location, or types of developments currently found at these campgrounds would
remain unchanged.
Other actions would include relocation and enlargement of the visitor contact station, improvement
of campground facilities, development of an accessible interpretive trail, the creation of a self-guided
auto tour route, and improved signing of routes open to vehicle use. As part of this alternative,
Sheldon Refuge would propose some existing primitive unmaintained routes be closed to public use
by motorized vehicles to protect various refuge resources. Management action would be taken to
reduce impacts from other existing routes. In addition, visitors would be required to register all off-highway
vehicles for use on refuge roads and routes designated open to vehicle use.
Areas managed for wilderness values under Alternative 2 (preferred) would include those currently
proposed for wilderness designation under Alternative 1 (no action) and additional areas for
wilderness study as part of the 2009 Sheldon Refuge Wilderness Review. As a result, a larger
portion of Sheldon Refuge (420,402 acres) would be managed for wilderness character than under
the other alternatives in the short term. The areas recommended for wilderness designation by
Sheldon Refuge are somewhat different in location and configuration than those currently proposed
under Alternative 1 (no action), but the total area recommended is essentially the same
(approximately 341,500 acres under Alternative 1 versus approximately 341,935 under Alternative
2).
Alternative 3 (emphasis on natural processes). Under Alternative 3, Sheldon Refuge would focus
on management actions to mimic the effects of and restore natural processes such as fire, succession
of native plant communities, flooding, and cycles or variation in wildlife populations needed to
maintain or enhance native fish, wildlife, and plant diversity. Maintenance and/or restoration of
shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, woodland, grassland, and cliff-talus habitats would take place
through protection of natural processes as opposed to active management.
As with Alternative 2, the primary habitat management action in Alternative 3 would be the removal
of feral horses and burros from Sheldon Refuge, but removal would be accomplished within a longer
period of time. Alternative 3 would result in less prescribed burning, mowing, and thinning when
compared with Alternative 1 (no action) and Alternative 2 (preferred). Where such activities are
conducted, the primary objective would be creating conditions where natural fire could be allowed
while maintaining an acceptable level of safety and protection for people, property, and certain
unique or critical resources. Management would focus on allowing natural fire, but constraints
necessary to protect firefighter safety, public safety, and private property make the likelihood of such
fires very small.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Executive Summary ES-vii
Wildlife-dependent public uses, including hunting and fishing, would continue to be available
although not emphasized; non-native fish stocking would be eliminated; and rock collecting would
be more closely monitored and possibly regulated. There would be limited access, facilities, and
interpretive visitor contact facilities or signs provided; instead, self-exploration of Sheldon Refuge
resources would be emphasized. Similar to Alternative 2 (preferred), designated campgrounds would
be relocated out of sensitive riparian habitats to reduce impacts. However, instead of merely moving
existing campgrounds to a nearby location, campgrounds would be consolidated. This would result
in fewer but larger campgrounds in order to maintain the same number of campsites as under
Alternative 1 (no action) and Alternative 2 (preferred).
Alternative 3 would propose fewer miles of existing primitive routes be designated for public vehicle
use than is proposed under Alternative 1 (no action) or Alternative 2 (preferred). When combined
with the recommendation that a smaller number of acres be designated as wilderness, Alternative 3
(natural processes) would result in the least amount of vehicle-accessible area and the smallest area
managed for wilderness values when compared with the other alternatives.
Environmental Consequences
Implementation of each alternative presented in the Draft CCP/EIS would be expected to cause both
beneficial and adverse impacts to refuge resources, recreation opportunities, and local communities
and their economies. The Draft CCP/EIS addresses these impacts, with the majority of discussion
and detail focused on impacts that are potentially significant. The following briefly summarizes the
various impacts anticipated from each of the three alternatives.
Alternative 1. Overall, we anticipate Alternative 1 would have the greatest long-term, adverse
impact to the fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats, recreation opportunity, cultural resources, and
wilderness values. These adverse impacts would result primarily from:
 The continued presence of approximately 800 feral horses and 80 feral burros
 The continued presence of non-native fish
 The spread of non-native invasive plants,
 The continued alteration of the natural fire regime and plant community succession from fire
suppression and prescribed fire,
 Habitat fragmentation and wildlife disturbance from motorized vehicle routes and their use,
 Impacts to water flow and riparian habitats from the presence and/or maintenance of
abandoned livestock developments,
 Impacts to recreation opportunity from the lack of adequate facilities,
 Trammeling of wilderness condition from repeated management activities and habitat
manipulation.
Important beneficial impacts from Alternative 1 would be habitat improvement following removal of
encroaching juniper and fire-fuel reduction to protect old-growth mountain mahogany, benefits to
pronghorn from the continued maintenance of Swan Lake Reservoir and associated late-summer
forage, benefits to quality sport-fishing opportunities from the continued maintenance of reservoirs
and fish stocking, and preservation of opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of recreation.
Alternative 2. We anticipate Alternative 2 would have the greatest long-term beneficial impacts on
fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats, recreation opportunity, and cultural resources, primarily as a
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
ES-viii Executive Summary
result of more intensive and aggressive management action to improve ecological integrity
throughout Sheldon Refuge. We also anticipate those same management actions would have a
number of short-term, but likely less intensive, adverse impacts. Beneficial impacts would be related
primarily to:
 Improved ecological integrity from the removal of feral horses and burros
 Discontinued stocking of fish not indigenous to the region
 More directed and aggressive control of non-native invasive plants
 Removal of abandoned livestock developments, stream and playa restoration efforts
 Fire-fuel reduction to protect old-growth mountain mahogany
 More aggressive thinning and removal of encroaching juniper
 Relocation of camping areas out of riparian habitats and/or away from prehistoric cultural
sites
Beneficial impacts to recreation opportunity would occur from improved campground and visitor
contact facilities and indirectly from the removal of feral horses and burros. Beneficial impacts to
wilderness values would occur following removal of livestock developments and from improved
ecological conditions. Important adverse impacts include continued effects from invasive animal
species (primarily non-native fish and bullfrogs), alteration of the natural fire regime and plant
community succession from continued fire suppression and prescribed fire, and trammeling of
wilderness condition from management activities to restore ecological integrity.
Alternative 3. Alternative 3 is expected to result in both adverse and beneficial impacts to a variety
of resources. Many of these impacts represent a trade-off between actions to achieve one
management goal at the expense of another. Overall, we anticipate long-term impacts from
Alternative 3 would be more beneficial to refuge resources when compared with Alternative 1 but
less beneficial when compared with Alternative 2. Beneficial impacts from Alternative 3 would
include improved ecological integrity from the removal of feral horses and burros and consolidation
of designated camping areas. Wilderness solitude would improve as a result of fewer management
activities and lesser use of mechanized and motorized tools and equipment. Adverse impacts from
Alternative 3 would include:
 Increased risk for larger more intense wildland fires from fewer and/or less effective fire-fuel
breaks and encroaching juniper removed from fewer acres
 Poor or insufficient recovery of springs following removal of livestock developments
 Fewer opportunities for sport fishing as maintenance of ponds and reservoirs are discontinued
 Fewer public access opportunities as maintenance of Virgin Valley road is discontinued
 Fewer opportunities for primitive recreation with increased motorized access
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Table of Contents i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction, Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................. 1-1
1.1 Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..................................................... 1-2
1.4 Content and Scope of Plan ........................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Planning and Management Guidance ........................................................................................... 1-3
1.5.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ................................................................................... 1-4
1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................................................. 1-4
1.5.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals .............................................................. 1-4
1.5.4 Refuge Management Direction ................................................................................................. 1-5
1.5.5 Future Step-down Management Plans ...................................................................................... 1-6
1.6 Refuge Establishment, Refuge Purposes, Refuge Goals .............................................................. 1-6
1.6.1 Sheldon Refuge Purposes ......................................................................................................... 1-7
1.6.2 Refuge Vision Statement .......................................................................................................... 1-9
1.6.3 Refuge Management Direction: Goals .................................................................................... 1-9
1.7 Relationship to Other Ecosystem Planning Efforts .................................................................... 1-10
1.7.1 State Plans ............................................................................................................................... 1-10
1.7.2 Migratory Bird Plans .............................................................................................................. 1-10
1.8 Planning and Issue Identification ............................................................................................... 1-12
1.8.1 Description of the Planning Process ....................................................................................... 1-12
1.9 Plan Amendment and Revision .................................................................................................. 1-19
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................................................. 2-1
2.1 Alternative Descriptions ............................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Alternatives Considered but Not Evaluated in Further Detail .................................................. 2-1
2.1.2 Features Common to All Alternatives ...................................................................................... 2-2
2.1.3 Description of the Alternatives ................................................................................................. 2-4
2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................................................................................... 2-18
2.2.1 Goal 1: Manage feral horse and burro populations consistent with the purposes for
Sheldon Refuge, the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, National Wildlife
Refuge policy, and to protect and preserve a diverse assemblage of native plant and
wildlife species, habitats, and naturally functioning systems characteristic of the Great
Basin Ecosystem. .................................................................................................................... 2-18
2.2.2 Goal 2. Protect, maintain, and restore sagebrush-steppe and associated upland
communities characteristic of the Great Basin Ecosystem. .................................................... 2-19
2.2.3 Goal 3. Restore, protect, and maintain the structure and function of riparian and aquatic
habitats characteristic of the Great Basin Ecosystem. ............................................................ 2-25
2.2.4 Goal 4. Protect unique and rare habitats, wildlife, and communities. ................................... 2-33
2.2.5 Goal 5. Using an integrated approach, prevent, control, or eliminate non-native species
that threaten Sheldon Refuge resources. ................................................................................. 2-41
2.2.6 Goal 6. Collect information and create partnerships necessary to support adaptive
management decisions at a landscape scale. ........................................................................... 2-43
2.2.7 Goal 7. Provide an active fire management program. ........................................................... 2-48
2.2.8 Goal 8. Provide visitors of diverse interests and abilities with opportunities to
experience a variety of quality wildlife-dependent recreational and interpretive activities
on vast, rugged, and remote high desert landscapes. These experiences will enhance
visitors’ understanding of and appreciation for the unique natural and cultural resources
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
ii Table of Contents
conserved by Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge
System. .................................................................................................................................. 2-50
2.2.9 Goal 9. Protect and manage Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Study Areas
to maintain wilderness character and values. .......................................................................... 2-63
2.2.10 Goal 10. Protect and manage the prehistoric, historic, and paleontological resources of
Sheldon Refuge to ensure present and future generations recognize the significance of
the area’s past. ........................................................................................................................ 2-64
2.2.11 Goal 11. Reduce illegal and unauthorized activities on Sheldon Refuge. .......................... 2-69
Chapter 3. Physical Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Geographic and Ecosystem Setting .............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Great Basin Ecosystem ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Climate ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.3 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3.1 Water Resources ....................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3.2 Water Quality......................................................................................................................... 3-11
3.3.3 Water Rights ........................................................................................................................... 3-11
3.4 Topography ............................................................................................................................... 3-13
3.5 Geology/Soils ............................................................................................................................. 3-13
3.6 Environmental Contaminants ..................................................................................................... 3-15
3.7 Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 3-15
3.7.1 Valid Existing Rights, Rights-of-Way, and Easements .......................................................... 3-16
Chapter 4. Biological Environment ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Analysis ........................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Feral Horses and Burros ........................................................................................................... 4-4
4.1.2 Invasive, Non-Native, Encroaching, and Expanding Species ................................................... 4-5
4.1.3 Disease ..................................................................................................................................... 4-8
4.1.4 Changes in the Fire Regime ...................................................................................................... 4-9
4.1.5 Human Disturbance and Habitat Fragmentation..................................................................... 4-12
4.2 Refuge Habitats and Vegetation Types ...................................................................................... 4-13
4.2.1 Sagebrush-steppe and Other Shrubland Habitats .................................................................... 4-14
4.2.2 Other Associated Sagebrush-steppe Communities ................................................................. 4-19
4.2.3 Semi-desert Grasslands and Steppes ....................................................................................... 4-24
4.2.4 Emergent Marshes, Wet Meadows, Streams, Reservoirs, Springs, Springbrooks, and
Ephemeral Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 4-26
4.2.5 Cliffs, Canyons, Talus Slopes, and Barren Lands .................................................................. 4-34
4.2.6 Deciduous Woodlands and Shrublands .................................................................................. 4-37
4.2.7 Mountain Mahogany and Western Juniper Woodlands .......................................................... 4-39
Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities ................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Administrative Buildings and Structures .................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Management Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.3 Operations and Administration ................................................................................................. 5-5
5.2 Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Public Uses .......................................................................... 5-7
5.2.1 Waterfowl Hunting ................................................................................................................... 5-7
5.2.2 Upland Bird/Small-game Hunting ............................................................................................ 5-8
5.2.3 Big-game Hunting .................................................................................................................... 5-8
5.2.4 Fishing ..................................................................................................................................... 5-9
5.2.5 Wildlife Viewing and Photography ........................................................................................ 5-11
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Table of Contents iii
5.2.6 Environmental Education ....................................................................................................... 5-12
5.2.7 Interpretation.......................................................................................................................... 5-13
5.3 Supporting Uses and Facilities ................................................................................................... 5-13
5.3.1 Camping ................................................................................................................................. 5-13
5.3.2 Horseback Riding ................................................................................................................... 5-15
5.3.3 Bicycling ................................................................................................................................ 5-15
5.3.4 Outfitting and Guiding ............................................................................................................ 5-16
5.4 Other Refuge Uses...................................................................................................................... 5-16
5.4.1 Rock Collecting ...................................................................................................................... 5-16
5.5 Law Enforcement and Illegal Activities ..................................................................................... 5-16
5.6 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties ................................................................................ 5-17
5.6.1 Native American Cultural History .......................................................................................... 5-17
5.6.2 Native American Ethnography and Recent History................................................................ 5-17
5.6.3 Euro-American History .......................................................................................................... 5-18
5.6.4 Current Knowledge of Cultural Resources Sites on Sheldon Refuge ..................................... 5-21
5.6.5 Special Designation Areas ...................................................................................................... 5-25
5.6.6 Social and Economic Conditions ............................................................................................ 5-26
Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Effects to Habitats and Associated Wildlife ................................................................................. 6-1
6.1.1 Effects Common to All Habitats and Associated Wildlife ....................................................... 6-9
6.1.2 Public Use Effects ................................................................................................................... 6-16
6.1.3 Sagebrush-steppe and Associated Upland Habitats ................................................................ 6-23
6.1.4 Semi-desert Grasslands and Steppes ....................................................................................... 6-24
6.1.5 Emergent Marshes, Wet Meadows, Streams, Reservoirs, Springs, Springbrooks, and
Ephemeral Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 6-24
6.1.6 Ephemeral Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 6-30
6.1.7 Cliffs, Canyons, Talus Slopes, and Barren Lands .................................................................. 6-31
6.1.8 Deciduous Woodlands and Shrublands .................................................................................. 6-31
6.1.9 Mature Old-growth Mountain Mahogany and Western Juniper Habitat Types ..................... 6-32
6.2 Physical Environment ................................................................................................................. 6-32
6.2.1 Effects to Soils ........................................................................................................................ 6-32
6.2.2 Effects to Water Quality and Quantity ................................................................................... 6-35
6.2.3 Effects to Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 6-37
6.2.4 Effects to Climate ................................................................................................................... 6-38
6.2.5 Visual Quality ......................................................................................................................... 6-38
6.3 Social Effects .............................................................................................................................. 6-39
6.3.1 Effects Common to All Public Uses ....................................................................................... 6-39
6.3.2 Opportunities for Quality Hunting .......................................................................................... 6-42
6.3.3 Opportunities for Quality Fishing ........................................................................................... 6-44
6.3.4 Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography ......................................... 6-45
6.3.5 Opportunities for Quality Interpretation and Environmental Education ................................ 6-46
6.3.6 Opportunities for Rock Collecting .......................................................................................... 6-46
6.4 Effects on Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................ 6-47
6.4.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................... 6-47
6.4.2 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................... 6-48
6.4.3 Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................... 6-48
6.5 Economic Effects ....................................................................................................................... 6-48
6.5.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................... 6-48
6.5.2 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................... 6-49
6.5.3 Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................... 6-51
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
iv Table of Contents
6.6 Effects to Wilderness Character ................................................................................................. 6-52
6.6.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................... 6-53
6.6.2 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................... 6-56
6.6.3 Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................... 6-58
6.7 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................... 6-60
6.7.1 Non-CCP Actions Occurring within Sheldon Refuge ............................................................ 6-61
6.7.2 Past and Present Actions/Decisions Occurring outside Sheldon Refuge ................................ 6-62
6.7.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Adjacent to or near Sheldon Refuge .................................. 6-64
Tables
Table 2.1 Summary of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 2-13
Table 3.1 Twelve Largest Reservoirs on Sheldon Refuge ......................................................................... 3-8
Table 3.2 Named Reservoirs and Stock Ponds within 750 Feet of an Appropriative Water Right
Place of Use ............................................................................................................................................ 3-12
Table 3.3 Reservoirs, Stock Ponds, and Pit Reservoirs with Prepared Federal Reserve Water Right
Claims ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-12
Table 4.1 Estimated Acres by Landcover Type, Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada ................ 4-14
Table 5.1 Principal Historic Period Sites at Sheldon Refuge ................................................................... 5-24
Table 6.1 Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives ............................................................................ 6-2
Table 6.2 Comparison of Regional Economic Contribution of Management Alternatives (Industrial
Economics 2010) .................................................................................................................................... 6-50
Figures
Figure 1.1 Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge location. ........................................................................... 1-21
Figure 2.1 Public vehicle access for Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Alternative 1. ......................... 2-71
Figure 2.2 Public vehicle access for Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Alternative 2. ......................... 2-73
Figure 2.3 Public vehicle access for Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Alternative 3. ......................... 2-75
Figure 2.4 Current Wilderness Study Area recommendations, proposed Wilderness, and route
designations, Alternative 1. ...................................................................................................................... 2-77
Figure 2.5 Current Wilderness Study Area recommendations, proposed Wilderness, and route
designations, Alternative 2. ...................................................................................................................... 2-79
Figure 2.6 Current Wilderness Study Area recommendations, proposed Wilderness, and route
designations, Alternative 3. ...................................................................................................................... 2-81
Figure 3.1 A) Mean daily discharge at USGS gaging station on Badger Creek 1963-1973. B)
Percentage of days in the Badger Creek gage record where flow exceeded 0 cfs, organized by
month. ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3.2 A) Mean daily discharge at Mahogany Creek USGS gaging station 1987 to present. B)
Percentage of days in the Mahogany Creek gage record where flow exceeds 2 cfs, organized by
month. ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3.3 Percentage of springs found in different elevation zones on Sheldon National Wildlife
Refuge. ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3.4 Mapped water improvements and USGS National Hydrography Dataset water bodies on
Sheldon Refuge. ........................................................................................................................................ 3-8
Figure 4.1 Fire history and fire protection. .............................................................................................. 4-43
Figure 4.2 Habitat distribution. ................................................................................................................ 4-45
Figure 4.3 Pygmy rabbit and Greater sage-grouse distribution based on habitat. ................................... 4-47
Figure 4.4 Pronghorn and mule deer distribution based on habitat. ........................................................ 4-49
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Table of Contents v
Figure 4.5 California bighorn sheep, American pika, and old-growth western juniper distribution
based on habitat....................................................................................................................................... 4-51
Figure 4.6 Aspen distribution based on habitat. ....................................................................................... 4-53
Figure 4.7 Mountain mahogany distribution based on habitat. ................................................................ 4-55
Figure 5.1 Public use and facilities. ......................................................................................................... 5-29
Figure 6.1 Comparison of net economic value of management alternatives, total present value over
15 years, discounted at 7% (Industrial Economics 2010). ....................................................................... 6-51
Photos
Photo 1.1 Damaging effects from feral horses and burros (as shown outside the fence exclosure in
the left side of the photo) are well documented within Sheldon Refuge (Photo Gail Collins). ............... 1-13
Photo 1.2 West entrance to Sheldon Refuge in 1961. .............................................................................. 1-14
Photo 1.3 The expansion of western juniper has occurred in recent times. The expansion into the
lower elevation slopes in the western portion of Sheldon Refuge (shown at the center of this 2001
photo) occurred within 40 years............................................................................................................... 1-14
Photo 1.4 Prescribed fire is now more frequently used to manage meadow habitats within Sheldon
Refuge. .................................................................................................................................................... 1-15
Photo 1.5 Disturbance from regular grading along road shoulders spreads and creates ideal growing
conditions for many non-native invasive plants such as Russian thistle, Halogeton, and cheatgrass. .... 1-16
Photo 1.6 Virgin Valley Campground is the most popular recreation site within Sheldon Refuge,
but its popularity is mostly related to the developed hot springs and nearby opal mining
opportunities—not wildlife-dependent recreation (Photo Gail Collins). ................................................. 1-17
Photo 1.7 Hundreds of miles of four-wheel drive routes and trails are located throughout Sheldon
Refuge, with the highest concentration in Virgin Valley for access to mining prospects and claims
(Photo Gail Collins). ............................................................................................................................... 1-19
Photo 2.1 Sagebrush-steppe and shrubland habitats cover more than 50% of Sheldon Refuge and
provide necessary habitat for many wildlife species, including Greater sage-grouse. ............................ 2-21
Photo 2.2 Natural fire is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush habitats within Sheldon
Refuge. .................................................................................................................................................... 2-24
Photo 2.3 Prescribed burning is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush habitats within
Sheldon Refuge. ...................................................................................................................................... 2-24
Photo 2.4 Mowing is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush habitats within Sheldon
Refuge. .................................................................................................................................................... 2-25
Photo 2.5 Cutting of juniper is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush habitats within
Sheldon Refuge. ...................................................................................................................................... 2-25
Photo 2.6 Springs, springbrooks, and stream habitats represent a small portion of Sheldon Refuge
but are extremely important for biological health, integrity, and diversity. ............................................. 2-28
Photo 2.7 Artificial emergent marshes, reservoirs, and the Dufurrena Ponds (shown here) continue
to be maintained to benefit migratory birds and support wildlife-dependent public uses. ...................... 2-31
Photo 2.8 Guzzlers have been constructed for bighorn sheep and to increase numbers of chukar for
hunting. ................................................................................................................................................... 2-32
Photo 2.9 The dramatic cliffs along Thousand Creek Gorge provide habitat for raptors, bats, and
other dependent wildlife. ......................................................................................................................... 2-35
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
vi Table of Contents
Photo 2.10 Unlike western juniper, mountain mahogany stands are not expanding and are
susceptible to fire. ................................................................................................................................... 2-39
Photo 2.11 Additional research is needed to determine population trends, distribution, and
migratory patterns for key species such as pronghorn (Photo Gail Collins). ........................................... 2-45
Photo 2.12 Development of private inholdings indirectly affects the surrounding area of Sheldon
Refuge (Photo Gail Collins). .................................................................................................................... 2-47
Photo 2.13 Aerial seeding is one technique to give native plants an edge over invasive weeds after a
fire. .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-50
Photo 2.14 When water is available, Big Spring Reservoir and Campground are popular
destinations for Nevada anglers. .............................................................................................................. 2-52
Photo 2.15 The majority of vehicle routes within Sheldon Refuge are primitive and not suitable for
two-wheel drive (Photo Aaron Collins). .................................................................................................. 2-61
Photo 2.16 The Sheldon Refuge Office cannot accommodate the visiting public and the necessary
office space. ............................................................................................................................................ 2-63
Photo 2.17 The historic Kinney Camp homestead is centrally located to other public uses within
Sheldon Refuge. ...................................................................................................................................... 2-66
Photo 2.18 The Overlook Cabin at the west entrance to Sheldon Refuge is representative of work
done by the Civilian Conservation Corps. ............................................................................................... 2-66
Photo 2.19 Petroglyphs scattered throughout Sheldon Refuge remind visitors of the region’s earliest
inhabitants. .............................................................................................................................................. 2-67
Photo 3.1 Nearly the entire Virgin Creek watershed is within Sheldon Refuge. ....................................... 3-6
Photo 3.2 Lower elevation springs like the one shown are commonly found at the bottom of draws
and small canyons. .................................................................................................................................... 3-7
Photo 3.3 Excavated catchments or dugouts like the one shown were constructed in the middle of
playas to concentrate water for livestock use (Photo Aaron Collins). ....................................................... 3-9
Photo 3.4 Both the mouth of Thousand Creek Gorge and the flat-topped finger of Railroad Point in
the distance are characteristic of Sheldon Refuge topography (Photo Gail Collins). .............................. 3-13
Photo 4.1 Typical sagebrush-steppe habitat within Sheldon Refuge. ...................................................... 4-15
Photo 4.2 Typical salt desert scrub and greasewood habitat within Sheldon Refuge (Photo Gail
Collins). ................................................................................................................................................... 4-18
Photo 4.3 Typical semi-desert grassland habitat within Sheldon Refuge. ............................................... 4-25
Photo 4.4 Typical wet meadow habitat within Sheldon Refuge. ............................................................. 4-27
Photo 4.5 Typical stream habitat within Sheldon Refuge. ....................................................................... 4-29
Photo 4.6 Typical playa habitat within Sheldon Refuge (Photo Gail Collins). ....................................... 4-29
Photo 4.7 Typical talus slope habitat within Sheldon Refuge (Photo Gail Collins). ............................... 4-35
Photo 4.8 Pockets of aspen and other deciduous trees and shrubs in Sheldon Refuge are most often
found in areas where snow drifts during winter, along streams, and at springs as shown here (Photo
Aaron Collins). ........................................................................................................................................ 4-37
Photo 4.9 Typical western juniper habitat within Sheldon Refuge. ......................................................... 4-39
Photo 4.10 Typical mountain mahogany habitat within Sheldon Refuge. ............................................... 4-40
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Table of Contents vii
Photo 5.1 The Sheldon Refuge Office at Dufurrena includes residences, maintenance buildings, and
a small office (Photo Gail Collins). ........................................................................................................... 5-1
Photo 5.2 Most roads and routes within Sheldon Refuge like this one are of native materials, have
no maintenance, and are suitable only for high-clearance vehicles (Photo Gail Collins). ......................... 5-4
Photo 5.3 Big Spring Reservoir is popular for sport fishing but only has water during certain years. ...... 5-9
Photo 5.4 Although no estimates are available, most people likely participate in wildlife viewing or
photography while visiting Sheldon Refuge. ........................................................................................... 5-12
Appendices
Appendix A. Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement Public Involvement ............................................................................. A-1
Appendix B. Species List .......................................................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations ......................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................................. D-1
Appendix E. Projects, Staff, and Facilities Needed to Implement the Alternatives ................................. E-1
Appendix F. Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Inventory and Review Summary ................ F-1
Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses ............................................................... G-1
Appendix H. Standard Operating Procedures for Horse and Burro Population Control Methods ........... H-1
Appendix I. Sheldon Refuge Establishing and Acquisition Authorities .....................................................I-1
Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance .................................................................................................... J-1
Appendix K. Planning Team Members and Work Experience ................................................................. K-1
Appendix L. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting Criteria .............................................................. L-1
Appendix M. References ......................................................................................................................... M-1
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
viii Table of Contents
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-1
Chapter 1. Introduction, Purpose of and Need for Action
1.1 Introduction and Background
Located in a remote area of northwestern Nevada, the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (referred to
here as Sheldon Refuge) encompasses 575,000 acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat within the Great
Basin (Figure 1.1) and is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service). Originally
established in 1931 for the conservation and protection of the once-imperiled pronghorn (Antilocapra
americana), Sheldon Refuge (along with its refuge complex companion Hart Mountain National
Antelope Refuge) now conserves habitat for a number of additional native, rare, and imperiled
species of fish, wildlife, and plants that depend upon the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem.
Blanketing high basalt tablelands and mountains, which average 6,000 feet in elevation, the vast
expanses of sagebrush habitats are dotted with springs, pockets of aspen, and isolated stands of
mountain mahogany. Only at its edges does the refuge vary noticeably, with the pale rhyolite of
Virgin Valley on the eastern edge, which holds highly prized black opal, and the high escarpment on
the western edge where western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis occidentalis) dominates.
With the exception of a two-lane paved highway, a few scattered buildings, abandoned water
troughs, and some primitive dirt roads, Sheldon Refuge appears today much as it has for the past
12,000 years or more that people have lived in this region. This long history of habitation is apparent
throughout the refuge from the prehistoric stone tools, petroglyphs, and ancient campsites that
remain. Today people continue to hunt, hike, and camp within Sheldon Refuge, but for recreation
rather than subsistence.
This document is a combined Draft Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement (Draft CCP/EIS). This Draft CCP/EIS evaluates and compares three draft
alternatives for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants within Sheldon Refuge primarily through
monitoring of their populations, management and restoration of their habitats, and control of invasive
and feral species. The three draft alternatives also include management of public uses such as
wildlife observation and photography, hunting, fishing, and rock collecting in a manner that is
compatible with the primary conservation purposes for Sheldon Refuge. The three draft alternatives
presented are the outcome of a public planning process, which was initiated in 2007 and has involved
thousands of individuals, non-profit organizations, state and local agencies, and tribal governments.
Effects from the management activities and public uses considered in the draft alternatives are
identified and evaluated, with attention to those effects that are potentially significant.
The Final CCP/EIS will be approved and a Record of Decision signed by the Service’s Regional
Director in Portland, Oregon. The Final CCP will guide management of Sheldon Refuge for the next
15 years.
1.2 Proposed Action
The Service is proposing to adopt and implement a comprehensive conservation plan for Sheldon
National Wildlife Refuge. This document is a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement (Draft CCP/EIS) for Sheldon Refuge. The CCP sets forth
management guidance for Sheldon Refuge over the next 15 years, as required by the National
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 688 dd-688 ee, as
amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997) to address significant
problems that may adversely affect the populations and habitat of fish, wildlife, and plants and the
actions necessary to correct or mitigate such problems. The Improvement Act mandated that a CCP
be developed for each refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The proposed action in the Draft CCP/EIS is to implement Alternative 2, which has been identified
as the Service’s Preferred Alternative. This Draft CCP/EIS explores this option along with two other
options (alternatives) for the CCP and discloses anticipated effects for each alternative, pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).
Alternatives are presented in Chapter 2, and effects are analyzed in Chapter 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Appendices provide supporting information.
The actions under Alternative 2 best achieve the purpose and need for the CCP while maintaining
balance among the varied management needs and programs. Alternative 2 addresses the issues and
relevant mandates, and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management.
Alternative 2 is consistent with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the goals of
the National Wilderness Preservation System.
1.3 Purpose and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The purpose of the CCP is to provide reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for improving
Sheldon Refuge’s shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, woodland, grassland, and cliff-talus habitats, for
the long-term conservation of pronghorn, native plants and animals, and migratory birds. The CCP
will identify appropriate actions for protecting and sustaining the biological features of Sheldon
Refuge’s pronghorn, Greater sage-grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus), California bighorn sheep
(Ovis canadensis), and pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) populations and threatened,
endangered, or rare species. The Decision Record for the 2008 Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge
Horse and Burro Management Environmental Assessment (EA) stated feral horses and burros would
be managed to maintain population levels that existed at that time. However, this Decision Record
also stated this management direction would be re-evaluated as part of the Sheldon Refuge CCP. A
final purpose of the CCP is to provide guidance for providing high-quality public use programs in
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, camping, environmental education, and
interpretation.
Not only are CCPs for all national wildlife refuges required under the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act, a CCP for Sheldon Refuge is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary
among these is the need to identify and deal with key threats to the above habitats, including invasive
plants and animals, altered fire regimes, and altered hydrological regimes. There is a need to address
Sheldon Refuge’s role in the conservation of Greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits and their
habitats because these species use certain refuge habitats for all life history needs. There is also a
need to address the contributions of Sheldon Refuge to the biodiversity of the Great Basin. There is a
need to address public concern about feral horse and burro populations that negatively impact refuge
habitats.
There is a need to analyze public use programs for the Refuge System’s “Big Six” uses and to
determine what improvements or alterations should be made in the pursuit of higher quality
programs. The Big Six wildlife-dependent uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-3
photography, environmental education, and interpretation (See Section 1.5.3 for more on the Big Six
uses.)
There is also a need to determine whether and how Sheldon Refuge should continue to offer camping
and other non-wildlife-dependent uses, including horseback riding, rock collecting, and off-highway
vehicles (OHVs). There is a need to address strategies to better prevent use of refuge lands for illegal
uses including off-road use and poaching. Finally, there is a need to describe the steps that should be
taken to better protect cultural resources.
1.4 Content and Scope of Plan
This CCP provides guidance for management of refuge habitats and wildlife and administration of
public uses on refuge lands and waters. An outline of the key information in the CCP follows.
• An overall vision for Sheldon Refuge and the role in the local ecosystem (Chapter 1).
• Updated and revised management direction in the form of goals and objectives for specific
conservation targets and public use programs, as well as strategies for achieving the
objectives (Chapter 2).
• A description of the conservation targets, their condition and trends on Sheldon Refuge and
within the local ecosystem, a presentation of the key desired ecological conditions for
sustaining the targets, and a short analysis of the threats to each conservation target (Chapter
2).
• A description of the physical, biological, and social environments that exist within Sheldon
Refuge (Chapters 3, 4, and 5).
• An overview of Sheldon Refuge’s public use programs and facilities, a list of desired future
conditions for each program, and other management considerations (Chapters 2 and 5).
• An analysis of the environmental effects associated with implementing the management
actions prescribed under each alternative (Chapters 3, 4, and 5).
• An analysis of the environmental consequences of the proposed action, including cumulative
effects (Chapter 6).
• An inventory of Sheldon Refuge wilderness resources, including a recommendation of
Refuge lands suitable for wilderness designation (Appendix F).
• Draft compatibility determinations for existing and proposed public and economic uses
(Appendix D).
• An outline of the projects, staff, and facilities needed to implement the alternatives
considered (Appendix E).
A list of species known or suspected to occur on Sheldon Refuge, with information about their state
and Federal conservation status (Appendix B).
1.5 Planning and Management Guidance
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency within the Department of Interior, is the principal
Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and
their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 96-
million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 545 national wildlife refuges,
thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction
Refuges are guided by various Federal laws and executive orders, Service policies, and international
treaties. Fundamental are the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS or
Refuge System) and the designated purposes of the refuge unit as described in establishing
legislation, executive orders, or other documents establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge.
Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System derive from the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the Refuge Recreation Act of
1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the
Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act is
implemented through regulations covering the National Wildlife Refuge System, published in Title
50, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations govern general
administration of units of the Refuge System.
1.5.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
The mission of the Service is “working with others, to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” National natural
resources entrusted to the Service for conservation and protection include migratory birds,
endangered and threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals.
The Service also manages national fish hatcheries, enforces Federal wildlife laws and international
treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state fish and wildlife programs, and helps
other countries develop wildlife conservation programs.
1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest network of public lands and waters set
aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. From its inception in 1903, the
Refuge System has grown to encompass 545 national wildlife refuges in all 50 states, and waterfowl
production areas in 10 states, covering more than 96 million acres of public lands. More than 36
million visitors annually fish, hunt, observe, and photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental
education and interpretive activities on these national wildlife refuges.
1.5.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals
The mission of the Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations
of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended)(16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).
Wildlife conservation is the fundamental mission of the Refuge System. The goals of the National
Wildlife Refuge System, as articulated in the Mission Goals and Purposes Policy (601 FW 1) are to:
• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are
endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional
fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and
carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-5
• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international
significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or
underrepresented in existing protection efforts.
• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation).
• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
Management of Sheldon Refuge is directed, in large part, by the legislation that created and
established purposes for Sheldon Refuge and by the goals described later in this chapter. However,
other laws, regulations, and policies also guide the management of Sheldon Refuge. This section
identifies the acts and policy guidance that are integral in the development of this CCP.
1.5.3.1 Legal Guidance
Operation and management of Sheldon Refuge is influenced by a wide array of laws, treaties, and
executive orders. Among the most important are the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, the Refuge
Recreation Act, and the General Mining Act of 1872. These acts are described briefly in Appendix J
along with other acts and legal guidance that influence management of Sheldon Refuge.
1.5.3.2 Policy Guidance
Programmatic guidance and policy documents provide additional direction for the management of
national wildlife refuges throughout the System. These documents include the following:
• Fish and Wildlife Service Manual chapters
• Director’s orders
• National policy issuances
• Handbooks
• Director’s memoranda
• Regional directives
Among the more important policies relating to management of Sheldon Refuge are Service policies
for biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; compatibility; and wilderness
stewardship. These policies are described briefly in Appendix J along with other important policies
and guidance that influence management of Sheldon Refuge.
1.5.4 Refuge Management Direction
A number of previous planning efforts have been completed for Sheldon Refuge. These various
plans provide the current management direction for Sheldon Refuge. This CCP will substantially
revise or replace this existing management direction to reflect revised and updated Service policies
and guidelines, new resource information and research findings, and to address issues identified
through the scoping process.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction
The Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Renewable Natural Resources Management Plan Final
Environmental Impact Statement (referred to here as simply the Sheldon Natural Resource Plan) was
completed and released to the public on August 18, 1980. The plan was a detailed and valuable
document covering location, history, environment, resources, administration, land status, agreements
and permits, and management direction.
In addition, several smaller “step-down” plans (plans addressing one program or resource) have been
developed for Sheldon Refuge including:
• Virgin Valley Winter Grazing Plan and Environmental Assessment (amended the Sheldon
Natural Resource Plan) (1989)
• Fisheries Management Plan (1990)
• Western Juniper Control Project Plan and Environmental Assessment (2001)
• Feral Horse and Burro Management Plan (amended the Sheldon Natural Resource Plan)
(2008)
• Fire Management Plan (2009)
With the exception of the Fire Management Plan, the Final Record of Decision for the Sheldon
Refuge CCP/EIS will supersede the previous planning decisions and management direction listed
above in their entirety. The Fire Management Plan will be updated to reflect any additional or
revised management direction included in the CCP/EIS Final Record of Decision.
1.5.5 Future Step-down Management Plans
The CCP will be revised every 15 years or earlier if monitoring and evaluation determine that
changes are needed to achieve Sheldon Refuge purposes, vision, goals, or objectives. The CCP
provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for refuge program areas but may
lack some of the specifics needed for implementation. Step-down management plans will therefore
be developed for individual program areas, as needed, following completion of the CCP. Step-down
plans require appropriate NEPA compliance. The following step-down management plans will be
revised or completed in accordance with the CCP management goals, objectives, and strategies
following the Final Record of Decision:
• Minerals and Mining Management Plan
• Wilderness Stewardship Plan
• Transportation Management Plan
• Visitor Services Plan
• Law Enforcement Plan
• Cultural Resources Management Plan
• Cold-water Fisheries Management Plan
• Habitat Management Plan
• Integrated Pest Management Plan
1.6 Refuge Establishment, Refuge Purposes, Refuge Goals
The purpose for which a refuge was established or acquired is of key importance in refuge planning.
Purposes must form the foundation for planning and management decisions. The purposes of a
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-7
refuge are specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public
land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or
expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.
Unless the establishing law, order, or other document indicates otherwise, purposes dealing with the
conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on which
they depend take precedence over other purposes in the management and administration of any unit.
Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the more
specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict. When an additional unit is acquired
under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original unit, the addition takes
on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original unit does not take on the purpose(s) of the
newer addition.
By law, refuges are to be managed so as to achieve their purposes. When a conflict exists between
the System mission and the purpose of an individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede the
System mission.
Refuge purposes are also the driving force in the development of the refuge vision statements, goals,
objectives, and strategies in the CCP and are critical to determining the compatibility of all existing
and proposed refuge uses. The purposes for Sheldon Refuge have been established through a series
of congressional acts, presidential executive orders, and public land orders as follows.
This section includes a list and brief description of the establishing and acquisition authorities for
Sheldon Refuge. A comprehensive history of the establishment of Sheldon Refuge is included in
Appendix I.
1.6.1 Sheldon Refuge Purposes
“...as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and birds...” Executive Order (EO) 5540 dated
January 26, 1931
“...set apart for the conservation and development of natural wildlife resources and for the protection
and improvement of public grazing lands and natural forage resources...” EO 7522 dated December
21, 1936
“...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species....or
(B) plants...” 16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973)
“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16
U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
1.6.1.1 Establishing and Acquisition Authorities
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r):
“…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds…” and “…to conserve and protect migratory birds in accordance with treaty
obligations…and other species of wildlife found thereon, including species that are listed…as
endangered species or threatened species, and to restore or develop adequate wildlife habitat”
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction
Charles Sheldon Wild Life Refuge, Nevada (EO 5540, January 26, 1931):
“…reserved and set apart for…use…as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and
birds.…”
Enlarging Charles Sheldon Wildlife Refuge, Nevada (EO 7364, May 6, 1936):
“…in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act
…withdrawn from settlement, location, sale, entry, or other form of appropriation and
reserved and set apart…as an addition to the existing Charles Sheldon Wildlife Refuge….”
Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, Nevada (EO 7522, December 21, 1936):
“…withdrawn from settlement, location, sale, or entry and reserved and set apart for the
conservation and development of natural wildlife resources and for the protection and
improvement of public grazing lands and natural forage resources…;” and “…the natural
resources therein shall be first utilized for the purpose of sustaining in a healthy condition a
maximum of three thousand five hundred (3,500) antelope, the primary species, and such
nonpredatory secondary species in such numbers as may be necessary to maintain a balanced
wildlife population….”
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee),
including the Game Range Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-223, 90 Stat. 199):
“…for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans”
Nevada—Prior Amendment of Executive Order No. 7522; Prior Revocation of Public Land Order
No. 5497; Consolidation of Charles Sheldon Antelope Range and Charles Sheldon Wildlife Refuge;
Change of Name to Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge; Clarification of Administration and
Management Under National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Public Land Order [PLO]
5634, April 25, 1978):
Consistent with, “The Act of February 27, 1976 (Public Law 94-223, 90 Stat. 199) [a.k.a. the
Game Range Act] which amended…the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966 …the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, shall be administered by the Secretary
of the Interior exclusively through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service…;” and “The
operation and administration of the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, including grazing…is
now being administered, in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act…;” and “…the lands and interests in land comprising the Charles
Sheldon Wildlife Refuge…and the adjoining Charles Sheldon Antelope Range…are hereby
consolidated into one administrative unit…designated and known as the Sheldon National
Wildlife Refuge”
Mineral Withdrawal of a Portion of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge; Nevada (PLO 6849, April
15, 1991):
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-9
“…withdraws approximately 445,766 acres of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge…from
mining location…to protect the wildlife habitat and unique resource values of the refuge
lands”
1.6.2 Refuge Vision Statement
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge will foster a strong land ethic and provide scientific leadership
through collaboration with a diverse network of partners and utilize the highest principles of
conservation. Sheldon Refuge will promote opportunities for people to actively seek and discover
natural and cultural treasures in the vast and rugged high desert characterized by solitude, abundant
wildlife, and wildlands free from human influences. Management will focus on Sheldon Refuge’s
wild character, biological integrity, and contribution within the larger landscape of the Great Basin as
driven by natural ecological processes. As a result, Sheldon Refuge will perpetuate its unique
cultural history and critical role in the preservation and study of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem with
its diverse and vital native species.
1.6.3 Refuge Management Direction: Goals
1.6.3.1 Habitat and Wildlife Goals
Goal 1: Manage feral horse and burro populations consistent with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge,
the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, national wildlife refuge policy, and to protect and
preserve a diverse assemblage of native plant and wildlife species, habitats, and naturally functioning
systems characteristic of the Great Basin Ecosystem.
Goal 2: Protect, maintain, and restore sagebrush-steppe and associated upland communities
characteristic of the Great Basin Ecosystem.
Goal 3: Restore, protect, and maintain the structure and function of riparian and aquatic habitats
characteristic of the Great Basin Ecosystem.
Goal 4: Protect unique and rare habitats, wildlife, and communities.
Goal 5: Using an integrated approach, prevent, control, or eliminate non-native species that threaten
Sheldon Refuge resources.
Goal 6: Collect information and create partnerships necessary to support adaptive management
decisions at a landscape scale.
1.6.3.2 Fire Management Goal
Goal 7: Provide an active fire management program.
1.6.3.3 Public Use Goal
Goal 8: Provide visitors of diverse interests and abilities with opportunities to experience a variety of
quality wildlife-dependent recreational and educational activities on vast, rugged, and remote high
desert landscapes. These experiences will enhance visitors’ understanding of and appreciation for
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction
the unique natural and cultural resources conserved by Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge and the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
1.6.3.4 Wilderness Resource Goal
Goal 9: Protect and manage Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Study Areas to maintain
wilderness character and values.
1.6.3.5 Cultural Resource Goal
Goal 10: Protect and manage the prehistoric, historic, and paleontological resources of Sheldon
Refuge to ensure present and future generations recognize the significance of the area’s past.
1.6.3.6 Law Enforcement Goal
Goal 11: Reduce illegal and unauthorized activities on Sheldon Refuge.
1.7 Relationship to Other Ecosystem Planning Efforts
When developing a CCP, the Service considers the goals and objectives of existing national,
regional, and ecosystem plans; state fish and wildlife conservation plans; and other landscape-scale
plans developed for the same watershed or ecosystem in which the refuge is located. Where
appropriate, the CCP is expected to be consistent with the existing plans and assist in meeting their
conservation goals and objectives (602 FW 3.3). This section summarizes some of the key plans
reviewed by members of the core team while developing the CCP.
1.7.1 State Plans
The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) recently completed the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan
(Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006), which incorporates the agency’s special expertise in the
management and conservation of Nevada’s native wildlife and habitats. The Nevada Wildlife Action
Plan is designed to provide scientific support for CCP development, input on impact analyses, and
support for implementation of management actions. Partnerships and close coordination between
NDOW and the Service are key to incorporating the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan into the CCP
process.
Other NDOW plans include the Nevada Partners in Flight, Nevada Management Plan for Mule Deer,
Big Game Status, Elk Species Management, Bat Conservation, Pronghorn Antelope Ecology,
Management and Conservation, and Greater Sage-grouse Conservation.
1.7.2 Migratory Bird Plans
Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2002a): Based on the efforts and assessment scores of
three major bird conservation efforts (Partners in Flight, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and
the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan), this report identifies, by Service region and by
Bird Conservation Region, the bird species most in need of conservation attention.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-11
Partners in Flight (PIF), Sheldon Refuge Plan: The primary goal is to ensure long-term
maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds. Specific management activities and
strategies are recommended.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan: The North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, signed by the United States and Canada in 1986 and by Mexico in 1994, provides a strategy to
protect North America’s remaining wetlands and to conserve waterfowl populations through habitat
protection, restoration, and enhancement. The plan contains population goals for several species and
groups of species by season or life stage. The plan was updated in 2004 with an emphasis on
strengthening the biological foundation, using a landscape approach and expanding partnerships.
Additional strategic guidance was provided in a 2004 update, with specific population objectives by
species. Implementation of this plan is accomplished at the regional level by partnership, within 11
Joint Venture areas. The Sheldon Refuge is located within the area of the Intermountain West Joint
Venture. The document, 2004 Strategic Guidance (North American Waterfowl Management Plan,
2004), a 15-year plan, does contain species-specific population objectives as a step-down from the
North American Waterfowl Plan and evaluations of whether the continental population is currently
short or over the target. There are also flyway goals for production by species. The Sheldon Refuge
is recognized as one of 67 areas of continental significance to waterfowl, but the plan did not target
population objectives for wintering or migratory waterfowl by area.
Pacific Flyway Plans: Flyway management plans are the products of Flyway Councils, developed
to help state and Federal agencies cooperatively manage migratory game birds. These plans typically
focus on populations. The Pacific Flyway Council has prepared 26 management plans to date in
either draft or final form (Pacific Flyway Council 2010). The following flyway management plans
pertain to Sheldon Refuge and the CCP:
• Canada Geese: Lesser and Taverner’s, Pacific Western, Rocky Mountain, Western,
Depredation Control.
• Greater White-fronted Geese: Pacific, Tule.
• Snow Geese: Wrangel Island Lesser, Western Canadian Arctic Lesser Ross’ Geese.
• Swans: Pacific Trumpeter, Rocky Mountain Trumpeter, Western Tundra, Eastern Tundra.
• Sandhill Cranes: Pacific Coast, Central Valley.
• Mourning Dove: National Mourning Dove Plan.
Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (Oring et al. 2006): According to
this plan, the Intermountain West is North America’s most important inland area for maintaining the
continent’s shorebird population. The plan identifies major shorebird issues in the region and
outlines regional goals and objectives in the areas of habitat management, monitoring and
assessment, research, outreach, and planning. Key issues identified in the plan include water quality
and quantity; maintenance and enhancement of populations of long-billed curlew (Numenius
americanus), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), and upland sandpiper (Bartramia
longicauda); depredation of eggs and young; regional coordination, agriculture-shorebird interface;
and wintering sites. Concern ranking scores are provided for each of the 34 shorebird species
breeding or moving through the region. Species ranked as critically important include western
snowy plover (C. alexandrines), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), American avocet
(Recurvirostra americana), long-billed curlew, long-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus),
and Wilson’s phalarope (Steganopus tricolor).
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction
1.8 Planning and Issue Identification
1.8.1 Description of the Planning Process
A core planning team, consisting of the Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex project leader,
deputy project leader, natural resource planner, biologist, fire management officer, and the Sheldon
Refuge manager began developing the CCP in 2007. A list of core planning team members and their
experience is located in Appendix K. An extended team assisted in development of the Draft CCP,
particularly in providing comments at key milestones. The extended team consisted of various
professionals from other Federal agencies, NDOW, and within the Service.
Early in the planning process, the extended planning team considered other planning efforts (see
Section 1.7) and cooperatively identified the top priority species, groups, and communities for
Sheldon Refuge. These priorities were also called conservation targets, and most of the biological
emphasis of the CCP is focused on protecting and restoring these targets.
Planning for compatible wildlife-dependent public uses and rock collecting centered on developing
goals, objectives, and strategies for secondary supporting uses and facilities such as vehicle access,
campground facilities, and water developments.
Public scoping began in spring and summer of 2008. Scoping meetings were held in Lakeview,
Oregon, Winnemucca, Nevada, and Denio, Nevada, in May 2008 and Alturas, California, and Reno,
Nevada, in June 2008. Public commentary was also solicited through distribution of three planning
updates to more than 4,000 individuals on the Sheldon Refuge mailing list and meetings with key
stakeholder groups. A number of comments and suggestions were made through this process, which
informed further development and refinement of the CCP alternatives, including the preferred
alternative. Public involvement is further discussed in Appendix A.
An internal draft was distributed to Service Region 1 reviewers, members of the extended team,
NDOW, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) representatives. In addition, a
consultation meeting was held with the Summit-Lake Paiute Tribal Council to discuss the
preliminary alternatives and resource concerns. All changes that were requested and all the resulting
changes that were made to the Draft CCP/EIS were documented.
1.8.1.1 Planning Issues
The following major issues were identified and expressed by the public, various constituents, and
Service staff, and have been analyzed and addressed during CCP development.
• Feral Horses and Burros: Management of feral horses and burros has been identified as the
most important issue affecting the ability of the Service to fulfill the purposes for Sheldon
Refuge. A detailed environmental assessment was prepared (USFWS 2008a), which
described a number of direct adverse impacts to biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health within Sheldon Refuge from feral horses and burros (Photo 1.1). These
impacts from populations of approximately 800 horses and 90 burros were determined not
likely to be significant over the short term until the CCP for Sheldon Refuge could be
completed and include long-term management direction for feral horses and burros within
Sheldon Refuge. As part of the CCP it is necessary for the Service to evaluate impacts from
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-13
continued management of approximately 800 horses and 90 burros over the long term in
addition to other alternatives for long-term management consistent with Service policy, the
mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes for Sheldon Refuge. In addition, it is
necessary for the Service to consider the full range of available methods and tools for
accomplishing each alternative.
Photo 1.1 Damaging effects from feral horses and burros (as shown outside the fence
exclosure in the left side of the photo) are well documented within Sheldon Refuge
(Photo Gail Collins).
• Juniper Encroachment: Over the past hundred years or so, western juniper has been
steadily encroaching on large areas of sagebrush-steppe habitat in the western United States
(Photos 1.2 and 1.3). This encroachment is the result of grazing management, which has
reduced understory vegetation, and fire management, which has increased the density of
juniper and further reduced understory vegetation and the natural influences from fire. There
is concern that these effects are reducing the amount and quality of habitat for important
wildlife such as pronghorn, Greater sage-grouse, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and
pygmy rabbit within Sheldon Refuge, and that these impacts could increase if additional
management action is not taken.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction
Photo 1.2 West entrance to Sheldon Refuge in 1961.
Photo 1.3 The expansion of western juniper has occurred in recent times. The
expansion into the lower elevation slopes in the western portion of Sheldon Refuge
(shown at the center of this 2001 photo) occurred within 40 years.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-15
• Wildland Fire: Past fire management has successfully extinguished the majority of
lightning-caused fires or significantly reduced the intensity, and size of such fires leading to
several habitat changes such as juniper encroachment discussed previously. At the same
time, the frequency of fire has increased within certain habitats through prescribed burning
(Photo 1.4). This past approach to fire management has resulted in an increasing amount of
vegetation and increasing risk for fires burning more intensely and over larger areas of
sagebrush habitat than historically would have occurred. This issue is further complicated by
grazing from feral horses, the potential for cheatgrass invasion following fire, and the safety
risks and hazards associated with attempting to maintain or restore a more natural fire
regime. There is a need to explore other options for using fire to meet habitat management
objectives and in turn meeting wildlife management objectives for Sheldon Refuge while at
the same time maintaining public safety and an acceptable level of risk.
Photo 1.4 Prescribed fire is now more frequently used to manage meadow habitats
within Sheldon Refuge.
• Invasive Species: In addition to feral horses and burros, and widespread cheatgrass invasion
following fire, a number of other invasive plants and animals either currently occur or are
known to already be in areas near Sheldon Refuge (Photo 1.5). Presently there is no
systematic or strategic effort to identify, control, or remove these species before they become
widespread and very difficult or impossible to manage. There is a need for the Service to
identify specific strategies for minimizing the impacts from species already occurring within
Sheldon Refuge and to greatly reduce the potential for such species occurring in the future.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction
Photo 1.5 Disturbance from regular grading along road shoulders spreads and creates
ideal growing conditions for many non-native invasive plants such as Russian thistle,
Halogeton, and cheatgrass.
• Sport Fishing: There are three primary areas managed for sport fisheries within Sheldon
Refuge. Continuing to maintain these fisheries has been raised as an issue due to water being
impounded and not available to downstream wildlife habitats; the time, money, and other
resources needed for maintenance and repairs, which detract from other higher priority
wildlife management projects and programs; and because the current practice of periodically
restocking non-native rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) is incompatible with Service policy.
Several non-native species of warm-water fish were historically stocked to the Dufurrena
Ponds in the Virgin Valley. These ponds continue to provide fishing opportunities, but the
ponds are not restocked, and the likelihood that these fish could escape into Thousand Creek
or Virgin Creek is considered very low. However, occasional flooding does require
maintenance of the ponds and creates conditions where fish could escape into adjacent
streams.
Both Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi; native to nearby areas) and
rainbow trout (not native to nearby areas) are periodically stocked to Catnip Reservoir, but
the reservoir has become shallow through siltation and the earthen dam is beginning to fail.
To maintain this fishery, trout will need to be periodically restocked, Catnip Reservoir will
need to be dredged, and the dam will need to be repaired or replaced at the considerable cost
of several million dollars.
Big Spring Reservoir is currently dry, but in wetter years it was restocked with rainbow trout,
which is preferred by some anglers because it is more vigorous, hardy, faster growing, and
ultimately more sporting to catch than the locally indigenous Lahontan cutthroat or redband
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdnari). However, restocking non-native fish to waters
within a national wildlife refuge to provide sport-fishing opportunity is incompatible with
Service policy.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-17
• Designated Campgrounds: Overnight camping within Sheldon Refuge is allowed only at
designated campgrounds or in the backcountry by Special Use Permit. Due to the remoteness
and size of Sheldon Refuge, overnight camping is allowed to facilitate and support wildlife-dependent
uses such as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and photography which many
visitors would not be able to participate in otherwise. While the number of designated
campgrounds has diminished, the remaining semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds are
located at or near springs and affect riparian areas through trampling, water pollution, and the
disturbance and displacement of wildlife from these important water sources.
Virgin Valley Campground has been developed and includes several outhouses, potable
water, fire rings, and a bathhouse and swimming area heated by geothermal springs (Photo
1.6). These amenities make the campground the most popular destination within Sheldon
Refuge, and the level of use during the summer often exceeds capacity, causing
overcrowding, user conflicts, and unauthorized use of adjacent areas outside the campground.
A large proportion of visitation and use of the Virgin Valley Campground is associated with
commercial mining of precious opal at mining claims scattered throughout Virgin Valley.
There is concern that the non-wildlife-dependent use associated with mining is causing
conflict with other visitors participating in higher priority, appropriate wildlife-dependent
uses.
The Service needs to consider options for the long-term management of camping within
Sheldon Refuge that will minimize impacts to important habitats and at the same time
facilitate public use and enjoyment of the fish and wildlife resources it seeks to conserve.
Photo 1.6 Virgin Valley Campground is the most popular recreation site within
Sheldon Refuge, but its popularity is mostly related to the developed hot springs and
nearby opal mining opportunities—not wildlife-dependent recreation (Photo Gail
Collins).
• Wilderness Review: Currently 341,500 acres within Sheldon Refuge have been proposed by
the President for wilderness designation by Congress. Consistent with Service policy,
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction
Sheldon Refuge will continue to manage all proposed wilderness as wilderness until
Congress takes action on the original 1974 proposal. However, this same policy also requires
a wilderness review be conducted as part of this CCP. The wilderness review identifies lands
and waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness, evaluates those areas identified to
determine if they are suitable, and then determines if those suitable areas should be
recommended for designation as wilderness.
Sheldon Refuge should consider a range of alternatives for potential wilderness
recommendations that would be consistent with other management objectives and strategies
under other alternatives, potential future management needs and activities, and long-term
conservation of fish, wildlife, and their habitats. Given the current wilderness proposal for
the majority of lands within Sheldon Refuge, an “all wilderness alternative” and a “no
wilderness alternative” were determined not to be within a reasonable range of alternatives
for this CCP.
• Public Access, Roads, and Transportation: Over time, hundreds of miles of primitive
motorized routes and trails have been pioneered throughout Sheldon Refuge (Photo 1.7). In
addition, several maintained roads have also been established across Sheldon Refuge and are
maintained under agreement, permit, or right-of-way with the respective county and state
agencies. This existing network of roads, routes, and trails is traveled by high clearance four-wheel-
drive vehicles, but primarily by four-wheelers, motorbikes, or other OHVs. This use
has resulted in adverse impacts to wildlife, habitats, cultural and historic resources,
wilderness character, and primitive recreation opportunities. Despite the fact that many
publications, brochures, and maps show these routes and trails, the Service has not officially
designated these areas open to motorized use as required by Executive Order 11644 and 50
CFR 27.31. Through this CCP the Service will evaluate the adverse impacts from these
routes and trails and will consider a range of alternatives that minimizes damage to soils,
harassment of wildlife, or significant disruption of wildlife habitats, or other existing
wildlife-dependent recreational uses.
1.8.1.2 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP/EIS
A number of issues were raised during scoping which are considered to be outside the scope of the
CCP/EIS. These issues were not analyzed during the CCP process.
• Allowing Livestock Grazing: All assignments of Special Use Permits and privileges for
commercial livestock grazing were purchased by a private organization at fair market value
in 1994. At the request of the owner of these assignments, all associated grazing privileges
were canceled by the Service in 1995. For this reason Sheldon Refuge cannot issue permits
for commercial livestock grazing unless such use is determined necessary to fulfill the
purposes for Sheldon Refuge and the management objectives in this CCP.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-19
Photo 1.7 Hundreds of miles of four-wheel drive routes and trails are located
throughout Sheldon Refuge, with the highest concentration in Virgin Valley for
access to mining prospects and claims (Photo Gail Collins).
• Mining Management: A renewal of the 1991 Public Land Order for withdrawal of the
mineral estate from location of mineral claims is being completed outside the scope of the
CCP because of its short time requirements for filing. A framework for managing mining
claims, mining operations, access to valid claims, and regulations specific to Sheldon Refuge
is being explored with Service resource managers, experts, and the USFWS Solicitor’s office
(which provides legal guidance and advice) because of its complex nature and the longer
timeframe expected for its completion. This framework and regulations will be represented
in a Minerals Management Plan to be developed for Sheldon Refuge following completion of
the Sheldon CCP/EIS.
• Withdrawing Public Lands between Sheldon and Hart Mountain National Wildlife
Refuges from Public Domain to be Included in the Refuge System: Sheldon Refuge is
working to develop partnerships with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), private
landowners, and state agencies to research habitat use by wildlife and conduct habitat
improvements between and around the two refuges.
1.9 Plan Amendment and Revision
Service policy directs that Sheldon Refuge review the CCP annually to assess the need for change.
We revise the CCP when significant new information becomes available, when ecological conditions
change, or when the need to do so is identified during the review. If major changes are proposed,
public meetings may be held and new environmental assessments and environmental impact
statements may be necessary. Consultation with appropriate state agencies, tribal governments, and
the public would occur during any future revisions. Full review and revision of the CCP will occur
every 10 to 15 years or more often if necessary.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction
This page left blank intentionally.
Bog
Hot
Valley
Summit Lake
Indian Reservation
Oregon
End
Table
Guano Rim
Grassy Canyon
Bl ac k Rock Rang e
Pueblo Mountains
OREGON
NEVADA
LAKE COUNTY
HARNEY COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY WASHOE
HUMBOLDT
Hart Mountain
National Antelope Refuge
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge
140
8a
34
34a
34
447
299
Trout
Creek
Badger
Creek
Cottonwood
Creek
Wall Creek
Sand Creek
Mud Creek
Honey Creek
Sage Hen Creek
Big
Trout
Creek
Guano Slough
Piute
Creek
Pueblo Slough
Home Creek
Quinn River
Thousand Creek
Willow Creek
Bilk
Creek
Mud
Meadow Creek
Pidgeon Spring
Craine
Creek
Twentymile Creek
Adel
Plush
Vya
Denio
Massacre Lake
Alkali Lake
Upper Lake
Lower Lake
Middle
Alkali Lake
Crump Lake
Warner Lakes
Alvord Lake
LEGEND
Refuge Headquarters
Sheldon NWR Approved Boundary
County Boundary
State Line
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
Highway
City/Town
Land Ownership
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Land Management
State Lands
US Fish and Wildlife
US Forest Service
Private/Unclassified
Figure 1.1 Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Location
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge
Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon
DRAFT CCP
UTM Zone 11N
NAD 83
0 7.5 15 Mi
0 15 30 Km
Produced by USFWS Region 1
Refuge Information Branch
Portland, Oregon
Map Date: 3/14/2011
File: 10-064-1.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction
The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-1
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
2.1 Alternative Descriptions
A general description of the alternatives of this CCP/EIS is presented below. This description is
followed by a table that is organized by goal with details about the differences among the alternatives
(Table 2.1).
2.1.1 Alternatives Considered but Not Evaluated in Further Detail
A number of alternative approaches to the issues raised during scoping were considered, but were not
analyzed in further detail. The reasons these alternatives were not analyzed further as part of the
CCP process are listed below:
Eliminating the Virgin Valley Campground: The campground can be brought to public use
standards and incorporate wildlife-related activities (e.g., educational kiosks and interpretative
programs), as presented in the CCP alternatives.
Eliminating Rock Collecting: Rock collecting has previously been found to be a compatible use
within Sheldon Refuge. During the scoping process for this CCP, both the Service and the public
expressed concerns about unintentional collection of cultural artifacts and vertebrate fossils, as well
as vehicle trespass associated with rock collecting. After an initial evaluation, Sheldon Refuge found
the use currently does not conflict with wildlife-dependent uses of Sheldon Refuge, and a range of
management actions would likely be effective in reducing or eliminating unintended resource
impacts.
Leaving Horses and Burros Unmanaged: This was analyzed in the 2008 Horse and Burro
Management Environmental Assessment and was determined to be contrary to Service statutes,
policy, and refuge purposes.
Lethal Control as a Last Resort to Meet Horse and Burro Population Objectives: In developing
the CCP alternatives, comments suggested including lethal control as an option of last resort should
other methods prove ineffective. After further consideration, the Service determined the use of lethal
control would be unnecessary to meet horse and burro population objectives and could have other
unintended and potentially negative consequences. As a result, the inclusion of such an option is
unnecessary for a reasonable range of alternatives.
Allowing Wilderness Therapy Concessionaires: Because this use has previously been found
incompatible with refuge purposes, it was not considered. Alternatives in the CCP evaluate other
commercial economic uses to fulfill refuge purposes.
Developing a Trail through Thousand Creek Gorge: Important biological resources within
Thousand Creek Gorge have repeatedly been identified as being sensitive to human disturbance or
development. Wildlife surveys have identified rare and sensitive species within the gorge that would
likely be adversely affected by increased public use or access. The CCP includes a range of
alternatives for public access, including trails, which would have less impact on sensitive wildlife
and plant resources.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Draft CCP/EIS
2-2 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Recommending No Areas for Wilderness Designation, or Recommending All Suitable Areas for
Wilderness Designation: Because approximately 341,500 acres of Sheldon Refuge have been
proposed for wilderness designation and have been managed for wilderness character since 1974, the
consideration of an alternative in detail that would recommend no lands for wilderness designation is
contradictory to previous wilderness studies, has not been determined necessary for continued
management of Sheldon Refuge, and is considered unreasonable. However, the final wilderness
proposal for Sheldon Refuge included key areas not originally recommended, and as a result some
management actions and activities have not been implemented or allowed to occur as intended.
Consideration of an alternative in detail that would recommend all 388,802 acres of the refuge
determined suitable for wilderness study would also be inconsistent with the original refuge
wilderness recommendation and current management direction, which recognizes a need for certain
management activities, habitat manipulation, and mechanized use in key areas of the refuge.
Opening Sheldon Refuge to Sport Hunting of Additional Wildlife Species: Sport hunting of
pronghorn, California bighorn sheep, mule deer, chukar (Alectoris graeca), California quail
(Lophortyx californicus), Greater sage-grouse (in support of population data collection), geese,
ducks, and coots consistent with state and Federal regulations has been determined to be a
compatible wildlife-dependent public use within Sheldon Refuge. Additional wildlife species such
as coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Felis rufus), or mountain lion (Felis concolor) may be utilized for
sport hunting or trapping within a National Wildlife Refuge (50 CFR 31). However, the populations
and wildlife requirements for these additional species have not been determined and are insufficient
to determine what level of sport hunting, if any, would be compatible with the mission of the Refuge
System and the purposes for Sheldon Refuge. We anticipate information gathered to meet
management objectives identified in this CCP would be sufficient to make such a compatibility
determination in the future.
2.1.2 Features Common to All Alternatives
All alternatives would contain some common features, which are presented below rather than as
individual management objectives or specific strategies to reduce length and redundancy of the
individual alternative descriptions.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Strategies: In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 7 RM 14, an
IPM approach will be utilized, where prac