U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 111

Lakeview, OR 97630

Phone: 541/947-3315

Fax: 541/947-4414

September 2012

Cover Photo

Pronghorn antelope

USFWS

Inside Cover Photo

Virgin Gorge

USFWS, Gail H Collins
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 Final CCP/EIS 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Final 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 wildlifedependent public uses would include increased opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

Public Comments: We accepted 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. We summarized the comments 

received, and our responses to those comments are in an appendix to the Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge 

Final 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 

August 2012 

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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

best estimates of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above 

current budget allocations, and as such, are primarily used for 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. 
This page left blank intentionally. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Executive Summary ES-i 

Executive Summary 

This document is a summary of the combined Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement (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 CCP/EIS 

evaluates and compares three 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 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 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 

CCP/EIS as appendices. 

The three 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. 

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 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

ES-ii Executive Summary 

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 

 “...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 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Executive Summary ES-iii 

 “...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 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 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. 

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 would 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. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

ES-iv Executive Summary 

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 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 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 

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 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Executive Summary ES-v 

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, thinning of 

encroaching juniper, and protection of mountain mahogany from wildfire 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 

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. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

ES-vi Executive Summary 

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], Alvord cutthroat trout, 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 offhighway 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 (424,360 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 341,495 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. 

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 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Executive Summary ES-vii 

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 CCP/EIS would be expected to cause both 

beneficial and adverse impacts to refuge resources, recreation opportunities, and local communities 

and their economies. The 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 90 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 

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: 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

ES-viii Executive Summary 

 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 Final CCP/EIS 

Table of Contents i 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. ES-i 

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. ............................................................ 2-28

2.2.4 Goal 4. Protect unique and rare habitats, wildlife, and communities. ................................... 2-38

2.2.5 Goal 5. Using an integrated approach, prevent, control, or eliminate non-native species 

that threaten Sheldon Refuge resources. ................................................................................. 2-47

2.2.6 Goal 6. Collect information and create partnerships necessary to support adaptive 

management decisions at a landscape scale. ........................................................................... 2-49

2.2.7 Goal 7. Provide an active fire management program. ........................................................... 2-54

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 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

ii Table of Contents 

visitors’ understanding of and appreciation for the unique natural and cultural resources 

conserved by Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. ................................................................................................................................... 2-57

2.2.9 Goal 9. Protect and manage Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Study Areas 

to maintain wilderness character and values. .......................................................................... 2-70

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. ........................................................................................................................ 2-72

2.2.11 Goal 11. Reduce illegal and unauthorized activities on Sheldon Refuge. .......................... 2-76

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
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Table of Contents iii 

5.2.5 Wildlife Viewing and Photography ........................................................................................ 5-11

5.2.6 Environmental Education ....................................................................................................... 5-12

5.2.7 Interpretation........................................................................................................................... 5-12

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 ............................................................................................................ 5-15

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 ................................................................................ 5-16

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 ..................................... 5-20

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 ..................................................... 6-10

6.1.2 Public Use Effects ................................................................................................................... 6-16

6.1.3 Sagebrush-steppe and Associated Upland Habitats ................................................................ 6-24

6.1.4 Semi-desert Grasslands and Steppes ....................................................................................... 6-25

6.1.5 Emergent Marshes, Wet Meadows, Streams, Reservoirs, Springs, Springbrooks, and 

Ephemeral Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 6-25

6.1.6 Ephemeral Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 6-31

6.1.7 Cliffs, Canyons, Talus Slopes, and Barren Lands .................................................................. 6-32

6.1.8 Deciduous Woodlands and Shrublands .................................................................................. 6-32

6.1.9 Mature Old-growth Mountain Mahogany and Western Juniper Habitat Types ..................... 6-33

6.2 Physical Environment ................................................................................................................. 6-34

6.2.1 Effects to Soils ........................................................................................................................ 6-34

6.2.2 Effects to Water Quality and Quantity ................................................................................... 6-36

6.2.3 Effects to Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 6-39

6.2.4 Effects to Climate ................................................................................................................... 6-39

6.2.5 Visual Quality ......................................................................................................................... 6-40

6.3 Social Effects .............................................................................................................................. 6-40

6.3.1 Effects Common to All Public Uses ....................................................................................... 6-40

6.3.2 Opportunities for Quality Hunting .......................................................................................... 6-44

6.3.3 Opportunities for Quality Fishing ........................................................................................... 6-46

6.3.4 Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography ......................................... 6-46

6.3.5 Opportunities for Quality Interpretation and Environmental Education ................................ 6-47

6.3.6 Opportunities for Rock Collecting .......................................................................................... 6-48

6.4 Effects on Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................ 6-49

6.4.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................... 6-49

6.4.2 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................... 6-49

6.4.3 Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................... 6-50

6.5 Economic Effects ....................................................................................................................... 6-50

6.5.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................... 6-50

6.5.2 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................... 6-51
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

iv Table of Contents 

6.5.3 Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................... 6-53

6.6 Effects to Wilderness Character ................................................................................................. 6-54

6.6.1 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................... 6-55

6.6.2 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................... 6-58

6.6.3 Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................... 6-60

6.7 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................... 6-62

6.7.1 Non-CCP Actions Occurring within Sheldon Refuge ............................................................ 6-63

6.7.2 Past and Present Actions/Decisions Occurring outside Sheldon Refuge ................................ 6-64

6.7.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Adjacent to or near Sheldon Refuge .................................. 6-66

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) ..................................................................................................................................... 6-52

Figures 

Figure 1.1 Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge location. ........................................................................... 1-21

Figure 2.1 Public vehicle access for Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Alternative 1. ......................... 2-79

Figure 2.2 Public vehicle access for Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Alternative 2. ......................... 2-81

Figure 2.3 Public vehicle access for Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Alternative 3. ......................... 2-83

Figure 2.4 Current Wilderness Study Area recommendations, proposed Wilderness, and route 

designations, Alternative 1. ...................................................................................................................... 2-85

Figure 2.5 Current Wilderness Study Area recommendations, proposed Wilderness, and route 

designations, Alternative 2. ...................................................................................................................... 2-87

Figure 2.6 Current Wilderness Study Area recommendations, proposed Wilderness, and route 

designations, Alternative 3. ...................................................................................................................... 2-89

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 Final 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 4.7 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). ....................................................................... 6-53

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.............................. 2-22

Photo 2.2 Natural fire is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush habitats within Sheldon 

Refuge. ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-26

Photo 2.3 Prescribed burning is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush habitats within 

Sheldon Refuge. ....................................................................................................................................... 2-26

Photo 2.4 Mowing is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush habitats within Sheldon 

Refuge. ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-27

Photo 2.5 Cutting of juniper is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush habitats within 

Sheldon Refuge. ....................................................................................................................................... 2-27

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. ............................................. 2-32

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. ...................... 2-35

Photo 2.8 Guzzlers have been constructed for bighorn sheep and to increase numbers of chukar for 

hunting. .................................................................................................................................................... 2-37

Photo 2.9 The dramatic cliffs along Thousand Creek Gorge provide habitat for raptors, bats, and 

other dependent wildlife. ......................................................................................................................... 2-40

Photo 2.10 Unlike western juniper, mountain mahogany stands are not expanding and are 

susceptible to fire. .................................................................................................................................... 2-45
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

vi Table of Contents 

Photo 2.11 Additional research is needed to determine population trends, distribution, and 

migratory patterns for key species such as pronghorn (Photo Gail Collins). ........................................... 2-51

Photo 2.12 Development of private inholdings indirectly affects the surrounding area of Sheldon 

Refuge (Photo Gail Collins). .................................................................................................................... 2-54

Photo 2.13 Aerial seeding is one technique to give native plants an edge over invasive weeds after a 

fire. ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-56

Photo 2.14 When water is available, Big Spring Reservoir and Campground are popular 

destinations for Nevada anglers. .............................................................................................................. 2-59

Photo 2.15 The majority of vehicle routes within Sheldon Refuge are primitive and not suitable for 

two-wheel drive (Photo Aaron Collins). .................................................................................................. 2-68

Photo 2.16 The Sheldon Refuge Office cannot accommodate the visiting public and the necessary 

office space. ............................................................................................................................................. 2-70

Photo 2.17 The historic Kinney Camp homestead is centrally located to other public uses within 

Sheldon Refuge. ....................................................................................................................................... 2-73

Photo 2.18 The Overlook Cabin at the west entrance to Sheldon Refuge is representative of work 

done by the Civilian Conservation Corps. ............................................................................................... 2-73

Photo 2.19 Petroglyphs scattered throughout Sheldon Refuge remind visitors of the region’s earliest 

inhabitants. ............................................................................................................................................... 2-74

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

Photo 5.1 The Sheldon Refuge Office at Dufurrena includes residences, maintenance buildings, and 

a small office (Photo Gail Collins). ........................................................................................................... 5-1
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Table of Contents vii 

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 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

Appendix N. Comments Received During Public/Agency Review Period and Service Responses ......... N-1

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program ...................................................................... O-1
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

viii Table of Contents 

This page left blank intentionally.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final 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 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement (CCP/EIS). This CCP/EIS evaluates and compares three 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 

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 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 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement (CCP/EIS) for Sheldon Refuge. The CCP sets forth management guidance for 

Sheldon Refuge over the next 15 years, as required by the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction 

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 CCP/EIS is to implement Alternative 2, which has been identified as the 

Service’s Preferred Alternative. This 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 Final 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). 

 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 Final 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 interjurisdictional 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 Final 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 Final 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 Final 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 Final 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 Final 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 Final 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. The Action Plan identifies species of 

conservation priority throughout Nevada. Species identified in the Action Plan that are known to 

occur within Sheldon Refuge are identified in Appendix B. Partnerships and close coordination 

between NDOW and the Service are key to incorporating the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan into the 

CCP process. As NDOW updates the Action Plan, the Service will update the species list in 

Appendix B as appropriate. 

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 Final 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 Final 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 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 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 Final 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 Final 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 Final 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 Final 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. 

Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi; 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. 

 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 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-17 

and size of Sheldon Refuge, overnight camping is allowed to facilitate and support wildlifedependent 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 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 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction 

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 fourwheel-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 Final 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 Final CCP/EIS 

1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction 

This page left blank intentionally. 
!(

!(

!(

!(

@" Bog

Hot

Valley

Sum mit La ke

Indian Rese rvation

Orego n

End

Tab le

Guan o Rim

Grass y Can yon Black Rock Ran ge

Pueb lo Mo untain s

O R E G O N

N E VA D A

L A K E C O U N T Y

H A R N E Y C O U N T Y

C O U N T Y

C O U N T Y

WA S H O E

H U M B O L D T

Hart Mountain

National Antelope Refuge

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

UV299

UV447

UV34

UV34a

UV34

UV8a

UV140

Trout Creek

Badger Creek

Cottonwood Cree

W

k

all Creek

S and Creek

Mud Creek

Deep Creek

Honey Creek

Sage Hen Creek

Big Trout Creek

Guan o Slough

Home Creek

Quinn River

Tho usand Creek

Willow Creek

Bilk Creek

Mu d Meadow Creek

Pidgeon Spring

Craine Creek

Plush

Adel

Denio

Vya

Warner

Lakes

Crump

Lake

Middle

Alkali Lake

Lower

Lake

Upper

Lake

Alkali

Lake

Massacre

Lake

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

FINAL CCP / EIS

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 Final CCP/EIS 

1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final 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 Final 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, 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 practicable, to eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive 

species (herein collectively referred to as pests) on Sheldon Refuge. IPM would involve using 

methods based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal ecological disruption, which considers 

minimum potential effects to non-target species and the refuge environment. Regional management 

direction for implementing IPM strategies has been adopted as part of this CCP (Appendix O). 

Refuge staff would continue to work with cooperators to develop pesticide use proposals consistent 

with this IPM guidance. Mechanical, biological, chemical, and physical methods are commonly used 

techniques to combat invasive and encroaching plants in a variety of habitats. Biological and 

chemical control methods are also being investigated. Pesticides may be used where physical, 

cultural, and biological methods or combinations thereof are impractical or incapable of providing 

adequate control, eradication, or containment. If a pesticide would be needed on Sheldon Refuge, the 

most specific (selective) chemical available for the target species would be used unless 

considerations of persistence or other environmental and/or biotic hazards would preclude it. 

Pesticide use proposals would be prepared and approved before any herbicide is used within Sheldon 

Refuge. Pesticide use proposals require site-specific analysis, evaluation of chemical profiles, and 

evaluation of likely environmental effects. Based on scientific information and analyses documented 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-3 

in chemical profiles, herbicides would be approved for use on Sheldon Refuge lands where the 

chemical profiles provide scientific evidence that potential impacts to Sheldon Refuge’s biological 

resources and physical environment are likely to be only minor, temporary, or localized in nature, 

and would be of relatively low risk to non-target organisms as a result of low toxicity or short 

persistence in the environment. 

However, pesticides may be used on Sheldon Refuge lands where substantial effects to species and 

the environment are possible (exceed threshold values) in order to protect human health and safety 

(e.g., mosquito-borne disease). 

Maintenance and Updating of Existing Facilities: Periodic maintenance and updating of Sheldon 

Refuge buildings and facilities will be necessary regardless of the alternative selected. Maintenance 

and updating of facilities is necessary for safety and accessibility and to support staff and 

management needs and is incorporated in the Service Asset Maintenance Management System. 

Coordination with Tribal, State, and County Governments: Regular communication with Native 

American Tribes that are affected or that have an interest in the management of Sheldon Refuge will 

continue to occur under all alternatives. Tribes that Sheldon Refuge would coordinate and consult 

with on a regular basis regarding issues of shared interest include the Burns Paiute Tribe, Fort 

Bidwell Paiute Tribe, Cedarville Rancheria Paiute Tribe, Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, 

and Summit Lake Paiute Tribe. 

Similarly, under all alternatives, the Service would continue to maintain regular discussions with 

Washoe and Humboldt county commissioners, the State of Nevada, and to a lesser degree Lake 

County and the State of Oregon. State agencies include Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Nevada Department of Transportation. Key topics for 

discussion would include road maintenance, wildlife monitoring, big-game management, hunting and 

fishing seasons and regulations, and endangered species management. 

Partnerships and Volunteer Opportunities: Under all alternatives Sheldon Refuge would actively 

seek opportunities for partnerships with other agencies and organizations that share a common vision 

and goals for Sheldon Refuge and the resources that the refuge conserves. We view opportunities for 

groups and individuals to actively participate in resource conservation through volunteer activities as 

a vital component of natural resource stewardship, public appreciation for Sheldon Refuge, and 

support for future refuge management. 

Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities: The Service would 

actively participate in planning and studies for ongoing and future off-refuge industrial development, 

contamination, and potential concerns that may adversely affect refuge resources, wildlife, and 

habitats. The Service would cultivate working relationships with pertinent county, state, and Federal 

agencies to stay abreast of current and potential developments, and would utilize outreach and 

education as needed to raise awareness of refuge resources and dependence on the local environment. 

Refuge Economic Uses: Economic uses within Sheldon Refuge include rights-of-way for power 

lines, access to private lands and construction projects, highways, and gravel pits for highway 

maintenance. These rights-of-way have been found appropriate and compatible with the purposes for 

Sheldon Refuge, and appropriate permits have been issued for their use. It is the policy of the 

Service to discourage the types of uses embodied in right-of-way requests (340 FW 3.3). Future 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-4 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

economic uses will be authorized by permit only if the use is determined to contribute to, and be 

compatible with, the purposes for Sheldon Refuge or the Refuge System (50 CFR 29). 

Management of Areas Proposed for Wilderness Designation: In 1974 the President submitted a 

proposal to Congress for designation of certain lands within Sheldon Refuge as wilderness under the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (see Figure 2.4), but Congress has taken no action on this proposal. Under 

Service policy these lands are considered proposed wilderness areas and are managed as wilderness 

until such time as Congress takes additional action. This CCP includes alternatives to the current 

wilderness proposal, but the Final Record of Decision for the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS will have no 

effect on the management or location of areas currently proposed for wilderness designation. Under 

all alternatives these areas will continue to be managed as wilderness. 

Develop Appropriate Step-down Plans: A series of step-down plans will be developed following 

completion of the CCP under all alternatives. These include, but are not limited to the Minerals and 

Mining Management Plan, Wilderness Stewardship Plan, Transportation Management Plan, Visitor 

Services Plan, Law Enforcement Plan, Cultural Resources Management Plan, Fisheries Management 

Plan, Habitat Management Plan, and Integrated Pest Management Plan. 

Implementation Subject to Funding Availability: Under each alternative, actions would be 

implemented over a period of 15 years as funding becomes available. Project priorities are in 

Appendix E. 

2.1.3 Description of the Alternatives 

2.1.3.1 Alternative 1: Continue Current Management 

Alternative 1 is the no action alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Sheldon Refuge would continue to implement applicable management direction contained in the 

1980 Sheldon Refuge Natural Resource Plan, the 1989 Virgin Valley Grazing Plan, the 1990 

Fisheries Management Plan, the 2001 Western Juniper Control Project Plan, the 2008 Feral Horse 

and Burro Management Plan, and the 2009 Fire Management Plan. These programs would continue 

at current levels as described in other sections of this CCP. Specifically, Sheldon Refuge would 

maintain, and where feasible, restore habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered species; 

rare and sensitive species (e.g., prairie falcon); and indicator and/or sagebrush-obligate species (e.g., 

pronghorn, Greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit). Existing compatible public uses would continue and 

include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, 

interpretation, backpacking, horseback riding, rock collecting, and camping. 

Continued management of feral horses and burros 

Management of feral horses and burros under Alternative 1 (no action) would require action by the 

Service Director to exempt Sheldon Refuge from current policy, which would then allow populations 

of approximately 800 feral horses and 90 feral burros to be maintained within Sheldon Refuge. 

Control methods would continue to include helicopter and horseback gathers of at least 130 horses 

and 13 burros each year, followed by shipment to private facilities for adoption or fertility control 

and release back onto Sheldon Refuge. The refuge boundary fence would continue to be maintained 

as part of all alternatives and would continue to deter emigration and immigration of horses and 

burros. Maintaining populations of feral horses or burros would not only conflict with the purposes 

for Sheldon Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System and the Service, but would likely have 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-5 

major, long-term, adverse impacts on native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats throughout 

Sheldon Refuge and somewhat lesser impacts on wildlife-dependent public uses. These impacts 

would likely be significant. 

Continued management of habitats 

Under Alternative 1 (no action), prescribed fire, mowing of sagebrush, thinning of encroaching 

juniper, and protection of mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius ledifolius) from wildfire 

would continue to be the primary management activities to maintain, restore, or improve habitats 

throughout Sheldon Refuge. Under this alternative, the use of prescribed burning is expected to 

continue the trend of smaller, more frequent, and less intense fires than would naturally occur within 

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 habitat and recreation opportunity. It is 

estimated that implementation of this alternative would leave up to 90 stock ponds, small earth dams, 

windmills, and spring developments scattered throughout Sheldon Refuge. These developments 

would continue to effect natural hydrology and the health of riparian habitats (see Section 3.3). 

All existing designated campgrounds and roads would continue to be maintained at their current 

locations. It is anticipated the various impacts to sensitive riparian habitats associated with certain 

campgrounds, increased soil erosion from poorly aligned road segments, and the spread of invasive 

non-native plants from the repeated grading of road shoulders would continue. 

Continued management of public uses 

Under Alternative 1 (no action) there are few actions which would alter when, where, or how public 

uses are allowed to occur within Sheldon Refuge. 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 NDOW, and reservoirs and ponds that support 

recreational fisheries would continue to be maintained and restocked with fish as needed. In 

addition, Sheldon Refuge would remain one of the only national wildlife refuges in the 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. 

Environmental interpretation and outreach within Sheldon Refuge would continue to be conducted 

mostly through signs, brochures, and occasional volunteer projects. Public contact with Sheldon 

Refuge staff would remain very limited and intermittent due to vast distances, remoteness, and the 

small number of Sheldon Refuge employees. Opportunities for people to obtain additional 

information while visiting Sheldon Refuge would remain largely dependent on kiosks, brochures, the 

availability of volunteers, and the limited shared space (about 100 square feet) in the Sheldon Refuge 

Office (Dufurrena). Despite continue improvement of outreach and education programs and facilities 

over the past several years, facilities generally do not and would not meet the quality expected by the 

visiting public. 

With the exception of Virgin Valley Campground, the 12 other designated campgrounds within 

Sheldon Refuge would remain semi-primitive or primitive and consist mostly of metal campfire 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-6 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

rings, tables, and information signs. Maintenance of existing secondary (gravel) roads within 

Sheldon Refuge would continue on a seasonal basis. 

Continued management of wilderness 

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. Ongoing efforts to remove abandoned and unnecessary 

fences, water troughs, and other facilities combined with additional wilderness boundary signs and 

increased enforcement of vehicle regulations should improve the overall natural appearance of the 

wilderness areas. With the exception of water control structures, exterior boundary fence lines, and 

temporary fence exclosures to mitigate impacts from feral horses and burros; only 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. 

Continued management of cultural and historic resources 

Alternative 1 (no action) would continue to provide a basic level of inventory, monitoring, and 

protection for cultural and historic resources within Sheldon Refuge. Inventories would continue to 

be conducted primarily in response to other planned management activities or proposals. Protection 

of these resources would remain limited to occasional random law enforcement patrols and removal 

of burnable vegetation to maintain defensible space for protection during a fire. 

2.1.3.2 Alternative 2: Emphasis on Management for Native Biodiversity and WildlifeDependent Public Uses 

Under Alternative 2 (the Service’s preferred alternative), Sheldon Refuge would manage for a natural 

mosaic of Great Basin habitat types and the native species that depend on them. A broad range of 

management tools 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. Habitat for rare or sensitive species and other native flora and fauna would be maintained, 

or where appropriate, restored, including shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, woodland, grassland, and 

cliff-talus habitats. 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. 

Management of feral horses and burros 

Alternative 2 (preferred) would improve habitat conditions and create consistency with existing 

policy, the mission of the Refuge System and the Service, and the purposes for Sheldon Refuge by 

removing all feral horses and burros. Implementation of this alternative would require the removal 

of at least 200 horses and 20 burros each year to completely remove horses and burros within five 

years. Methods for gather and removal would be as described under Alternative 1 (no action), but 

sale or auction could be implemented if methods described under Alternative 1 (no action) prove to 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-7 

be ineffective. Once horses and burros are removed, it is anticipated the condition of native habitats 

throughout Sheldon Refuge would improve, resulting in significant long-term benefits to fish, 

wildlife, plants and wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Management of habitats 

The primary habitat management action in Alternative 2 (preferred) 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 when compared to Alternative 1 (no action). In 

the short term, fence exclosures would be constructed to mitigate impacts from horses and burros, but 

would not be necessary over the long term following removal of horses and burros and habitat 

recovery. Under this alternative abandoned livestock water developments would be removed 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. 

Under Alternative 2, up to nine designated campgrounds would be relocated and some road segments 

realigned. These actions are expected to reduce erosion and impacts to sensitive riparian areas when 

compared with Alternative 1 (no action), but would not change the size, general location, or types of 

developments currently found at these campgrounds. 

Other habitat management actions such as the use of prescribed fire, mowing of sagebrush, thinning 

of western juniper, and thinning of vegetation adjacent to mountain mahogany under Alternative 2 

(preferred) would be similar to those under Alternative 1 (no action). However, under this 

alternative, greater emphasis would be placed on the removal of western juniper where it is 

encroaching upon sagebrush habitats. These actions would occur primarily in the western portions of 

Sheldon Refuge. 

Management of public uses 

As with Alternative 1 (no action), Alternative 2 (preferred) would continue to provide wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities throughout most of Sheldon Refuge and would continue 

coordination of fish and wildlife harvest seasons and limits with NDOW. One difference from 

Alternative 1 (no action) would be the replacement of non-native trout in Big Spring Reservoir and 

Virgin Creek with trout indigenous to the region (i.e., Lahontan cutthroat trout or redband trout). 

Replacement would occur gradually through periodic stocking and is not anticipated to affect the 

quality of recreational fishing opportunities. 

Alternative 2 (preferred) would expand existing opportunities and provide new opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent public uses primarily through the expansion, relocation, and construction of 

public use facilities and the conversion of some historic structures for public use. The most 

substantial changes are expected to result from the 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. 

Overall, facilities provided under this alternative would expand the range of recreation opportunities 

both within Sheldon Refuge and throughout the Region by providing additional developed and 

accessible opportunities when compared with the remote, undeveloped and primitive opportunities 

typical throughout the region and under Alternative 1 (no action). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-8 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred) a new visitor contact station would be constructed to replace the 

existing visitor contact space of about 100 square feet co-located with the Sheldon Refuge Office 

(Dufurrena). The new facility would be larger, would be located along Highway 140 to provide 

more convenient access, and would be regularly staffed with volunteers and employees (see Figure 

5.1 for approximate location). These changes are expected to greatly increase opportunities and 

quality of environmental interpretation and outreach when compared with Alternative 1 (no action). 

A self-guided auto tour route would be designated for visitors traveling along Highway 140 and 

along primary routes connected to Highway 140. The route would provide site-specific information 

to enhance wildlife viewing opportunities, increase environmental education and knowledge of 

Sheldon Refuge, and complement other opportunities in the region such as the Barrel Springs Back 

Country Byway and the historic Applegate-Lassen Emigrant Trail. Information for the auto tour 

route would be provided primarily through the visitor contact station, the internet, or other off-site 

media with only the minimal signage necessary along the route itself. Along shorter and more 

developed portions of the route (i.e., Virgin Valley), some on-site interpretive signs and vehicle 

pullouts would be constructed. 

Additional facilities such as new campsite amenities (i.e., picnic tables and accessible fire rings or 

barbeque grills), potable water, shade structures, kiosks, and dedicated volunteer sites would be 

constructed at Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds (see Figure 

5.1). These facilities would provide developed camping opportunities that are not commonly 

available within Sheldon Refuge or the region. However, these improved facilities would only be 

sustainable over the long term through campsite fees to support volunteers, maintenance, and 

replacement. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred), improved gravel roads within Sheldon Refuge would be maintained 

more frequently. All routes open to the public use of vehicles would be adequately signed and 

marked (as opposed to marking and signing all closed routes under Alternative 1 [no action]). As 

part of this alternative, Sheldon Refuge would propose that some existing primitive unmaintained 

routes be closed to public use of motorized vehicles to protect various refuge resources. 

Management action would be taken to reduce impacts from other existing routes (see Figure 2.2). 

The alternative also identifies key routes that would be re-opened to public vehicle use should the 

revised wilderness recommendation be approved (see following paragraph). When combined with 

the Sheldon Refuge proposal to adjust the location and configuration of wilderness area boundaries, 

Alternative 2 (preferred) would result in vehicle access to more areas of the refuge and about the 

same amount of area to be managed for wilderness values when compared with Alternative 1 (no 

action) (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2). In addition, visitors would be required to register all OHVs for use 

on refuge roads and routes designated open to vehicle use. It is anticipated these actions would 

improve the quality of the transportation system and deter vehicle violations while requiring only 

minimal law enforcement presence. 

Alternative 2 identifies specific routes that would be re-opened to motorized use should the 

wilderness recommendation be approved. Additional existing routes could be re-opened if, after an 

evaluation of the public use benefits, resource impacts, and appropriate NEPA documentation, it is 

determined such use would not interfere with or detract from the purposes for Sheldon Refuge and 

would not adversely affect the natural, aesthetic, or scenic values of the refuge (EO 11644). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-9 

Management of wilderness 

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 (Appendix F). As a result, 

a larger portion of Sheldon Refuge (424,360 acres)1 would be managed for wilderness character than 

under the other alternatives in the short term. 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred) 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 [no action] versus approximately 341,495 under Alternative 2 

[preferred]). Because the previous recommendation for wilderness designation has been approved, 

and submitted to Congress, the Service cannot alter or adjust the current wilderness proposal. If the 

new recommendation in Alternative 2 is forwarded through the wilderness proposal process and 

approved by Congress, it is anticipated Alternative 2 (preferred) would have three important 

differences from Alternative 1 (no action) over the long term. 

First, areas recommended under the preferred alternative would have less evidence of human 

development and disturbance and therefore appear more natural overall than areas currently proposed 

under Alternative 1 (no action). 

Second, areas recommended are those where fewer repeated management activities and intrusions 

(e.g., habitat manipulations, mechanized equipment, motorized vehicles, temporary structures, etc.) 

are expected to be necessary for restoring and maintaining biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health; fulfilling the primary purposes for Sheldon Refuge; and accomplishing the 

mission of the Service when compared with Alternative 1 (no action). 

Third, the recommendation includes areas that provide the best opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation. At the same time, the recommendation does not include those 

areas that have traditionally received the greatest amounts of public use and historically had higher 

densities of vehicle routes (most of which remain apparent today and continue to be used illegally by 

vehicles for recreation and for Sheldon Refuge administrative purposes). 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred) the overall quality of the wilderness resource (as measured by 

naturalness, untrammeled character, opportunity for solitude, and opportunities for primitive or 

unconfined types of recreation) is expected to be greater than under the other alternatives. 

Management of cultural and historic resources 

Under Alternative 2 (preferred) more information would be gathered about prehistoric, historic, and 

paleontological resources than under other alternatives. Consequently, the level of protection and the 

quality of interpretation would increase as new sites are discovered and more complete information 

becomes available. Overall, the increased law enforcement, protection of sites, and in some cases 

 

1

 Acreage figures, which include proposed wilderness areas, differ slightly from the 1974 proposal due to more 

precise mapping techniques used for calculations in the Sheldon CCP/EIS. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-10 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

restoration proposed as part of Alternative 2 (preferred) would result in better long-term preservation 

of historic resources than other alternatives. The value of some structures determined not to have 

historic significance would continue to be preserved through conversion to public or administrative 

use. 

2.1.3.3 Alternative 3: Emphasis on Natural Processes for Native Biodiversity and Minimal 

Development for Public Uses 

Under Alternative 3 (natural processes), 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. 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 and interpretive visitor contact facilities or signs provided; instead, selfexploration of Sheldon Refuge resources would be emphasized. 

Management of feral horses and burros 

As under Alternative 2 (preferred), Alternative 3 (natural processes) would improve habitat 

conditions and create consistency with existing policy, the missions of the Refuge System and the 

Service, and the purposes for Sheldon Refuge by removing all feral horses and burros. However, 

instead of removal occurring within five years (as proposed under Alternative 2), removal would 

occur within 15 years. A large number of horses would receive contraception and would be released 

back onto Sheldon Refuge, with those surviving after 10 to 15 years eventually being removed 

altogether. This longer timeframe for removal is expected to result in at least 400 horses and burros 

remaining on Sheldon Refuge for at least 10 years and likely until nearly the end of the 15-year 

timeframe. 

Management of habitats 

As with Alternative 2 (preferred), the primary habitat management action in Alternative 3 (natural 

processes) 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 focus management efforts on 

allowing natural processes to operate largely free from management activities or manipulations. It is 

anticipated that some areas within Sheldon Refuge would require restoration or rehabilitation efforts 

in order to restore natural processes over the long term. Alternative 3 (natural processes) 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. 

With the exception of Catnip and Swan Lake reservoirs, IXL wetlands, and a small number of other 

selected facilities, most water control structures within Sheldon Refuge (including the Dufurrena 

Ponds, which support recreational fisheries) would not be maintained and would gradually disappear 

over time through natural processes of weathering, decay, and erosion. Developments would be 

removed from a number of springs throughout Sheldon Refuge, but these sites would not be further 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-11 

rehabilitated or restored. A small number of additional structures would likely require removal or 

some modification to protect public safety and private property from catastrophic failure or to protect 

certain rare or key habitats. 

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). 

Natural habitat conditions have been altered through large-scale activities such as grazing, wetland 

and water resource development, road construction, and fire suppression within Sheldon Refuge. 

Allowing natural processes of plant community succession, fire, flooding, erosion, and weathering to 

occur under Alternative 3 (natural processes) is not expected to result in more natural conditions in 

all cases or as anticipated under Alternative 2 (preferred). Management action 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. When natural fires are not fully suppressed 

and allowed to burn under certain conditions, these fires are expected to burn larger areas and in 

greater intensity than would otherwise occur under natural conditions due to encroachment of shrubs 

and trees into certain habitats. In addition, erosion, plant colonization (including spread of nonnative species), and plant community succession would continue after natural or prescribed fires with 

no efforts to restore or rehabilitate burned areas unless there is a threat to public health, safety, or a 

unique or critical resource. 

It is anticipated natural hydrologic and riparian plant conditions would return very slowly if at all 

where water control structures and development have substantially altered soil condition, water flow 

rates, and water distribution. In cases where highly invasive non-native plants populations cannot be 

controlled before becoming well established or sufficiently large, allowing the natural processes of 

plant competition and population expansion would likely result in changes to native plant 

communities throughout large portions of Sheldon Refuge. 

Management of public uses 

As with Alternative 1 (no action) and Alternative 2 (preferred), Alternative 3 (natural processes) 

would continue to provide wildlife observation and photography opportunities throughout most of 

Sheldon Refuge and would continue coordination of fish and wildlife harvest seasons and limits with 

NDOW. As under Alternative 2 (preferred), non-native rainbow trout in Big Spring Reservoir would 

be replaced with fish indigenous to the region, such as Lahontan cutthroat trout or redband trout. 

However, unlike Alternative 2 (preferred), the trout population would not be maintained through 

restocking. Given that Big Spring Reservoir has no trout spawning habitat and occasionally becomes 

completely dry, Big Spring Reservoir would not support a trout population or recreational fishery 

over the long term. 

Without continued maintenance and upkeep, the Dufurrena Ponds would become completely filled 

with vegetation and silt over time. As a result, recreational fishing opportunities at these ponds 

would eventually disappear as well.

Under Alternative 3 (natural processes), the collection of rocks and minerals would be allowed as a 

recreational activity. However, a management threshold for the number of violations associated with 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-12 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

rock collecting would be established and Special Use Permits required should this threshold be 

exceeded. This management direction is consistent with management of other national wildlife 

refuges and would result in fewer recreation opportunities at Sheldon Refuge, but would eliminate 

most accidental collection of prehistoric stone artifacts or vertebrate fossils by uninformed rock 

collectors, which is expected to continue under Alternative 1 (no action) and to a lesser degree under 

Alternative 2 (preferred).

Roads and routes open to the public for vehicle use would be marked and signed as under Alternative 

1 (no action). Only existing primary roads (State Highway 140, County Road 8A, County Road 34A, 

the Dufurrena Road to Virgin Valley Campground, and the Summit Lake/Badger Road) would be 

maintained, resulting in fewer maintained routes than under either of the other alternatives. Under 

Alternative 3, two routes would be closed, and one route would not be re-opened if the wilderness 

recommendation is approved because public use and benefit is considered minimal, adverse impacts 

are considered excessive, and impacts could not be minimized without intensive management action 

such as realignment or re-routing. As a result, Alternative 3 (natural processes) would propose fewer 

miles of existing primitive routes be opened to public vehicle use than is proposed under Alternative 

1 (no action) or Alternative 2 (preferred). When combined with the recommendation that a smaller 

area 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. 

Alternative 3 identifies specific routes that would be re-opened to motorized use should the 

wilderness recommendation be approved. Additional existing routes could be re-opened if after an 

evaluation of the public use benefits, resource impacts, and appropriate NEPA documentation, it is 

determined such use would not interfere with or detract from the purposes for Sheldon Refuge and 

would not adversely affect the natural, aesthetic, or scenic values of the refuge (EO 11644). 

Management of wilderness 

Alternative 3 (natural processes) would recommend 236,791 acres be designated as wilderness; this 

acreage represents the most primitive, pristine, and naturally appearing portions of Sheldon Refuge. 

If Congress were to accept this recommendation, Alternative 3 (natural processes) would provide less 

long-term protection and preservation of wilderness values than the other alternatives and would 

have the least conflict with management activities and intrusions (e.g., habitat manipulations, 

mechanized equipment, motorized vehicles, temporary structures, etc.) determined necessary for 

restoring and maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; fulfilling the 

primary purposes for Sheldon Refuge; and accomplishing the mission of the Service.

Management of cultural and historic resources 

Alternative 3 (natural processes) would provide the least amount of protection and preservation of 

historic resources when compared with the other alternatives. Natural processes of weathering, 

decay, erosion, and fire would be allowed to gradually eliminate most historic structures from 

Sheldon Refuge. Except for certain structures with national significance (e.g., Last Chance Ranch), 

restoration of structures and removal of burnable vegetation to provide a defensible space for 

protection during fires would not be conducted as proposed under the other alternatives. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-13 

Table 2.1 Summary of Alternatives 

Issue Alternative 1 (no action—current 

management) 

Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) Alternative 

Habitat Management How would the refuge manage and maintain wildlife habitats? 

Maintain percentage of habitats within management objective thresholds (Percentage thresholds presented for each habitat are based primarily on Service estimates of effects associated with feral horse and burro management and the amounts of each habitat type that could be restored given available resources.)  15%-30% of big and low sagebrushsteppe and shrubland, salt desert scrub, 

and greasewood flats habitats. 

Maintain percentage of habitats within management objective thresholds (Percentage thresholds presented for each habitat are based primarily on Service estimates of effects associated with feral horse and burro management and the amounts of each habitat type that could be restored given available resources.)  At least 60% of big and low 

sagebrush-steppe and shrubland, salt desert scrub, and greasewood flats habitats. 

Maintain percemanagement o

(Percentage th

each habitat arService estimawith feral horsand the amounthat could be rresources.) 

 30%-60% 

steppe and scrub, and habitats. 

 15%-30% of montane sagebrushsteppe, mountain big sagebrush/ 

bitterbrush habitats. 

 At least 80% of montane sagebrushsteppe, mountain big sagebrush/ 

bitterbrush habitats.

 30%-80% 

steppe, mobitterbrush 

 15%-30% semi-desert grassland, and 

Great Basin wildrye habitats. 

 At least 60% of semi-desert grassland, 

and Great Basin wildrye habitats.

 30%-60% 

and Great 

 10%-20% of emergent marshes and 

wet meadow habitats. 

 At least 60% of emergent marshes and 

wet meadow habitats.

 30%-60% 

wet mead

 75%-85% of cliff, canyon, talus slope, 

and barren land habitats. 

 85%-95% of cliff, canyon, talus slope, 

and barren land habitats.

 75%-85% 

slope, and 

 10%-30% of deciduous woodland and 

shrublands habitat. 

 At least 50% of deciduous woodland 

and shrublands habitat.

 30%-50% 

and shrub

 60%-80% of mountain mahogany and 

western juniper woodlands.

 80%-95% of mountain mahogany and 

western juniper woodlands.

 60%-80% 

and wester
2-14 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Issue Alternative 1 (no action—current management) Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) Alternative 

Stabilize habitat conditions by removing annual increases to maintain relatively stable populations of 800 horses and 90 burros. Improve habitat conditions by removing all feral horses and burros within 5 years. Improve habita

all feral horses years. Control horse and burro populations through gathers, adoption, sanctuary, and contraception. Continue Current Management and: Control populations through sale or auction only if other control methods are impractical or ineffective. Continue Curr

How would the refuge manage western juniper and sagebrush encroaching into other habitats? Use mechanical treatments and prescribed fire to remove juniper and sagebrush from 400 acres per year. Use mechanical treatments to remove juniper and sagebrush from 1,500 acres per year. Allow natural 

sagebrush (10-

How would the refuge restore emergent marshes and wet meadows for the benefit of native wildlife? Conduct mechanical treatments and prescribed fire on 1,200 acres per year. Resume current management following removal of horses and burros. Allow natural 

100 acres per y

How would the refuge restore and rehabilitate developed springs, springbrooks, and stream habitats? 

 Remove spring developments from 

less than 20% of springs and less than 30% of stream habitat 

 Remove developments and restore 

45%-65% of springs and at least 60% of stream habitat. 

Continue Curr Allow 22%

more than naturally r

 Allow designated campgrounds to 

remain at current locations. 

 Relocate designated campgrounds 

and access routes. 

 Relocate d

and access 

 No management action to restore 

stream headcuts. 

 Realign vehicle routes and use 

erosion control structures, vegetation planting, etc. to rehabilitate stream headcuts. 

 Rehabilitate at least one mile of 

Virgin Creek. 

 Allow stre

naturally fhorses and 

How would the refuge manage playa habitats? 

Restore 5%-10% of playa habitats. Restore at least 20% of playa habitats. Allow playas t

than 5% of pla

How would the refuge manage reservoirs and artificial marsh habitats? 

Maintain 434 acres (see Objective 3d). Continue Current Management Maintain 215 a
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-15 

Issue Alternative 1 (no action—current 

management) 

Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) Alternative 

How would the refuge manage artificial wet meadow habitats? 

Maintain 1,700 acres (see Objective 3e). Continue Current Management 

How would the refuge manage artificial water sources (guzzlers)? 

Maintain 18 guzzlers. Continue Current Management No manageme

guzzlers. 

How would the refuge protect mountain mahogany and western juniper woodlands? 

Use mechanical treatments and prescribed fire in adjacent habitats and around mountain mahogany stands to reduce fuel loads and protect stands from future wildland fire. 

Continue Current Management No manageme

loads. 

How would the refuge protect rare and sensitive plants, wildlife, and microbiotic soil crusts? 

Conduct minimum inventory and monitoring necessary on a case-by-case basis. 

Increase inventory and monitoring in collaboration with partners. 

Continue Curr

Weed Management How would the refuge control invasive nonnative plants (weeds)? 

 Treat 50-100 acres per year 

opportunistically on a site-by-site basis 

 Document weed locations when found. 

 Treat 1,000 acres per year, primarily 

along road corridors and newly detected populations 

 Conduct systematic weed inventories. 

 Treat 50-10

primarily npopulations 

 Conduct sy

Wildland Fire Protection and Restoration How would the refuge protect life and property and restore habitats adversely impacted by wildland fire? 

 Maintain fire suppression capabilities. 

Base all responses to wildland fire on an evaluation of risk to firefighters and public safety and the circumstances under which the fire is occurring. 

 Develop natural fuel breaks utilizing 

existing features and natural fire. 

 Use mowing and cutting to extend or 

connect natural fuel breaks. 

 Conduct active restoration and 

rehabilitation. 

Continue Current Management except:  Use only native seed and plants for 

restoration.

Continue Curr No mechan

or connect 

 Allow burn

restore and 
2-16 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Issue Alternative 1 (no action—current management) Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) Alternative 

Public Use Management How would the refuge manage hunting? 

 In coordination with Nevada Dept. of 

Wildlife, allow a limited harvest of certain game species consistent with population objectives. 

 Permit up to 10 commercial operators 

to guide and outfit hunters. 

Continue Current Management 

How would the refuge manage fishing? 

 Allow sport fishing and restock 

reservoirs with trout. 

Continue Current Management, except: Only restock trout indigenous to the 

region (not rainbow trout). 

Continue Curr

 Do not resto

How would the refuge manage wildlife observation and photography? 

 Provide basic information to visitors. Continue Current Management and:

 Develop brochures, interpretive trails, 

and off-refuge opportunities. 

Continue Curr

 Develop br

opportunitie

How would the refuge manage rock collecting? 

Allow limited rock collection. Continue Current Management and: 

 Increase law enforcement and visitor 

information. 

Continue Curr

 Require Sp

managemenviolations i

How would the refuge provide visitor facilities? 

 Maintain Sheldon Refuge 

Headquarters at Dufurrena. 

 Maintain information kiosks at key 

locations. 

 Provide 13 developed, semi-primitive, 

and primitive campgrounds. 

 Replace the Sheldon Refuge 

Headquarters with Headquarters and Visitor Contact Station along Hwy 140.

 Build additional kiosks, trails, and 

interpretive sites. 

 Increase development and collect fees 

at developed campgrounds. 

 Relocate up to nine semi-primitive and 

primitive campgrounds to reduce resource impacts. 

Continue Curr

 Consolidat

and primitiresource im
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-17 

Issue Alternative 1 (no action—current 

management) 

Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) Alternative 

How would the refuge manage access for public use? 

 Allow motorized vehicle use on 365 

miles of existing roads and routes for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

 Continue to maintain primary access 

roads. 

 Improve road information signs, 

brochures, and maps. 

 Improve marking of closed roads and 

routes on the refuge. 

 Allow backcountry camping by Special 

Use Permit. 

 Allow horseback riding. 

Continue Current Management and:  Allow motorized vehicle use on 300 

miles of existing roads and routes, and propose an additional 25 miles be reopened for vehicle use if the wilderness recommendation is approved. 

 Increase maintenance of primary 

access roads. 

 Mark and sign open roads and routes 

on the refuge. 

 Re-route and realign 12 miles of roads 

and routes to avoid or minimize resource impacts. 

 Close duplicate routes. 

 Designate an auto-tour route. 

 Require registration for off-highway 

vehicles.

Continue Curr Allow moto

miles of exian additionfor vehicle recommend

 Re-route an

and routes tresource im

 Do not main

Valley beyoCampgroun

Wilderness Recommendations What areas would the refuge recommend for wilderness designation? 

Recommend 341,500 acres currently proposed for designation. 

Recommend 341,495 acres for designation—excluding some areas currently proposed, but including other areas. 

Recommend 2designation. 

Historic and Cultural ResourcesHow would the refuge protect and use historic and cultural resources? 

 Minimum inventory, protection, and 

restoration of historic and cultural resources necessary. 

 Historic buildings used for 

administrative purposes only. 

Continue Current Management, and:  Increase inventory and protection of 

historic and cultural resources. 

 Restore up to three additional historic 

buildings. 

 Allow public use of selected historic 

buildings. 

Continue Curr
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-18 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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. 

Objective 1a: Feral Horse and Burro Populations 

Reduce feral horses and burros to a population level that is consistent with Refuge System policy and the 

purposes for which Sheldon Refuge was established, and that allows for the attainment of refuge biological 

goals and objectives. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()  

Remove annual increases to maintain relatively stable horse and 

burro population at 800 horses and 90 burros.  

Within five years of the final decision for the CCP, remove all feral 

horses and burros from Sheldon Refuge. 

Within 15 years of the final decision for the CCP, remove all feral 

horses and burros from Sheldon Refuge. Contraception and release 

back onto Sheldon Refuge anticipated to result in management of at 

least 400 horses for the next 15 years. 



Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

With partners, maintain wildlife-friendly fence along Sheldon Refuge 

boundary to prevent entry of wild horses or burros from surrounding 

BLM Herd Management Areas (HMAs). 

  

Investigate and monitor impacts of feral horses and burros to habitats 

and wildlife.   

Populations controlled through gathers, adoption, sanctuary, and 

contraception.   

Populations controlled through sale or auction only if other control 

methods are impractical or ineffective. 

Work with BLM to remove wild horses that enter Sheldon Refuge 

from surrounding HMAs.   

Rationale: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Refuge Manual 7 RM 6 states horse and burro 

populations will not be maintained on Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, will be removed in accordance 

with 50 CFR 30.12, and are defined as feral when roaming on certain refuge lands in the western United 

States (including Sheldon Refuge). The population objective under Alternative 1 (no action) is explicitly 

an interim management objective to remain in effect only until a long-term management objective is 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-19 

approved as part of this CCP. As described in Chapter 4, the presence of feral horses and burros has 

caused significant adverse impacts to the ecological integrity of Sheldon Refuge. These impacts have 

reduced the health and function of native habitats necessary to support priority species such as pronghorn 

and Greater sage-grouse as well as a number of other wildlife and plant species. Removal of feral horses 

and burros under Alternative 2 (preferred) would likely result in substantial recovery and restoration of 

ecological health, natural processes, and natural conditions throughout much of Sheldon Refuge, and has 

been identified as the most important management strategy necessary for the achievement of refuge 

purposes, goals, and objectives. 

Fences considered “wildlife-friendly” can be constructed using a variety of methods and materials. The 

most basic and common type is a modified barbed-wire fence with a smooth bottom strand of wire at 

sufficient height from the ground to allow passage of pronghorn. Additional devices such as flagging or 

reflectors can be used to make the wires more visible and reduce the risk of injury to birds and other 

wildlife. More expensive types of fence built with wood or steel posts and rails also allow passage for 

pronghorn, are more visible and durable than wire, and can withstand greater snow accumulation. Sheldon 

Refuge will continue to employ a variety of fence types and devices to prevent movement of horses and 

minimize impacts to wildlife. 

Based upon recent supply and demand for horse adoption, it is likely auction of some animals would be 

necessary to meet the population management objective under Alternative 2 (preferred). Auction would 

only be used as a last resort if methods of control in Alternative 1 (no action) are shown to be impractical 

or ineffective. Stipulations for auction agents would be similar to the requirements regarding facilities, 

knowledge, skills, and abilities for adoption agents. These stipulations are included in Appendix H, 

Standard Operating Procedures for the control of horses and burros within Sheldon Refuge. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 (preferred) has also been determined necessary to fully implement 

Objectives 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, and 5a. See also Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2. 

2.2.2 Goal 2. Protect, maintain, and restore sagebrush-steppe and associated 

upland communities characteristic of the Great Basin Ecosystem. 

Objective 2a: Conserve sagebrush-steppe communities representative of historic Great Basin 

habitats (see Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4) 

Big sagebrush steppe: Protect and maintain at least 60%2 (80,000 acres 3) of basin big sagebrush 

(Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata) habitat for the benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species 

including migratory birds (e.g., sage thrasher [Oreoscoptes monatus]), mammals (e.g., pygmy rabbit), and 

other sagebrush-obligate species on Sheldon Refuge. The desired condition for basin big sagebrush habitat 

is characterized by the following: 

 5%-30% canopy cover dominated by mature (11-50 inches tall) basin big sagebrush 

 <10% western juniper cover and <4 trees/acre density 

 Deep friable soils suitable for burrowing 

 

2

 The percentage and acreage figures presented under each habitat management objective primarily reflect 

differences in feral horse and burro management among the three alternatives. 

3

 This acreage figure includes both big sagebrush steppe and big sagebrush shrubland habitat types, which are not 

differentiated in the satellite imagery used for the calculation. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-20 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

 <10% invasive plant cover 

Big sagebrush shrubland: Protect and maintain at least 60% (80,000 acres [see footnote 1]) of 

Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) habitat for the benefit of a diverse 

assemblage of native species including resident and migratory birds (e.g., Greater sage-grouse) and other 

sagebrush-obligate species on Sheldon Refuge. The desired condition for Wyoming big sagebrush habitat 

is characterized by the following: 

 10%-20% canopy cover (above snow) dominated by mature Wyoming big sagebrush 

 10-40 inches for sagebrush height 

 15%-20% cover of native bunchgrasses and forbs 

 <10% invasive plant cover (e.g., cheatgrass) 

 Presence of microbiotic crust with appropriate abiotic conditions 

Low sagebrush shrubland and steppe: Protect and maintain at least 60% (20,000 acres) of low 

sagebrush (Artemesia arbuscula)shrubland and steppe habitat for the benefit of a diverse assemblage of 

native species including resident and migratory birds (e.g., Greater sage-grouse), mammals (e.g., 

pronghorn), and other sagebrush-obligate species on Sheldon Refuge. The desired condition for low 

sagebrush habitat is characterized by the following: 

 >20% canopy cover dominated by mature (<30 inches tall) low sagebrush 

 >20% native perennial grass and forb cover 

 <10% western juniper cover and <4 trees/acre density 

 <10% invasive plant cover 

 Presence of microbiotic crust with appropriate abiotic conditions 

 Minimal human disturbance 

Salt desert scrub and greasewood flats: Protect and maintain at least 60% (20,000 acres) of salt desert 

scrub and greasewood flat habitat for the benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species including 

migratory birds (e.g., loggerhead shrike [Lanius ludovicianus]), mammals, and reptiles on Sheldon Refuge. 

The desired condition for salt desert scrub and greasewood flat habitats is characterized by the following: 

 <25% canopy cover of mature, tall (>3 feet tall) shrubs including greasewood (Sarcobatus 

vermiculatus), shadscale saltbrush (Atriplex confertifolia), or winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) 

with patchy distribution 

 <20% native herbaceous cover 

 >20% bare ground4

 <10% invasive plant cover. 

 Minimal human disturbance 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action)

Alt 2 

(preferred)

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated () or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the text 

15%-

30%  30%-60% 

 

4

 The upper limit of bare ground will vary considerably within this habitat type but would not be great enough to 

meet the “largely unvegetated” criteria which defines the cliff, canyon, talus slope, and barren lands habitat type (see 

Goal 4). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-21 

in this row 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Investigate/research potential management strategies to maintain 

these habitats.   

Where appropriate, utilize mechanical or prescribed fire treatments to 

create conditions protective from wildfire.   

Minimize ground-disturbing activities and management activities that 

disturb the soil surface (e.g., grading of road shoulders or use by 

OHVs). 



Rationale: These communities were naturally subjected to relatively infrequent and unpredictable 

disturbances including severe drought (approximately every 70 years), flooding (approximately every 100 

years), and fire (approximately every 35 to 1,000 years), depending on composition. It is generally agreed 

that the thresholds included in the objective when applied across the habitat type reflect healthy natural 

conditions necessary to support dependent fish and wildlife species. This includes priority species such as 

pronghorn, Greater sage-grouse, and a host of other dependent wildlife (see wildlife and habitat matrix in 

Appendix B). By managing habitats within the stated objective thresholds, the necessary ecological 

integrity would be provided to maintain diverse, healthy wildlife populations within the natural range of 

variability. Because disturbance is a widely variable component of these habitats, many of these 

communities are being protected from large-scale natural fire until wildfire management actions can be 

identified. Currently, the precise conditions of habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge have not been 

quantified, but based on the results of vegetation surveys and site visits, the primary factors currently 

influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral horses and burros. The differences in 

management alternatives for horses and burros are reflected in the percentage of each habitat type that 

would meet the stated objective. Other management actions include creating fire breaks, as well as the 

early detection, rapid response, and control of invasive species. 

We anticipate that implementation of the proposed action to remove all feral horses and burros from 

Sheldon Refuge within five years will be the primary and most significant action responsible for progress 

toward achieving our stated management objective to enhance, protect, and maintain at least 60% of 

sagebrush-steppe habitat. The precise conditions of habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge have not been 

quantified, but based on the results of vegetation surveys, site visits, and ongoing research projects, the 

primary factors currently influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral horses and burros. 

Other benefiting species: Greater sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, bald eagle, ferruginous 

hawk, white-throated swift, western burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike; Merriam’s shrew, Preble’s 

shrew, sagebrush vole, kit fox, pygmy rabbit, and mule deer; and desert horned lizard and pygmy shorthorned lizard have been identified as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 

2006). 

Supporting references for the objective thresholds: Altman and Holmes 2000; California Partners in 

Flight (CalPIF) 2005; Connelly et al. 2000; Connelly et al. 2004; Crawford 2008; Larrucea and Brussard 

2008; Miller et al. 2005; Nachlinger and Tiehm 1996, Neel 1999; O’Gara and Yoakum 2004; Weiss and 

Verts 1984. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-22 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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. 

Objective 2b: Restore montane sagebrush-steppe and associated plant communities (see Figures 4.2, 

4.3, and 4.4) 

Montane sagebrush steppe: Enhance, protect, and/or maintain the natural condition and processes in 

more than 80% (146,000 acres) of late-successional mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. 

vaseyana) habitat for the benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species including birds (e.g., Greater 

sage-grouse) and other sagebrush-obligate species on Sheldon Refuge. Mountain big sagebrush habitat is 

characterized by the following: 

 15%-25% canopy cover of mature (15-31 inches tall) mountain big sagebrush 

 Range of bitterbrush (Purshia spp.) canopy cover 

 ≥25% native bunchgrass and forb cover (>7 inches tall) 

 <10% western juniper cover and <4 tree/acre density 

 <10% invasive plant cover 

Mountain big sagebrush/bitterbrush complex: Enhance, protect, and/or maintain natural condition and 

processes throughout the mountain big sagebrush/bitterbrush complex for the benefit of a diverse 

assemblage of native species including resident and migratory birds and mammals (e.g., mule deer) on 

Sheldon Refuge. This habitat complex is characterized by the following: 

 15%-25% canopy cover of mountain big sagebrush (15-31 inches tall) 

 >10% canopy cover of bitterbrush 

 ≥25% cover of native bunchgrasses and native forbs (>7 inches tall) 

 <10% canopy cover of trees with western juniper density <4 trees/acre 

 <10% cover of invasive plants (e.g., cheatgrass) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

The objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated (), or 

the alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the 15%-30%  30%-
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-23 

text in this row. 80%

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Use wildland fire to allow for changing objectives as the fire moves 

across the landscape. Response will be determined by an evaluation 

of risks and the circumstances under which the fire is occurring. 

  

Restore habitats to more natural conditions on an average of 400 

acres per year using mechanical treatments and prescribed fire 

designed to mimic natural disturbance. 

 

As a priority, emphasize mechanical control of encroaching western 

juniper to mimic natural disturbance and restore an average of 1,500 

acres of habitat per year. 



Natural fire anticipated to restore 10 to 100 acres per year. 

Investigate and apply other appropriate restoration techniques for 

degraded mountain big sagebrush, bitterbrush, and Great Basin 

wildrye sites in addition to mechanical or prescribed fire treatments. 



Rationale: Previous grazing regimes, fire suppression, and ongoing utilization by feral horses and burros 

have severely degraded a proportion of these habitats and converted a significant portion of formerly 

bunchgrass-dominated stands (i.e., Great Basin wildrye) to shrub-dominated habitats. Historically, these 

communities were naturally subjected to relatively frequent disturbances including fire, insects, disease, 

winter kill, rodent outbreaks, and drought. A reduction in disturbance events has increased encroachment 

into these communities from western juniper (e.g., into mountain big sage stands) or shrubs (e.g., into 

Great Basin wildrye stands). The crowns of larger juniper trees often limit grass and other vegetative 

growth beneath them, thereby reducing the fuel necessary to carry fire into the tree, fireproofing the crown 

and stem (Agee 1993; Gedney et al. 1999). As a result, fire can no longer be used to restore natural 

ecological condition or function where encroaching juniper is essentially fireproof. 

It is generally agreed that the thresholds included in the objective, when applied across the habitat type, 

reflect healthy natural conditions necessary to support dependent fish and wildlife species. This includes 

priority species such as pronghorn, Greater sage-grouse, and a host of other dependent species (see wildlife 

and habitat matrix in Appendix B). By managing habitats within the stated objective thresholds, the 

necessary ecological integrity would be provided to maintain diverse, healthy wildlife populations within 

the natural range of variability. Precise conditions of habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge have not been 

quantified, but based on the results from vegetation surveys and site visits, the primary factors currently 

influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral horses and burros and long-term suppression 

of natural fire. The differences in management alternatives for horses and burros are reflected in the 

percentage of each habitat type that would meet the stated objective. Additional management for removal 

of encroaching sagebrush and western juniper that mimics natural disturbance (i.e., wildfire) is intended to 

restore a mosaic of plant communities and seral stages needed to support shrub-steppe and semi-desert 

grassland dependent species across a larger supporting landscape. The Service estimates western juniper is 

encroaching upon 8,000 to 10,000 acres of sagebrush habitat located primarily in the western portion of 

Sheldon Refuge (see Section 4.2.7.2). The objective of removing an average of 1,500 acres per year will 

allow for annual variability in accomplishments, while still meeting the overall stated objective for 

restoration of sagebrush-steppe habitats during the lifetime of the plan. 

We anticipate that implementation of the proposed action to remove all feral horses and burros from 

Sheldon Refuge within five years will be the primary and most significant action responsible for progress 

toward achieving our stated management objective to enhance, protect, and maintain at least 80% of 

montane sagebrush-steppe habitat. The precise conditions of habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge have not 

been quantified, but based on the results of vegetation surveys, site visits, and ongoing research projects, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-24 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

the primary factors currently influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral horses and 

burros. 

Other benefiting species: Greater sage-grouse, ferruginous hawk, and mule deer have been identified as 

Nevada Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Supporting references for the objective thresholds: Connelly et al. 2000; Cox et al. 2009; Griffith and 

Peek 1989; Main and Coblentz 1996; Miller et al. 2005; O’Gara and Yoakum 2004. 

Objective 2c: Restore semi-desert grasslands and steppe communities (see Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4) 

Restore, protect, and/or maintain more than 60% (22,000 acres) semi-desert grassland and steppe habitats 

for the benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species including resident and migratory birds (e.g., 

western burrowing owl), mammals, and reptiles on Sheldon Refuge. This semi-desert grassland habitat is 

characterized by the following: 

 Sparse (<40%) to moderately dense (>40%) native grass and forb cover 

 <15% native shrub cover 

 40%-70% bare ground cover 

 <10% invasive plant cover 

Great Basin wildrye: Restore, protect, and/or maintain all Great Basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus) habitat 

for the benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species including migratory birds, mammals (e.g., 

pronghorn), and reptiles on Sheldon Refuge. This habitat is characterized by the following: 

 >40% cover of native grasses (e.g., Great Basin wildrye) and native forbs 

 <5% cover of native shrubs 

 <10% cover of invasive species 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred)

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated () or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the text 

in this row 

15%-

30%  30%-60% 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Use wildland fire to allow for changing objectives as the fire moves 

across the landscape. Response will be determined by an evaluation 

of risks and the circumstances under which the fire is occurring. 

  

As a priority, emphasize removal of encroaching sagebrush to mimic 

natural disturbance and restore Great Basin wildrye habitat. 

Natural fire anticipated to restore approximately 10 acres per year. 

Rehabilitate stream channel headcuts by reducing impacts from feral 

horses and burros and vehicle use, placement of structures, planting 

shrubs or other vegetation, or using other reliable methods to restore 

hydrogeological processes and function and to stabilize soils. 



Investigate and apply other appropriate restoration techniques for 

degraded Great Basin wildrye sites in addition to mechanical or 

prescribed fire treatments. 


Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-25 

Rationale: Previous grazing regimes, fire suppression, and ongoing utilization by feral horses and burros 

have severely degraded a proportion of these habitats and converted a significant portion of formerly 

bunchgrass-dominated stands (i.e., Great Basin wildrye) to shrub-dominated habitats. Historically, these 

communities were naturally subjected to relatively frequent disturbances including fire, insects, disease, 

winter kill, rodent outbreaks, and drought. A reduction in disturbance events has increased encroachment 

into these communities from sagebrush in adjacent areas. 

It is generally agreed that the thresholds included in the objective, when applied across the habitat type, 

reflect healthy natural conditions necessary to support dependent fish and wildlife species. This includes 

priority species such as pronghorn, Greater sage-grouse, and a host of other dependent species (see wildlife 

and habitat matrix in Appendix B). By managing semi-desert grassland, steppe, and Great Basin wildrye 

habitats within the stated objective thresholds, the necessary ecological integrity would be provided to 

maintain diverse, healthy wildlife populations within the natural range of variability. Precise conditions of 

habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge have not been quantified, but based on the results from vegetation 

surveys and site visits, the primary factors currently influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge 

are feral horses and burros and long-term suppression of natural fire. The differences in management 

alternatives for horses and burros are reflected in the percentage of each habitat type that would meet the 

stated objective. Additional management for removal of encroaching sagebrush that mimics natural 

disturbance (i.e., wildfire) is intended to restore a mosaic of plant communities and seral stages needed to 

support semi-desert grassland dependent species across a larger supporting landscape. 

We anticipate that implementation of the proposed action to remove all feral horses and burros from 

Sheldon Refuge within five years will be the primary and most significant action responsible for progress 

toward achieving our stated management objective to enhance, protect, and maintain at least 60% of semidesert grasslands and steppe habitat. The precise conditions of habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge have 

not been quantified, but based on the results of vegetation surveys, site visits, and ongoing research 

projects, the primary factors currently influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral horses 

and burros. 

Other benefiting species: Greater sage-grouse, short-eared owl, and western burrowing owl; kit fox and 

mule deer; and desert horned lizard, pygmy short-horned lizard, and long-nosed leopard lizard have been 

identified as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Supporting references for the objective thresholds: Altman and Holmes 2000; Connelly et al. 2000; Cox 

et al. 2009; Griffith and Peek 1989, Klute et al. 2003; Main and Coblentz 1996; Miller et al. 2005; O’Gara 

and Yoakum 2004; Steffen and Anderson 2006. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-26 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Photo 2.2 Natural fire is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush habitats 

within Sheldon Refuge. 

Photo 2.3 Prescribed burning is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush 

habitats within Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-27 

Photo 2.4 Mowing is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush habitats within 

Sheldon Refuge. 

Photo 2.5 Cutting of juniper is one of the primary tools for managing sagebrush 

habitats within Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-28 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

2.2.3 Goal 3. Restore, protect, and maintain the structure and function of 

riparian and aquatic habitats characteristic of the Great Basin 

Ecosystem. 

Objective 3a: Emergent Marshes and Wet Meadows (see Figure 4.2) 

Emergent marshes and wet meadows: Manage more than 60% (2,000 acres) of wet meadow habitat 

for the benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species including resident and migratory birds (e.g., 

shorebirds, passerines, and Greater sage-grouse), mammals, amphibians, and invertebrates. These habitats 

are defined by the following attributes: 

 Seasonally flooded meadows or shallow freshwater floodplains 

 <5% cover of tall, dense deciduous shrubs or, where shrubs are present, an interspersion of 

deciduous shrub patches and herbaceous openings where neither is <25% or >70% of the total 

cover of the area 

 ≤90% cover of native herbaceous species (e.g., sedges [Carex spp.], rushes [Juncus spp.]) 

 <10% cover of encroaching sagebrush in transitional zones 

 <10% cover of invasive plants (e.g., Russian olive [Elaeagnus angustifolia], cheatgrass [Bromus 

tectorum]) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated () or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the text 

in this row 

10-20%  30-60% 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Where appropriate use mechanical treatments or prescribed fire to 

mimic natural disturbance, reduce litter, and increase herbaceous 

vigor. 

  

Conduct mechanical treatments and prescribed fire on a maximum 

average of 1,200 acres per year.  

Within five to 15 years (following removal of horses and burros), 

resume mechanical treatments and prescribed fire on a maximum 

average of 1,200 acres per year. 



Within five to 15 years (following removal of horses and burros), 

natural fire anticipated to restore 10 to 100 acres per year. 

Investigate and employ wetland restoration techniques (e.g., gabions, 

plantings, bank stabilization). 

Remove water control structures, diversions, or other developments 

that alter natural hydrology. 

Reduce disturbance by relocating designated campgrounds and rerouting roads.  

Rationale: Wet meadow habitats are of high importance for conservation of biodiversity and priority 

species and provide habitat for approximately 80% of all species representative of the Great Basin. Wet 

meadows are among the most altered and impacted habitats on Sheldon Refuge as a result of water 

development, prior grazing regimes, and current utilization by feral horses and burros. In addition, these 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-29 

sites are impacted by recreational camping use. Currently precise conditions of habitats throughout 

Sheldon Refuge have not been quantified, but based on the results from vegetation surveys and site visits, 

the primary factors currently influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral horses and 

burros and long-term suppression of natural fire. The differences in management alternatives for horses 

and burros, relocation of campsites, and re-routing of roads and are reflected in the percentage of each 

habitat type which would meet the stated objective. Until horse and burro population management 

objectives are reached, the continued use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments within these habitat 

types is not necessary and may be detrimental. Once horse and burro grazing is removed, management 

activities to restore natural fire or to mimic the effects of natural fire would resume where necessary to 

achieve habitat objectives. 

We anticipate that implementation of the proposed action to remove all feral horses and burros from 

Sheldon Refuge within five years will be the primary and most significant action responsible for progress 

toward achieving our stated management objective to enhance, protect, and maintain at least 60% of 

emergent marsh and wet meadow habitat. The precise conditions of habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge 

have not been quantified, but based on the results of vegetation surveys, site visits, and ongoing research 

projects, the primary factors currently influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral 

horses and burros. 

Other benefiting species: Greater sage-grouse, northern pintail, canvasback, cinnamon teal, American 

avocet, black-necked stilt, long-billed curlew, willet, greater sandhill crane, Forster’s tern, black tern, 

western snowy plover, least sandpiper, grebes, bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, short-eared 

owl, bobolink, willow flycatcher, rufous hummingbird, and mountain quail; Preble’s shrew, Merriam’s 

shrew, vagrant shrew, mule deer, California bighorn sheep, hoary bat, spotted bat, and little brown myotis; 

and numerous species of gastropods have been identified as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority 

(Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Supporting references for the objective thresholds: Altman and Holmes 2000; Connelly et al. 2000; 

Littlefield 1995; Littlefield and Ivey 2002; Neel 1999; Paige and Ritter 1999. 

Objective 3b: Springs, Springbrooks, and Streams (see Figure 4.2) 

Spring, springbrooks, and streams: Manage springs, springbrooks, and stream habitats for the benefit of 

a diverse assemblage of native species including birds, mammals, amphibians, fish, and endemic 

invertebrates on Sheldon Refuge. These habitats are defined by the following attributes: 

 Water temperatures ranging from cold (<75 ̊F) to thermal (>86 ̊F) 

 Substrates dominated by vegetation, with associated boulders, fines, sand, cobble, or gravel 

 Stabilizing bank vegetation 

 <10% invasive plant cover 

Cold perennial springs: Restore (where necessary), protect, and maintain 45%-65% (65-95) of cold, 

perennial springs and associated springbrooks on Sheldon Refuge for the benefit a diverse assemblage of 

native species including desert fish (e.g., Alvord chub [Gila alvordensis]), birds, mammals, amphibians, 

and endemic invertebrates on Sheldon Refuge. These habitats are characterized by the following: 

 Perennial 

 Water temperatures <86°F 

 Presence of benthic and free-swimming organisms 

 Vegetative cover 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-30 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

 <10% cover of invasive plants 

In-channel habitat: Restore (where necessary), protect, and maintain more than 60% (125 miles) of inchannel habitat within cold-water streams for the benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species 

including desert fish (e.g., Sheldon tui chub [Gila bicolor eurystoma]), amphibians, and endemic 

invertebrates on Sheldon Refuge. This in-channel habitat within cold-water streams is characterized by the 

following: 

 Water temperatures <78°F 

 Soft-bottom sediments 

 Stabilizing bank vegetation (e.g., rushes) 

 <10% cover of invasive plants 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated () or 

the alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the 

text in this row 

<22% of 

springs and 

<30% of 

springbrook 

and stream 

habitat 



22%-45% 

of springs 

and 30%-

60% of 

springbrook 

and stream 

habitat 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Remove spring developments over the next 10 to 15 years.  

With assistance from NDOW and other partners, assess and 

prioritize water developments and develop management 

prescriptions including removal and active restoration or 

rehabilitation to restore natural conditions to springs over the next 

10 to 15 years. 



Remove developments from springs. Allow springs to recover 

naturally (>15 years). 

Reduce disturbance by relocating designated campgrounds and rerouting roads.  

Protect from new introductions of non-native fish and amphibians. 

Examine potential to control existing non-native populations.  

Rationale: Springs, springbrooks, and streams are rare in the Great Basin, support rare or unique endemic 

species, and are important sources of water for wildlife. On Sheldon Refuge, most of the hydrologic 

processes at these sites have been materially altered by livestock use and by previous water development 

efforts for livestock, including spring boxes, dams, diversion canals, pipelines, troughs, and dug-out water 

catchments. In addition, these sites are impacted by recreational visitors, introduced non-native fish, and 

exotic amphibian species (e.g., guppies [Poecilia reticulata] and bullfrogs [Rana catesbeiana]). 

Restoration efforts related to the objective could include a wide range of methods, tools, and techniques, 

which are determined by individual site characteristics including soils, the percentage of native vegetation 

present, the type of existing development, and the amount of ground disturbance necessary to remove the 

development. Because the majority of locations for these water sources are within proposed wilderness, 

the most likely range of tools and techniques to be used has been evaluated through the Minimum 

Requirements Analysis (MRA) included in Appendix G. 

In some cold water stream reaches, management for cobble and gravel stream bottoms to support salmonid 

(Lahontan cutthroat, redband and/or Alvord cutthroat) spawning may be appropriate as long as such 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-31 

management does not conflict with the needs of endemic species. Our priority is management for native 

species (e.g., Sheldon tui chub, amphibians, and endemic invertebrates), but we do not propose converting 

natural cobble and gravel stream bottoms to soft-bottom sediment. In cooperation with NDOW, we will 

identify stream reaches where management for cobble and gravel bottoms is appropriate and does not 

conflict with management objectives for Sheldon Refuge. 

Past habitat restoration efforts within Sheldon Refuge have been successful in restoring more natural 

conditions in only a few years. By comparison, observation of habitat exclosures indicate that without 

active management, natural recovery of these habitats would take several decades—and in some cases may 

not occur at all. The combination of removal and complete restoration of the most heavily damaged areas 

as proposed under Alternative 2 (preferred) would be the quickest and most certain method of restoring 

natural function and condition to these habitats necessary to fulfill the purposes for Sheldon Refuge. 

We will retain the majority of existing water sources until horse and burro populations are significantly 

reduced. Timeframes presented in the strategies allow for removal of horses and burros prior to completing 

restoration. We recognize that trade-offs may exist for any management action and that restoration efforts 

benefitting some species may be detrimental to others. For these reasons, we will further evaluate and 

review removal of specific water developments and restoration efforts before individual projects are 

initiated. 

We anticipate that implementation of the proposed action to remove all feral horses and burros from 

Sheldon Refuge within five years will be the primary and most significant action responsible for progress 

toward achieving our stated management objective to enhance, protect, and maintain at least 45%-56% of 

cold perennial spring habitat and at least 50% of in-channel stream habitat. The precise conditions of 

habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge have not been quantified, but based on the results of vegetation 

surveys, site visits, and ongoing research projects, the primary factors currently influencing habitat 

conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral horses and burros. 

Other benefiting species: Rufous hummingbird, mountain quail, Lewis’ woodpecker, willow flycatcher, 

Cassin’s finch, northern goshawk, Swainson’s hawk, and bald eagle; and Preble’s shrew and vagrant 

shrew; and numerous species of gastropods have been identified as Nevada Species of Conservation 

Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Supporting References for the Objective thresholds: Dunham et al. 1999; Gerstung 1986; Herbst 1996; 

Tubb 1980, USFWS 1995; Williams and Bond 1981. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-32 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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. 

Objective 3c: Playas, Salt Flats, and Mudflats 

Ephemeral wetlands: Manage more than 20% (1,400 acres) of ephemeral wetland habitat (e.g., playa, 

salt flat, mudflat) for the benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species including migratory birds (e.g., 

shorebirds), invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles on Sheldon Refuge. Natural characteristics of these 

habitats are defined by the following: 

 Alkaline and saline to hypersaline water quality with depths ranging from saturated soil to 4 feet 

 Unvegetated to sparsely vegetated (e.g., shrubs, saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), other herbaceous 

cover) 

 Associated habitats include fringes surrounding salt flats, mudflats, and playas of shrubs 

interspersed with native bunchgrasses (total cover <25%) 

 <10% cover of invasive plants (e.g., cheatgrass) 

 Facilitates natural processes; saturates via overland flow or groundwater discharge 

 Shallow swales with basin topography

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred)

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes) 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated () or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the text in 

this row 

5%-10%  <5% 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Fully restore one playa to natural condition within 10 years.  

With assistance from NDOW and other partners, assess and prioritize 

playas and develop management prescriptions including removal and 

active restoration or rehabilitation to restore at least 20% of playas to 

natural conditions within 15 years. 


Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-33 

Allow all playas to naturally recover (>50 years). 

Refurbish and actively maintain other existing playa water 

developments and maintain playa dug-outs through periodic 

excavations. 

 

Conduct and monitor management experiments to determine 

appropriate restoration techniques of natural hydrologic function. 

Apply techniques to additional acres if successful. 



Minimize recreational and management activities that disturb the soil 

surface (e.g., OHV use).  

Rationale: Ephemeral wetlands such as playas, salt flats, and mudflats provide habitat for a diverse 

assemblage of native and desert aquatic species adapted to life in ephemeral, saline, or geothermal habitats, 

thus, contributing to biodiversity in the Great Basin. On Sheldon Refuge, most of the hydrologic processes 

at these sites have been materially altered by previous water development efforts for livestock, specifically 

dug-outs. This has affected the natural ecological processes (e.g., rates of evaporation) and has likely 

impacted the physical, chemical, and biological condition at these sites; consequently, wildlife that depend 

on these sites have also been impacted. In addition, these areas are impacted by OHV use, which 

contributes to soil erosion, soil compaction, and vegetation removal. 

Playas are rather complex, highly alkaline but poorly understood basin ecosystems (up to a few hundred 

acres in size within Sheldon Refuge) that depend on periodic shallow flooding. When flooded, these 

habitats teem with invertebrates, which have sometimes remained dormant for many years. This rich 

aquatic life provides valuable forage for migratory birds. Deep depressions or “dug-outs” were excavated 

in many playas throughout Sheldon Refuge to concentrate water for livestock. Because the water is 

concentrated in the dug-out area, the playa no longer floods with water and the ecological integrity of the 

habitat has been lost. Many ecologists assert that once the alkaline layers of the playa have been altered by 

excavation, restoration may not be possible. Strategies to restore at least 20% of these playas habitats for 

the benefit of migratory birds and other wildlife are probably realistic, but allowing these habitats to 

recover naturally over time would occur very slowly, if at all. 

We will retain the majority of existing water sources until horse and burro populations are significantly 

reduced. Timeframes presented in the strategies allow for removal of horses and burros prior to completing 

restoration. We recognize that trade-offs may exist for any management action and that playa restoration 

efforts benefitting some species may be detrimental to others. For these reasons, we will further evaluate 

and review removal of specific water developments and playa restoration efforts before individual projects 

are initiated. 

Other benefiting species: American avocet, black-necked stilt, cinnamon teal, eared grebe, Forster’s tern, 

black tern, Franklin’s gull, least sandpiper, long-billed dowitcher, red-necked phalarope, long-billed 

curlew, northern pintail, snowy egret, western snowy plover, and willet have been identified as Nevada 

Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Supporting references for the objective thresholds: Dechant et al. 2002; Floyd et al. 2007. 

Objective 3d: Artificial Emergent Marshes and Reservoirs (see Figure 4.2) 

Maintain Catnip Reservoir, Big Spring Reservoir, Dufurrena Ponds, and other existing managed ponds and 

emergent marshes for the benefit of migratory birds (e.g., wading birds and waterfowl), fish (e.g., Lahontan 

cutthroat trout) and native amphibians on Sheldon Refuge. The desired state of these habitats is 

characterized by the following: 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-34 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

 Diverse array of native wetland plants including emergents (e.g., cattail [Typha spp.], bulrush 

[(Scirpus sp., Schoenoplectus spp.]), sedges, and moist-soil plants (e.g., smartweed [Polygonum 

spp.]) 

 30%-90% native residual vegetation with a diverse array of native wetland plants including 

emergents, sedges, and moist soil plants 

 Water depths of 9-10 inches in emergent plant zone 

 >50% cover of open water (>3 feet in depth) with native submergent plants (e.g., pondweeds 

[Potamogeton spp.]) 

 <10% invasive plant cover (e.g., Canada thistle [Cirsium arvense], cheatgrass, pepperweed 

[Lepidium spp.]) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Acres managed to meet Objective 3d 434 434 215 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Maintenance of artificial habitats primarily for fish, wildlife, and 

plants and secondarily to provide wildlife-dependent public use 

opportunities. 

  

Actively maintain the dam and dredge the 22-acre Catnip Reservoir 

to provide sufficient water depth for Lahontan cutthroat trout.   

Actively maintain the headgate and dam for the 212-acre Big Spring 

Reservoir to impound available water for migratory birds and trout.  

Actively maintain headgates, culverts, and dikes at Dufurrena Ponds 

to retain water for approximately 193 acres of artificial pond, 

wetland, and wet meadow habitat. 

  

Remove structures and restore Pond 13 (7 acres) to natural 

conditions.  

Allow Pond 13 to revert to natural conditions (>100 years). 

Control emergent vegetation and maintain early successional 

communities in artificial ponds including mechanical removal, 

disking, prescribed fire, and herbicides. 

 

Manage disturbance and impacts associated with recreational use. 

Rationale: Because of altered hydrology and continued degradation of many of the natural wetlands and 

water sources on Sheldon Refuge, these artificial environments can provide important habitats for native 

fish and wildlife. In addition, these artificial habitats provide recreation opportunities. 

Currently Catnip Reservoir provides suitable habitat and a potential source of genetic stocks for federally 

threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout populations in areas surrounding Sheldon Refuge. However, the 

reservoir continues to fill with silt, and the dam impounding Catnip Reservoir has been compromised by 

burrowing animals and is leaking progressively increasing amounts of water. In order to maintain 

sufficient water to support this fishery, Sheldon Refuge would need to conduct substantial maintenance and 

dredging in the near future. Cost estimates for dredging and repairs are approaching $3 million and would 

only increase the longer action is delayed. 

Other benefiting species: Clark’s grebe, western grebe, eared grebe, common loon, canvasback, redhead, 

northern pintail, cinnamon teal, western snowy plover, least sandpiper, long-billed dowtwitcher, rednecked phalarope, Forster’s tern, black tern, American white pelican, Franklin’s gull, least bittern, blacknecked stilt, American avocet, long-billed curlew, short-eared owl, bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, peregrine 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-35 

falcon, bobolink, greater sandhill crane, and willet; and little brown myotis have been identified as Nevada 

Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Supporting References for the Objective thresholds: Dunham et al. 1999; Littlefield 1995; Littlefield 

and Ivey 2002; USFWS 1995. 

Photo 2.7 Artificial emergent marshes, reservoirs, and the Dufurrena Ponds (shown 

here) continue to be maintained to benefit migratory birds and support wildlifedependent public uses. 

Objective 3e: Artificial Wet Meadows (see Figure 5.1) 

Manage 1,700 acres of seasonal wetland–wet meadow habitat complex for the benefit of wildlife and 

migratory birds (e.g., pronghorn and waterfowl) at Swan Lake Reservoir and IXL Ranch on Sheldon 

Refuge. The desired state of these habitats are characterized by the following: 

 Diverse array of native wetland plants including emergents (e.g., cattail, bulrush), sedges, and 

moist-soil plants (e.g., smartweed) 

 30%-90% native residual vegetation with a diverse array of native wetland plants including 

emergents, sedges, and moist-soil plants 

 <10% invasive plant cover (e.g., Canada thistle, cheatgrass, pepperweed) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Maintenance of artificial habitats primarily for fish, wildlife, and 

plants and secondarily to provide wildlife-dependent public use 

opportunities. 

  

Operate and maintain Swan Lake Reservoir and impoundment dam to 

provide approximately 1,200 acres as a vital source of moisture for   
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-36 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

quality late summer pronghorn forage. 

Secondary to management for Swan Lake, maintain water control 

infrastructure at IXL Ranch and release surplus water from Swan 

Lake Reservoir to provide approximately 500 acres of migratory bird 

stop-over habitat. 

  

Manage disturbance and impacts associated with recreational use. 

Rationale: Because of altered hydrology and continued degradation of many of the natural wetlands and 

water sources on Sheldon Refuge, these artificial environments can provide important habitats for native 

fish and wildlife. In addition, these artificial habitats provide recreation opportunities. 

The purposes for Sheldon Refuge are to serve as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and birds, 

for the conservation and development of natural wildlife resources and for the protection and improvement 

of natural forage resources. Efforts to maintain the existing facilities at both IXL Ranch and Swan Lake 

further these purposes by maintaining waterfowl resting and breeding habitat at IXL Ranch and important 

pronghorn forage areas at Swan Lake. The 1960s-era water control infrastructure at IXL Ranch was 

reconstructed in cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, NDOW, and the Nevada Waterfowl Association to 

provide waterfowl habitat. IXL Ranch was historically flooded by water held within Swan Lake and 

Catnip reservoirs but is currently dependent upon quantity and periodicity of runoff water. The priority is 

to retain water in Swan Lake Reservoir to benefit habitats directly associated with Swan Lake itself. Water 

retained in Swan Lake Reservoir provides habitat for summering pronghorn moving off of fawning 

grounds, and Swan Lake provides a vital source of quality forage as the water naturally evaporates into late 

summer and fall. 

Other benefiting species: Clark’s grebe, western grebe, eared grebe, canvasback, redhead, northern 

pintail, cinnamon teal, western snowy plover, least sandpiper, long-billed dowtwitcher, red-necked 

phalarope, Forster’s tern, black tern, American white pelican, Franklin’s gull, least bittern, black-necked 

stilt, American avocet, long-billed curlew, short-eared owl, bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon, 

Swainson’s hawk, bobolink, greater sandhill crane, and willet; and Preble’s shrew, Merriam’s shrew, 

vagrant shrew, mule deer, California bighorn sheep, hoary bat, spotted bat, and little brown myotis have 

been identified as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Supporting references for the objective thresholds: Altman and Holmes 2000; Dechant et al. 2002; 

Dunham et al. 1999; Floyd et al. 2007; Littlefield 1995; Littlefield and Ivey 2002; Neel 1999; Paige and 

Ritter 1999; USFWS 1995. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-37 

Photo 2.8 Guzzlers have been constructed for bighorn sheep and to increase numbers 

of chukar for hunting. 

Objective 3f: Artificial Water Sources 

Maintain the function of other artificial water developments to support the protection and maintenance of 

other natural habitats. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Number of artificial water developments to be maintained under 

Objective 3f 18 18 0 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

In cooperation with NDOW, maintain existing wildlife water 

guzzlers.  

Within five years of the final decision for the CCP, annually 

prioritize and repair at least 10% of non-functioning artificial water 

source developments necessary to fulfill Sheldon Refuge purposes. 



Evaluate the benefits and consequences of intensively managed water 

developments versus restoring natural hydrological processes.  

Rationale: Guzzlers were constructed at various locations within Sheldon Refuge under the assumption 

that artificial sources of freestanding water are necessary for healthy populations of chukar, bighorn sheep, 

and other wildlife. An increasing number of studies have demonstrated that wildlife will utilize these water 

sources when available and they may provide some benefit, but that they are not biologically necessary for 

bighorn, mule deer, pronghorn, and other native wildlife, which are well adapted to the dry arid climate of 

Sheldon Refuge (see Chapter 6). Furthermore, the past construction of water impoundments for 

commercial livestock grazing has likely created more sources of freestanding water throughout Sheldon 

Refuge and the surrounding landscape than has existed at any time in the past several hundred years, and 

the construction of any additional artificial sources of freestanding water is not necessary for maintaining 

healthy wildlife populations or natural ecological conditions. We would consider constructing additional 

water developments for wildlife if monitoring data or other resource information are provided, are 

supported by science, and demonstrate that water developments are biologically beneficial and would 

achieve the purposes and management goals and objectives of Sheldon Refuge (including goals and 

objectives for wildlife, public uses, and wilderness where applicable). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-38 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Existing structures are unlikely to cause additional adverse impacts to wilderness character, and future 

maintenance would be completed by volunteers and in cooperation with NDOW. Therefore, we are 

proposing to allow these permanent structures to remain within the proposed wilderness areas while higher 

priority habitat improvement strategies (removal of feral horses and burros, restoration of springs, etc.) are 

implemented. By annually prioritizing and completing regular maintenance and repairs for at least 10% of 

water developments, we will ensure that all developments receive maintenance within the next 15 years. 

More regular and routine maintenance should reduce or at least delay the need for more extensive and 

costly repairs or complete replacement.

2.2.4 Goal 4. Protect unique and rare habitats, wildlife, and communities. 

Objective 4a: Cliffs, Canyons, Talus Slopes, and Barren Lands (see Figure 4.5) 

Cliff, canyon, talus slope, and barren lands: Protect and maintain the ecological integrity of 85%-95% 

(8,500-9,000 acres) of cliff, canyon, talus slope, and barren land habitats for the benefit of a diverse 

assemblage of native species including mammals (e.g., California bighorn sheep, American pika [Ochotona 

princeps], bats), migratory birds (e.g., prairie falcon [Falco mexicanus]), reptiles, and talus-slope 

dependent plants (e.g., rattlesnake stickweed [Hackelia ophiobia]) on Sheldon Refuge. The desired 

characteristics of these habitats are as follows: 

 Well-sheltered crevices, cavities, bluffs, high walls, and rocky ledges and slopes 

 Largely unvegetated (widely scattered native trees and shrubs) 

 <4 western juniper trees/acre under <150-year age class with a long fire-return interval and an 

absence of understory fuels 

 <10% cover of invasive plants (e.g., cheatgrass) 

 Minimal human disturbance 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated () or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the text 

in this row 

75%-85%  75%-85% 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Conduct treatments to control encroaching western juniper, including 

mechanical removal and prescribed fire.  

Manage wildland fires to reduce encroachment of western juniper as 

risk evaluations would allow. 

Evaluate acceptable types of wildlife-dependent public uses and 

manage to minimize impacts.  

Conduct baseline surveys to identify wildlife and plant resources that 

need further inventory, monitoring, and/or research. Primary focus 

would be bats, reptiles, amphibians, and rare plants. 



Actively seek additional funding through partnerships and grants to 

research and monitor these areas. 

Rationale: Cliffs, canyons, talus slopes, and barren lands, including volcanic tuff habitats, are sparsely 

scattered and add to the topographic diversity of Sheldon Refuge. These areas provide important habitat 

for a host of wildlife species, including many that are particularly sensitive to human disturbance, but in 

general appear to be stable and in good condition. It is generally agreed the thresholds included in the 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-39 

objective, when applied across the habitat type, reflect healthy natural conditions necessary to support 

dependent fish and wildlife species. This includes priority species such as American pika, California 

bighorn sheep, mountain lion and bobcat (Felis rufus), a number of bat and reptile species, and many other 

dependent species (see wildlife and habitat matrix in Appendix B). By managing habitats within the stated 

objective thresholds, the necessary ecological integrity would be provided to maintain diverse, healthy 

wildlife populations within the natural range of variability. Currently precise conditions of habitats 

throughout Sheldon Refuge have not been quantified, but based on the results from vegetation surveys and 

site visits, the primary factors currently influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral 

horses and burros and long-term suppression of natural fire. The differences in management alternatives 

for horses and burros and the control of western juniper expansion are reflected in the percentage of each 

habitat type which would meet the stated objective. 

We anticipate that implementation of the proposed action to remove all feral horses and burros from 

Sheldon Refuge within five years will be the primary and most significant action responsible for progress 

toward achieving our stated management objective to enhance, protect, and maintain 85% to 95% of cliff, 

canyon, talus slope, and barren land habitat. The precise conditions of habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge 

have not been quantified, but based on the results of vegetation surveys, site visits, and ongoing research 

projects, the primary factors currently influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral 

horses and burros. 

Other benefiting species: Ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, black rosy finch, and whitethroated swift; little brown myotis, western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, pallid bat, spotted bat, 

American pika, mule deer, and California bighorn sheep; and desert horned lizard and Great Basin collared 

lizard have been identified as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Supporting references for the objective thresholds: Altman and Holmes 2000; Demarchi 2004; Miller et 

al. 2005. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-40 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Photo 2.9 The dramatic cliffs along Thousand Creek Gorge provide habitat for 

raptors, bats, and other dependent wildlife. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-41 

Objective 4b: Deciduous Woodlands and Shrublands (see Figure 4.6) 

Deciduous woodlands and shublands: Restore (where appropriate) and maintain more than 50% (>140 

acres) of all deciduous woodland and shrubland habitat including aspen stands (Populus spp.), for the 

benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species including migratory birds (e.g., yellow-breasted chat 

[Icteria virens]), mammals, and amphibians on Sheldon Refuge. The desired state of riparian woodland is 

characterized by the following: 

 Patchy shrub layer dominated by deciduous shrubs interspersed with openings of native herbaceous 

species 

 30%-80% canopy cover of mature (3-12 feet tall) woody vegetation 

 <10% invasive plant cover 

Aspen stands: Restore (where appropriate) and maintain all aspen stands for the benefit of a diverse 

assemblage of native species including resident and migratory birds (e.g., woodpeckers, raptors), 

mammals, and amphibians on Sheldon Refuge. The desired condition of aspen stands can be characterized 

by the following habitat attributes: 

 Range of successional stages including early and mid-to-late 

 Small (<10 inches dbh [diameter at breast height]), medium (>10 inch dbh), to large aspen trees 

(>20 inches dbh) 

 40%-80% tree canopy closure 

 >1.5 live trees/acre 

 >1.5 snags/acre 

 Naturally fragmented patches 

 Understory shrub cover ranging from present (>10% cover; aspen seedlings, willow [Salix spp.] 

alder [Alnus spp.], chokecherry [Prunus virginiana var. melanocarpa], currant [Ribes spp.], 

snowberry [Symphoricarpos spp.], Ceanothus spp.) to absent (<10% understory shrub cover) 

 <10% cover of invasive plants 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated () or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the text 

in this row 

10%-30%  30%-50% 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Allow wildfire, but emphasize treatments such as cutting, thinning, 

and prescribed fire to mimic natural disturbance regimes and control 

encroaching western juniper and sagebrush. 

 

Conduct treatments (including the use of wildland fire) to restore 

natural disturbance regimes and maintain natural abundance and 

distribution of western juniper and sagebrush. 

 

Fence for grazing protection and plant native species to restore 

woody vegetation. 

Inventory, assess, and prioritize restoration potential of individual 

stands. 

Rationale: On Sheldon Refuge, many of these communities occur within isolated snowpockets, although 

others are dependent upon a natural hydrologic regime, including annual to episodic flooding. While these 

habitats represent a very small percentage of the entire refuge, they are essential for maintaining ecological 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-42 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

integrity. Throughout the northern Great Basin region, the protection and restoration of aspen and other 

deciduous woodland habitats have been identified as necessary long-term conservation strategies. Fire is 

an important factor in facilitating the long-term presence and health of riparian woodlands across the 

landscape. A determination will be made as to where this community type historically occurred within 

Sheldon Refuge, what species were represented, and, if feasible and necessary, where supplemental 

plantings may accelerate recovery of the system. Overgrazing has removed most younger shoots and stems 

from areas of deciduous woodland and shrubland habitats and if not addressed could lead to extirpation of 

aspen stand clones. Currently precise conditions of habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge have not been 

quantified, but based on the results from vegetation surveys and site visits, the primary factors currently 

influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral horses and burros and long-term suppression 

of natural fire. The differences in management alternatives for horses and burros and the control of western 

juniper expansion through mechanical removal and prescribed fire are reflected in the percentage of each 

habitat type which would meet the stated objective. It is expected that even under Alternative 2 (preferred), 

protective temporary fencing would be necessary to prevent severe overgrazing, which would take many 

years to naturally recover, or which could require active restoration to fully recover. Once horse and burro 

management objectives are reached, protective fences would be removed. 

We anticipate that implementation of the proposed action to remove all feral horses and burros from 

Sheldon Refuge within five years will be the primary and most significant action responsible for progress 

toward achieving our stated management objective to enhance, protect, and maintain at least 50% of 

deciduous woodland and shrubland habitat. The precise conditions of habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge 

have not been quantified, but based on the results of vegetation surveys, site visits, and ongoing research 

projects, the primary factors currently influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral 

horses and burros. 

Other benefiting species: Bald eagle, northern goshawk, Swainson’s hawk, rufous hummingbird, Cassin’s 

finch, willow flycatcher, mountain quail, Lewis’ woodpecker; mule deer, Preble’s shrew, vagrant shrew, 

little brown myotis, long-eared myotis, and western small-footed myotis have been identified as Nevada 

Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Supporting references for the objective thresholds: Altman and Holmes 2000; Daw and DeStefano 

2001; Miller et al. 2005; Neel 1999; Squires and Ruggiero 1996. 

Objective 4c: Mountain Mahogany and Western Juniper Woodlands (see Figures 4.5 and 4.7) 

Mountain mahogany woodlands: Protect and maintain 80%-95% (7,200-8,600 acres) of mountain 

mahogany woodlands for the benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species including resident and 

migratory birds (e.g., raptors) and mammals (e.g., mule deer) on Sheldon Refuge. These mountain 

mahogany woodlands are characterized by the following: 

 Discrete bands of mature mountain mahogany trees found on slopes, ridges, rimrock, and canyons 

 Limited to higher elevations 

 10%-55% mature stand canopy cover 

 <10% cover of invasive plants 

Western juniper woodlands: Protect 80%-95% (3,900-4,600 acres) of late-successional (i.e., oldgrowth) western juniper woodlands for the benefit of a diverse assemblage of native species including 

resident and migratory birds (e.g., landbirds, raptors) and mammals (e.g., mule deer) on Sheldon Refuge. 

Mature western juniper woodlands are characterized by the following: 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-43 

 Mature western juniper trees (>200 years old; >20 in dbh, >30 feet tall) 

 Range of young western juniper trees for recruitment (>3 inches dbh, <9 feet tall) 

 Range of western juniper canopy closure (<1% to >50% cover) 

 Range of midstory shrub canopy cover (<40% to 80%) 

 <10% cover of invasive plants 

 Generally situated in “fireproof” locations (e.g., rocky outcroppings, bare areas, talus slopes) 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated () or the 

alternative is modified by replacing bolded type above with the text 

in this row 

60%-

80%  60%-80% 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Protect existing stands from fires that would cause major adverse 

impacts and other large-scale disturbances.   

Conduct mechanical treatments and prescribed fire in areas adjacent 

to woodlands to reduce fuel loads.  

Restore woodlands after stand-replacing fire or other large-scale 

disturbance (e.g., native seeding and planting).  

Rationale: Mountain mahogany and late-successional western juniper stands provide unique and often 

irreplaceable biological and ecological values. All stands of mountain mahogany are sensitive to standreplacing fire, do not easily resprout after fire, and are difficult to establish from seed. Late-successional 

western juniper stands also naturally occur in areas protected from fire, and large-scale fires are historically 

rare. Because of decreased seedling establishment in older juniper stands, the maintenance of some early 

and mid-successional western juniper stands are important for recruitment and would be provided through 

the following: as a fringe around late-successional stands and from recruitment within existing stands. It is 

generally agreed the thresholds included in the objective, when applied across the habitat type, reflect 

healthy natural conditions necessary to support dependent fish and wildlife species. This includes priority 

species, such as mule deer, and a host of other dependent species (see wildlife and habitat matrix in 

Appendix B). By managing habitats within the stated objective thresholds, the necessary ecological 

integrity would be provided to maintain diverse, healthy wildlife populations within the natural range of 

variability. Currently precise conditions of habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge have not been quantified, 

but based on the results from vegetation surveys and site visits, the primary factors currently influencing 

habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral horses and burros and long-term suppression of natural 

fire. The differences in management alternatives for horses and burros are reflected in the percentage of 

each habitat type which would meet the stated objective. In addition, we anticipate an increased percentage 

of each habitat type meeting the stated objective as a result of horse and burro removal under Alternative 3 

would be offset by a corresponding decrease from continued reliance on wildfire suppression without 

treatment to reduce fuel loads in adjacent areas or post-fire restoration. Therefore, the percentages of each 

habitat type meeting the stated objectives are the same under both Alternative 1 and 3. 

Thresholds for juniper tree size identify structural characteristics preferred by the assemblage of native 

species using the mature juniper habitat type. Late-successional western juniper is associated with a 

variety of soils, land forms, and plant associations. Communities typically occupy productively-low rock 

outcrops and soils that are shallow, rocky, and high in clay or sand. Characteristics that are further used to 

identify individual late-successional juniper trees include an unsymmetrical canopy that is rounded, 

spreading, sparse, and containing dead limbs. In addition, the bark becomes deeply furrowed, fibrous, and 

reddish in color. Older trees will also have limited terminal leader growth on branches in the upper reaches 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-44 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

of the tree canopy (Miller et al. 2005). 

On Sheldon Refuge, approximately 83% of mountain mahogany stands sampled are estimated to have been 

established after 1900 (Gruell 1995). This dramatic increase in density and distribution has been attributed 

to fire exclusion (Gruell 1995) and historical livestock grazing, which diminished competing grasses. 

Current concerns with mountain mahogany are that many stands are dominated by older trees with crowns 

that are practically unreachable to wildlife for browse and little recruitment of new plants; if natural fire 

were to re-enter these stands in their current overgrown conditions, it is likely most or all mountain 

mahogany would be killed by the intense heat, and these areas would be lost as valuable wildlife cover, 

forage, and nesting habitat. Mountain mahogany does not easily resprout after burning, and it is difficult to 

establish from seed. Factors that may limit natural seedling establishment include the presence of 

mountain mahogany litter that inhibits seed germination, competition for water and soil resources, and 

browsing of seedlings (see summary by Ibáñez et al. 1999). On Sheldon Refuge, these habitats are 

considered in overall fair to good condition, but the proactive management proposed in the preferred 

alternative is needed to create fuel breaks and perform prescribed burning around mountain mahogany 

stands to provide protection from future wildfire. 

We anticipate that implementation of the proposed action to remove all feral horses and burros from 

Sheldon Refuge within five years will be the primary and most significant action responsible for progress 

toward achieving our stated management objective to enhance, protect, and maintain at least 80%-95% of 

mountain mahogany and western juniper woodland habitats. The precise conditions of habitats throughout 

Sheldon Refuge have not been quantified, but based on the results of vegetation surveys, site visits, and 

ongoing research projects, the primary factors currently influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon 

Refuge are feral horses and burros. 

Other benefiting species: Northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk, mountain quail, Lewis’ woodpecker, 

olive-sided flycatcher; montane shrew, vagrant shrew, mule deer, hoary bat, and long-eared myotis; and 

pygmy short-horned lizard have been identified as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife 

Action Plan Team 2006). 

Supporting references for the objective thresholds: Altman and Holmes 2000; CalPIF 2005; Miller et al. 

2001, Miller et al. 2005; Neel 1999. 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-45 

Photo 2.10 Unlike western juniper, mountain mahogany stands are not expanding 

and are susceptible to fire. 

Objective 4d: Rare and Sensitive Plants 

Identify, maintain, and expand the populations of rare and sensitive plant taxa. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Conduct periodic monitoring and conduct inventories on a site-bysite basis in response to project proposals and management activities.   

Routinely conduct inventories in areas not yet surveyed for rare plant 

species and periodically monitor known sites. 

Actively seek additional funding through partnerships and grants for 

research. 

Work with partners to collect locally indigenous seeds and plant 

material to provide stock for restoration activities. 

Rationale: The Sheldon Refuge population of grimy ivesia (Ivesia rhypara var. rhypara) represents 86% 

of the known individuals within Nevada and 85% of all globally known plants. Rattlesnake stickweed has 

been documented occurring at the base of steep gorge walls, in rocky areas below the walls, and 

occasionally along ledges in the rock walls on Sheldon Refuge. This species is considered limited in its 

distribution and a potential species of concern. The population on Sheldon Refuge was the largest 

documented to date and at that time represented 96% of the total known individuals. Rose biscuitroot 

(Lomatium roseanum) is another rare plant documented within Sheldon Refuge. These examples illustrate 

the amount of knowledge that can be gained through basic inventory efforts included as part of Objective 

4d, which can then be used to make more informed management decisions to better conserve plants and 

their habitats within Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-46 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Objective 4e: Microbiotic Soil Crusts 

Inventory microbiotic crust and protect from conflicting public use and land management practices.

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Conduct periodic monitoring and conduct inventories on a site-bysite basis in response to project proposals and management activities.   

Conduct inventories to document range and condition of microbiotic 

crust to provide information for adaptive management. 

Minimize ground-disturbing activities and management activities that 

disturb soil surfaces.  

Actively seek additional funding through partnerships and grants for 

research. 

Rationale: Biological soil crusts (i.e., microbiotic crusts) are an integral component of rangeland soils; 

however, little is known regarding its current condition across Sheldon Refuge. Protection from livestock, 

OHVs, and other disturbances can assist in the recovery of these communities, resulting in an increase in 

the percentage of soil surface covered with crust, and conversely a decrease in the percentage of bare soil. 

Objective 4f: Rare, Sensitive, and Key Indicator Wildlife Species 

Inventory and monitor federally listed species, rare and sensitive species (e.g., prairie falcons), and 

indicator and/or sagebrush-obligate species (e.g., pronghorn, Greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and 

American pika). 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Evaluate existing research and monitoring data to identify scientific 

information gaps and priority research needs.  

Actively seek funding, grants, and partnerships to conduct research 

and monitoring.  

Conduct habitat and wildlife inventories to fill scientific information 

gaps. 

Prepare an inventory and monitoring plan for priority species using 

standardized protocols.  

Rationale: Inventory and monitoring of listed, sensitive, and indicator species is critical to conserving the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Sheldon Refuge. Inventory and monitoring is 

required to assess the effects of management actions, to both prevent adverse effects to wildlife species and 

to assess whether Refuge objectives are being met. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-47 

2.2.5 Goal 5. Using an integrated approach, prevent, control, or eliminate 

non-native species that threaten Sheldon Refuge resources. 

Objective 5a: Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants 

Control, reduce, and, where possible, eliminate noxious weeds and other highly invasive plant species from 

Sheldon Refuge. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Acres treated per year under Objective 5a (includes all habitat types) 50-100 1,000 50-100 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Conduct treatments on a site-by-site basis, primarily in response to 

project proposals and activities. Accomplish treatments primarily 

through partnerships, grants, and co-op agreements. 

 

Implement a more proactive approach by emphasizing treatment 

along road corridors, early detection and eradication of small 

infestations, and long-term containment/control of large infestations. 



Reduce noxious weeds and other invasives primarily through an 

emphasis on early detection and eradication of new and/or small 

infestations. 

 

Use a non-systematic approach to opportunistically document weeds, 

primarily in response to project proposals and activities.  

Implement a systematic inventory and monitoring program to 

measure changes in invasive plant populations over time and 

responses to management activities. 

 

Aggressively control small populations of noxious weeds and other 

highly invasive non-native plants using a variety of methods and 

tools—primarily reseeding and planting, mowing and other 

mechanical methods, and the use of herbicides. 

 

Rely on early detection and rapid response using a variety of methods 

to aggressively control and/or remove newly introduced non-native 

plants and small infestations where eradication is most likely. 

 

Slow the spread of well-established and/or large populations of 

invasive plants (i.e., cheatgrass) by limiting the amount of prescribed 

burning and other disturbance in highly susceptible areas and through 

reseeding and planting following fire and other disturbances. 

 

For well-established or large populations, rely on native plant 

competition and natural processes and avoid projects or activities that 

would increase the rate of spread or area infested. 

 

Increase public awareness and participation in control efforts through 

directed outreach, education, and volunteer events. 

Increase voluntary use of certified weed-free feed by visitors through 

education. Require weed-free feed if pack stock are determined to be 

a continued source of invasive plants introduced to Sheldon Refuge. 



Discontinue grading along road edges within Sheldon Refuge, which 

promotes the spread and persistence of invasive plants. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-48 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Use native seed and plantings only in relatively small areas most at 

risk following fire or other disturbances. 

Rationale: While noxious weeds and other non-native plants are not as widespread when compared with 

surrounding areas, these plants are degrading habitats for native fish, wildlife and plants within Sheldon 

Refuge. Without increased efforts to detect and control newly introduced non-natives plants and at least 

control existing plants, impacts are expected to become much worse. Effective management of these plants 

would require Sheldon Refuge to dedicate additional staff, funding, and resources for quicker detection 

followed by a wide variety of control methods and tools—even within wilderness areas managed for 

naturalness and primitive character. 

Effective control of noxious weeds and other invasive plants requires the ability to use the widest range of 

tools and techniques available at the proper time and with the correct application. While each of the 

strategies listed for this objective would be used, each alternative reflects a different management approach 

and represents a different emphasis or focus on particular tools and techniques. The range of tools and 

techniques to implement Objective 5a under Alternative 2 (preferred) within the eight proposed wilderness 

areas were evaluated through a Wilderness Minimum Tool Analysis (see Appendix G). Actions to 

implement the objective in areas of Sheldon Refuge not proposed as wilderness could include the full range 

of tools and techniques available, but would most commonly include mechanical mowing and herbicides. 

The Region 1 IPM Strategies have been evaluated and are adopted and incorporated in this CCP by 

reference (see Appendix O). These IPM strategies include guidance for the preparation of pesticide use 

proposals required by the Service. Evaluations conducted in preparation of each pesticide use proposal will 

ensure that those chemicals approved for use have no more than minor, short-term adverse effects on the 

environment. Implementation of Alternative 2 (preferred) has also been determined necessary to fully 

implement Objectives 2a, 2b, 3a: 3b: 3c, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, and 4e. 

Objective 5b: Harmful and Invasive Wildlife 

Manage, control, or remove fish and wildlife populations that may be detrimental to Sheldon Refuge 

resources or public safety. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Take no management action for self-sustaining, non-native species 

determined to have negligible impact to native species or habitats 

(see strategy for Objective 8a). 

  

Investigate techniques to mitigate impacts from non-native species 

determined to be detrimental to a native species or habitats.  

Replace non-native trout with native substitutes if viable (see strategy 

for Objective 8b). 

Rationale: Several non-native wildlife species have been introduced to Sheldon Refuge, including 

largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), white crappie (Poxomis annularis), pumpkinseed sunfish 

(Lepomis gibbosus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), rainbow trout, guppy, bullfrog, California quail, 

chukar, Hungarian (gray) partridge, and potentially beaver (Castor canadensis). Some of these species can 

have significant impacts to native wildlife and habitats (e.g., guppy, bullfrog), while the effects of others 

are more benign (e.g., California quail). As populations expand, some species may cause adverse effects 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-49 

on habitat biodiversity, habitat connectivity, and plant community stability; facilitate the expansion of nonnative invasive species; become a nuisance to the general public; and/or increase threats to public safety. 

Adverse effects can also include displacement and predation of other wildlife species, as well as disease 

transmission. 

Current Service policy does not allow for the introduction of species on refuges outside of their historical 

range unless it is essential for the survival of the species. However, no action is required to reduce or 

eradicate self-sustaining populations of non-native, noninvasive species unless those species interfere with 

the accomplishment of refuge purposes or objectives (601 FW 3). The continued presence of non-native 

rainbow and rainbow hybrid trout within Sheldon Refuge would interfere with the objective included as 

part of Alternative 2 (preferred) and would be replaced with fish indigenous to the region (e.g., Lahontan 

cutthroat trout and/or redband trout). 

2.2.6 Goal 6. Collect information and create partnerships necessary to 

support adaptive management decisions at a landscape scale. 

Objective 6a: Watershed Restoration 

Within five years of the final decision for the CCP, conduct an assessment and initiate restoration of the 

Virgin Creek watershed. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Miles of Virgin Creek habitat restored under Objective 6a None 1 or more None 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Conduct a health and function assessment of watersheds for 

determination of restoration priorities.   

Develop a watershed restoration plan to include identification and 

priority areas for restoration.  

Assess topographic and hydrological variables and determine the 

impacts of mining and water development activities in the Virgin 

Valley. 

 

Following removal of horses and burros, begin efforts to restore and 

rehabilitate habitat along Virgin Creek. 

Rationale: A number of watersheds on Sheldon Refuge have been significantly altered and/or degraded by 

development, including water diversion, mining activities, invasive species, livestock grazing, and 

contaminants. Virgin Valley in particular has undergone dramatic alteration due to mining activities and 

intense grazing by livestock (including feral horses and burros). Long-term soil and water retention are 

directly affected by vegetative ground cover and soil compaction, which, in turn, increase surface runoff, 

stream sedimentation, and erosion. A key factor in improving deteriorated riparian areas is understanding 

the balance between watershed condition and riparian health. 

Restoration efforts would be largely ineffective as long as feral horses and burros remain within Sheldon 

Refuge. Until these animals are removed from Sheldon Refuge and Virgin Valley, no active restoration 

work would take place. 

 

Objective 6b: Wildlife Population Dynamics 

Determine key population characteristics of priority species and develop management actions. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-50 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Initiate additional monitoring and/or research to determine population 

trends, distribution, and migratory patterns (where applicable) for 

priority species including pronghorn, Greater sage-grouse, and other 

sagebrush-obligate species. 

  

Investigate appropriate and compatible management actions to 

mitigate limiting factors. 

Apply adaptive management actions to maintain or restore declining 

or extirpated populations. 

Evaluate requirements and potential for restoration of native desert 

trout. 

Evaluate impacts of public use on native wildlife and associated 

habitats. Implement seasonal area closures as appropriate. 

Rationale: Many of the priority wildlife species that occupy Sheldon Refuge have ranges that extend 

beyond refuge lands, including pronghorn, mule deer, California bighorn sheep, mountain lion, bobcat, 

coyote, Greater sage-grouse, and a long list of migratory birds. Pronghorn management provides an 

example of how adaptive management strategies can be applied to meet this objective. 

In the mid- to late 1990s there was concern that pronghorn populations within the nearby Hart Mountain 

Refuge were at risk of decline. Early data from studies initiated at that time suggested predators were 

responsible for the majority of pronghorn fawn mortality. However, pronghorn fawn survival improved 

coincidental with suspension of livestock grazing and release from a drought. Planned predator control 

efforts were postponed indefinitely. Both the Hart Mountain Antelope Refuge and Sheldon Refuge 

pronghorn populations have since substantially increased (Collins 2008a), and current data indicate 

populations are within normal ranges of population variability. This indicates predation was not likely the 

primary limiting factor. Indeed, additional data have since demonstrated that both the fawn’s date of birth 

and previous summer’s precipitation are highly important factors in pronghorn fawn survival (Whittaker 

2008). 

This example illustrates the complexity of wildlife management and how refuge management has 

constantly adapted through additional investigation and monitoring that identified likely explanations for 

changes in pronghorn fawn survival other than predation. Sheldon Refuge intends to implement further 

study of pronghorn migration, population trends, and predator-prey interactions to create a more complete 

understanding of factors influencing this priority wildlife species so that future management can continue 

to adapt. 

Organizations and individuals have requested the Service open Sheldon Refuge to the sport hunting and 

trapping of additional wildlife species (i.e., coyote, mountain lion, and bobcat) consistent with Nevada state 

hunting regulations. However, the lack of population monitoring data for these species raises a number of 

conservation concerns. Sport hunting combined with removal of predators from areas adjacent to Sheldon 

Refuge is ongoing, and it is uncertain what effects, if any, these control efforts have had upon populations 

which depend upon Sheldon Refuge. The collection of baseline predator population trends, distribution, 

and movements along with refuge-specific predator-prey interaction studies would allow Sheldon Refuge 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-51 

to make an informed decision as to whether sport hunting of predators is compatible with the Refuge 

System mission and the purposes for Sheldon Refuge. 

There is also the potential to assist in the recovery of locally extirpated species, such as Alvord cutthroat 

trout and Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, or other species affected by climate change and threats to the 

sagebrush ecosystem. Sheldon Refuge would collect data to inform future decisions for the management of 

wildlife populations within natural densities and levels of variation, including naturally fluctuating 

population cycles, while ensuring that densities of endangered or otherwise rare species are sufficient for 

maintaining viable populations. A range of tools would be used, including: 

 Aerial or ground surveys to estimate numbers, population trend, and/or sex/age composition 

 Tracking studies, including radio and satellite marking to estimate distribution and ranges 

 Habitat availability and food habit studies 

 Predator-prey interaction studies 

 Disease monitoring 

 Genetic viability estimates 

 Standard management techniques that increase/decrease population numbers (e.g., reintroductions, 

contraception, removal of individuals, supplemental seeding or stocking) 

Photo 2.11 Additional research is needed to determine population trends, 

distribution, and migratory patterns for key species such as pronghorn (Photo Gail 

Collins). 

Objective 6c: Adaptive Management 

Monitor habitat conditions, treatments and projects to evaluate effectiveness, and inform future 

management decisions—i.e., adaptive management. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-52 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Continue to establish monitoring photopoints for prescribed fire 

habitat treatments.   

Conduct periodic riparian assessments. 

  

Continue periodic vegetation mapping. 

  

Continue to monitor the condition of springs. 

  

Maintain research partnerships to monitor habitat treatment and 

wildfire effects.   

Using a systematic approach, implement quantitative monitoring to 

evaluate short- and long-term effects of natural and prescribed fire. 

Implement monitoring to evaluate results from habitat restoration 

experiments. 

Rationale: Past inventory and monitoring of habitat treatment projects within Sheldon Refuge have been 

inconsistent. For areas where monitoring has been conducted, the level of detail and quantifiable results 

are generally not sufficient to inform future management actions. A more systematic and quantitative 

approach is necessary to provide the information necessary to measure management effectiveness and 

support defensible management decisions. 

Objective 6d: Research 

Seek partnerships for landscape-level research and conservation projects. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Develop a conservation planning partnership with cooperative 

agencies and other groups.   

Seek funding to implement projects to achieve common wildlife and 

habitat objectives in partnership with others.   

Seek partnerships and coordinate research on sagebrush-steppe 

ecosystem to provide information for management actions.   

Work with cooperators to investigate the interactions of 

environmental stress factors, patterns of climate change, wildlife and 

ecosystem responses, and management actions in the Great Basin. 

 

Create a catalogue of habitat monitoring sites within Sheldon Refuge. 

 

Rationale: The sagebrush-steppe landscape extends across large portions of 11 states in the Intermountain 

West, but very little of the sagebrush biome remains undisturbed or unaltered from its condition prior to 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-53 

European settlement. Therefore, many of the challenges facing Sheldon Refuge are also issues at the larger 

landscape scale across the Great Basin (e.g., western juniper encroachment, invasive species expansion, 

horse management, energy development). Partnership development with other Federal agencies, state 

agencies, local working groups, and concerned citizens is vital to implementing priority habitat restoration 

and adaptive management at a larger scale. Coordination among land managers is likely the only way 

conservation can be accomplished for species with shifting ranges as a result of potential climate change. 

Objective 6e: Land Protection 

Seek and develop partnerships for land protection efforts. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Develop partnerships to purchase Sheldon Refuge inholdings from 

willing sellers.   

Consider outholding management options in partnership that are 

consistent with refuge policies and regulations. 

Seek partnerships and evaluate opportunities for land exchanges in 

support habitat protection and refuge purposes.  

Rationale: The Service is responsible for managing the fish and wildlife resources of Sheldon Refuge to 

benefit current and future generations of Americans. The Service does not, however, own nor have 

management authority over all of the land within the administrative boundary of Sheldon Refuge. As such, 

activities on private lands can affect resources on adjacent refuge habitats. Land acquisition and exchange 

are habitat protection methods that aid the Service in achieving its management objectives (i.e., recovery, 

restoration, enhancement) for species where habitat loss or degradation is a major cause of decline or where 

buffers are needed to protect sensitive areas. Partnerships with inholding owners could accomplish several 

habitat goals, such as invasive species control, fire suppression, or habitat improvements. Inholding 

development also has the potential to increase Service management costs due to expenses for surveys or 

fencing, or result in degradation of conservation value for surrounding lands. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-54 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Photo 2.12 Development of private inholdings indirectly affects the surrounding area 

of Sheldon Refuge (Photo Gail Collins). 

2.2.7 Goal 7. Provide an active fire management program. 

Objective 7a: Fire Protection 

Conduct fire management for the protection of life, property, and the enhancement of Sheldon Refuge 

resources. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Maintain a fire suppression program capable of performing 

aggressive initial and extended attack on natural fires.   

Use risk evaluation processes to determine most efficient, safe, and 

cost-effective fire response.   

Review, update, and execute cooperative fire suppression agreements 

with interagency cooperators.   

Maintain public safety, protect property, and create defensible space 

around structures and other important resources by removing 

vegetation through prescribed burning, mowing, thinning, or other 

methods. 

  

Develop fuel breaks using past burn locations, riparian zones, age 

breaks with vegetation, and natural fire as wildfire management 

allows. 

  
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-55 

In addition to other methods, use mechanical means (e.g., cutting and 

mowing) to develop fuel breaks.  

Complete an MRA to determine what activities and equipment 

generally prohibited would be appropriate for fire suppression within 

proposed wilderness and wilderness study areas (WSAs). 

 

Except for the protection of life and property in the case of 

emergency, conduct fire suppression within WSAs using primitive 

tools and equipment not prohibited by the Wilderness Act. 

 

Rationale: Although a natural process that shaped Sheldon Refuge ecosystem, natural fire can be a threat 

to the safety of the public, and natural and cultural resources, as well as the continued existence of the 

present ecosystem. The historical natural fire regime has been altered by human influences (e.g., fire 

suppression, historical cattle grazing, non-native invasive species, and development). In some areas 

characteristic fire-return intervals are now much longer as a result of fire suppression and the loss of fine 

fuels to livestock grazing. The introduction of livestock grazing and exclusion of natural fire have 

contributed to expansion and density of juniper and big sagebrush. Without natural disturbance, much of 

the sagebrush-steppe is in a late seral stage. Natural fire now has the potential to burn more intensely, more 

rapidly, and over larger areas than if overgrazing and continued fire suppression had not occurred—making 

fire management more difficult. Under some circumstances, these sorts of natural fires can completely 

eliminate an existing native plant community. Fires can foster the spread and density of unwanted, nonnative invasive species, primarily cheatgrass, which further alters the natural fire regime. Having adequate 

fire suppression resources available to contain and extinguish natural fires before they become large and 

burn under undesirable conditions is critical to the long-term preservation of the natural, cultural, and 

native biological resources of Sheldon Refuge. 

In a wildfire emergency involving the health and safety of people, we may authorize the use of motorized 

vehicles and equipment, mechanical transport, or aircraft without conducting the usual MRA. 

Authorizations are typically requested on a case-by-case basis as each emergency arises. However, 

conducting an MRA to identify and approve in advance the circumstances under which certain vehicles, 

equipment, mechanical transport, or aircraft would be authorized could avoid dangerous delays and 

confusion during wildfire emergencies. 

Meeting Objective 7a includes corresponding alternative natural and prescribed fire strategies under habitat 

management Objectives 2a, 2b, 3a, 3d, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, and 6c. 

Objective 7b: Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

Implement emergency stabilization and rehabilitation of fire and fire suppression impacts. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Use heavy equipment only on existing roads and routes except where 

necessary for the protection of life or property.   

Implement emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions 

following fires causing major adverse impacts, including soil 

stabilization, cultural resource inventory and protection, non-native 

species control, native grass and shrub seeding and planting, grazing 

control, and effectiveness monitoring. 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-56 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Allow areas to naturally recover following fire or other disturbances 

except for disturbances caused by fire suppression activities, or when 

necessary for emergency stabilization, or to restore unique or critical 

biological/cultural resources. 

 

Coordinate closely with fire teams during and after large fire events 

to ensure Sheldon Refuge priorities are incorporated into stabilization 

and rehabilitation plans. 

  

Use native and non-indigenous plants for stabilization and 

restoration.  

Use native, site-appropriate seed genetically similar to plants within 

Sheldon Refuge for stabilization and rehabilitation activities. Nonnative seed may be used in limited circumstances for small areas, 

when obtaining native seed in not possible or where the likelihood of 

native seed germination and establishment is not likely to meet 

habitat management objectives. 



Work with partners and cooperating agencies to develop seed 

sources. 

Rationale: Fires that burn outside the historical range of intensity, size, severity, and frequency could 

threaten native plant communities, facilities, and cultural resources on Sheldon Refuge. Associated fire 

suppression activities further contribute to resource damage. Utilizing appropriate emergency stabilization 

and rehabilitation techniques following a fire is critical to reduce long-term negative effects of fire and fire 

suppression. 

Service policy to maintain biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health directs that we use 

native seed sources for ecological restoration, which is also consistent with managing for natural 

wilderness character. However, we expect that the use of non-native seed under specific and limited 

circumstances may be necessary to meet our habitat objectives; however, we will maintain the management 

priority to use native seed whenever possible—especially for large-scale rehabilitation efforts and within 

proposed wilderness. 

Photo 2.13 Aerial seeding is one technique to give native plants an edge over 

invasive weeds after a fire. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-57 

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 conserved by Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Objective 8a: Recreational Hunting (Waterfowl, Upland Birds, and Big Game) 

In coordination with NDOW, annually review and set hunting harvest regulations that provide high-quality 

recreation opportunities. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Continue to coordinate with NDOW to set tag limits and conduct 

surveys to monitor population trends for big game, waterfowl, and 

upland game birds. 

  

Rationale: Hunting is a very popular activity and a priority, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use 

within Sheldon Refuge. Hunting within Sheldon Refuge is managed to emphasize the quality of the 

recreational experience (as defined by Service policy) rather than maximize harvest. Season dates, bag 

limits, and number of harvest tags for mule deer, pronghorn, California bighorn sheep, and Greater sagegrouse, are managed by the State of Nevada in coordination with Sheldon Refuge staff. Chukar and 

California quail harvest is allowed, per State regulation, in all areas open to hunting while waterfowl 

hunting is allowed in only a few areas on Sheldon Refuge. Because hunting activities are managed 

cooperatively with the State of Nevada, ongoing coordination is required to ensure that hunter numbers and 

restrictions are consistent with Sheldon Refuge purposes, biological goals and objectives, and standards for 

recreation quality. 

Wildlife species such as coyote, bobcat, or mountain lion may be utilized for sport hunting or trapping 

within a national wildlife refuge (50 CFR 31). However, the populations and wildlife requirements for 

these species have not been determined, and existing data are insufficient to determine what level of sport 

hunting or trapping, if any, would be compatible with the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes 

for Sheldon Refuge. We anticipate information gathered to meet Objective 6b would be sufficient to make 

such a compatibility determination in the future. 

Objective 8b: Cold-water Recreational Fisheries (see Figure 5.1) 

Manage cold-water fisheries consistent with Service policy and habitat management objectives to maintain 

high-quality semi-primitive recreation opportunities. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()  

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-58 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Within five years of the final decision for the CCP, develop a coldwater fisheries plan.   

Maintain Lahontan cutthroat trout in Catnip Reservoir. 

  

Continue stocking sterile rainbow trout in Big Spring Reservoir. 

 

Replace rainbow trout with Lahontan cutthroat, Alvord cutthroat, or 

redband trout in Big Spring Reservoir. 

Replace non-native trout species in Virgin Creek with regionally 

indigenous trout fishery. 

Replace current sterile rainbow trout population in Big Spring 

Reservoir with Lahontan cutthroat or redband trout; discontinue 

stocking and allow to self-sustain (would persist only as long as 

initially stocked fish survive and rainfall is sufficient to maintain 

water level in the reservoir). 

 

Rationale: Fishing is a priority, compatible, wildlife-dependent public use on Sheldon Refuge. 

Historically, management of cold-water fish on Sheldon Refuge has been conducted by NDOW with 

minimal involvement by refuge staff. NDOW has proposed to replace the current Lahontan cutthroat trout 

population in Catnip Reservoir (Independence and Pilot Peak strain Lahontan cutthroat trout) with the 

Quinn River/Blackrock strain of Lahontan cutthroat trout. The Quinn/River Blackrock strain is a rare 

strain that is native to the Quinn River and Blackrock watersheds in northwest Nevada. Currently, there are 

only a few remaining populations of this strain existing in approximately five streams located just east of 

Sheldon Refuge. The overall population size of this strain is fairly low and thus, ongoing recovery efforts 

are complicated. It would be beneficial to have a large, stable population of this strain in the event other 

populations are compromised. Once this population of Lahontan cutthroat trout is established, NDOW 

would capture juvenile trout and transport them to recovery streams as needed. 

Lahontan cutthroat trout in Catnip Reservoir are outside the historical range of Lahontan cutthroat trout and 

are managed consistently with a special rule under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, which 

authorizes the taking of these trout in accordance with state law. This enables the public to harvest trout 

from Catnip Reservoir under a state fishing license and researchers to collect trout under a state scientific 

collection permit. 

We propose to conduct periodic restocking in cooperation with NDOW to maintain recreation fishing 

opportunities at Big Spring Reservoir and to avoid hybridization by stocking a single species or strain. 

However a put-and-take stocking program for Big Spring Reservoir would not be consistent with Service 

policies. Sheldon Refuge would continue to consult with NDOW to determine the appropriate cold-water 

fishery to retain at Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-59 

Photo 2.14 When water is available, Big Spring Reservoir and Campground are 

popular destinations for Nevada anglers. 

Objective 8c: Warm-Water Recreational Fisheries 

Provide opportunity for high-quality warm-water fishing at Dufurrena Ponds 19 and 20 and McGee Pond 

consistent with habitat management objectives. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()  

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Maintain artificial ponds and facilities to allow for a recreational 

warm-water fishing opportunity (see also Objective 3d).  

Establish a kiosk and/or brochure to educate the public about native 

desert fishes and invertebrates, and risks associated with spreading 

exotic species. 



Allow system to revert to natural conditions. Provide no active 

management and allow ponds to naturally fill with sediment and 

vegetation. 

 

Rationale: Dufurrena Ponds 19 and 20 and McGee Pond are extremely popular with northern Nevada 

anglers. These ponds provide opportunities to catch non-native warm-water species such as large-mouth 

bass, white crappie, pumpkinseed sunfish, and yellow perch. The fish populations in these ponds are 

currently isolated from the Thousand Creek/Virgin Creek system, and do not require regular restocking by 

NDOW. These populations can be allowed to remain under Service policy. 

Objective 8d: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Within five years of the final decision for the CCP, prepare and implement a visitor services plan that 

addresses refuge public uses and facilities, including facilities for wildlife observation and photography. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-60 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Publish and periodically update a general information brochure for 

Sheldon Refuge.   

Develop a site plan for the Virgin Valley and Highway 140 focus 

area.  

Develop educational brochure to provide self-guided observation 

opportunities.  

Develop at least one interpretive trail with wildlife observation decks 

and other opportunities. 

Implement seasonal area closures for sensitive species and habitat 

protection.  

Develop off-refuge wildlife viewing opportunities (e.g., remote webbased cameras, web postings of Sheldon Refuge wildlife projects).  

Rationale: Most public use within Sheldon Refuge focuses on hunting, fishing, and rock collecting—

similar to public use of surrounding public lands. Refuge staff have noted that relatively few visitors 

understand the mission of the Service or appreciate the differences between the purposes for Sheldon 

Refuge and those of surrounding BLM lands. The development of wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities and related environmental interpretation would bring visitor attention to these differences and 

promote compatible wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, which are lacking not only within Sheldon 

Refuge, but throughout the region as well. The addition of observation decks and trails in specific 

locations would enhance the public’s opportunity to see key representative species; however, other visitors 

may feel that these physical improvements are not necessary and could potentially take away from the 

overall primitive recreational experience. In addition, these improvements have the potential to affect 

wildlife behavior and can be detrimental to some species. 

Objective 8e: Environmental Education 

Within five years of the final decision for the CCP, develop volunteer and partner support to promote an 

outdoor education program. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Use volunteer support and partnerships to develop outdoor education 

curriculum and programs to support local youth education 

opportunities. 



Seek partnerships with non-profit agencies to provide an 

environmental education coordinator. 

Rationale: Environmental education has been an underutilized program at Sheldon Refuge; however, it is 

a priority, wildlife-dependent public use under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as 

amended, and a key mechanism to establish support for Sheldon Refuge. Through on-site programs 

demonstrating wildlife needs and requirements, visitors would learn how to practice proper wildlife 

viewing etiquette and the importance of our management actions in maintaining wildlife populations. Offsite education curriculum and programs could build a connection with local and remote schools. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-61 

Objective 8f: Visitor Facilities (see Figure 5.1) 

Within five years of the final decision for the CCP, develop a site plan to identify public facilities and 

infrastructure that would improve visitor services. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()  

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Maintain current visitor contact space at Sheldon Refuge Office 

(Dufurrena).  

Develop a site plan for the Virgin Valley and Highway 140 focus 

area that improves the visitor experience.  

Relocate and reconstruct Sheldon Refuge visitor contact station from 

Dufurrena to Highway 140. Install additional kiosks, trails, and 

interpretive sites if determined to be needed. 



Install additional kiosks, trails, and interpretive sites if determined to 

be needed. 

Rationale: The overall interpretive philosophy strategy proposed for the Sheldon Refuge is to maintain the 

“untouched” wild nature of Sheldon Refuge and limit signage and interpretation to preserve that character. 

At present, overall interpretive use is low, so impact is also presumed to be low. However, there is 

opportunity to design an environmental program that fosters recreation/education opportunities for the 

public, and long-term understanding of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the importance of 

conservation. Currently, the main visitor contact is at the Sheldon Refuge Office (Dufurrena). 

Replacement of this facility with a Refuge Headquarters Office and visitor contact station may better serve 

refuge visitors and motorists on Highway 140 while providing education and interpretation about the 

Sheldon Refuge. Also, a more focused visitor contact presence could mitigate some visitation issues with 

additional orientation potentially being performed by volunteers, partners, or other agencies. 

Objective 8g: Public Participation and Support 

Foster partnerships and develop public participation opportunities. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Increase recruitment of volunteers and implement additional 

volunteer projects.   

Develop additional facilities to support resident volunteers and 

volunteer projects. 

Promote development of a “coalition of partners” to help meet 

Sheldon Refuge conservation goals.  
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-62 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Develop a volunteer cadre and/or provide additional Sheldon Refuge 

staff to facilitate public outreach.  

Rationale: Sheldon Refuge does not currently have an officially recognized Friends Group but is working 

to establish a coalition of partners to include a variety of non-profit organizations. The formation of a 

Sheldon Friends Group would benefit Sheldon Refuge through advocacy, volunteerism, contributions to 

local economies, and direct links to surrounding communities as well as regional and national associations. 

Currently there are limited facilities available, but there may be additional opportunities to provide housing 

by improving existing and developing new facilities (e.g., trailer pads, hookups) for camp hosts and other 

volunteers. In addition, increased recruitment efforts at schools and universities, and among conservation 

groups, as well as general postings on the Sheldon Refuge web site and on www.volunteer.gov, may 

generate additional interest. 

Objective 8h: Developed Camping (see Figure 5.1) 

Provide developed camping opportunities at the Virgin Valley Campground to support wildlife-dependent 

public uses. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Allow open, unstructured camping at Virgin Valley Campground 

with limited facilities.  

Define and post the Virgin Valley Campground boundary, and 

designate and physically define campsites. 

Raise quality standards at Virgin Valley Campground and convert to 

a fee campground. 

Develop interpretive signs for the public. 

 

Rationale: While camping is not a priority wildlife-dependent public use on Sheldon Refuge, as defined in 

the Refuge Improvement Act, it does directly support priority wildlife-dependent uses such as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, and photography. Recent increased use of the Virgin Valley Campground is 

attributed to visitation at neighboring private opal mines. During peak seasons, overcrowding and user 

conflicts are of concern, as well as overflow into areas immediately adjacent to the campground resulting in 

further environmental impacts. For example, the riffle beetle, a rare, endemic invertebrate, inhabits the 

outfall of the hot springs pool that terminates in McGee Pond several yards away. Additionally, exotic, 

non-native species have been introduced by the public into the springs including guppies, bullfrogs (both 

adults and tadpoles), and warm-water fish. Service policy provides guidance to protect habitat, cultural 

resources, and compatible wildlife related recreation. 

As popularity increases, it is essential to effectively manage this area to ensure that the appropriate 

information is relayed to visitors and that camping remains a high-quality experience (as defined by 

Service policy) for visitors participating in wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Campground 

improvements to define and designate campsites would eliminate visitor confusion, reduce impacts to 

vegetation and historic resources, and improve law enforcement consistency. Campsite registration and 

fees for overnight use would improve the level of maintenance for existing facilities, and enhance visitor 

education and outreach through volunteer campground hosts. A campsite fee structure based on length of 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-63 

stay is expected to eliminate site competition, but maintain opportunities for long-term use for visitors 

willing to pay the higher fees. 

Implementation of strategies for public use of historical structures included under Objective 10a would also 

provide opportunity for developing overnight public use within the Refuge. 

Objective 8i: Semi-primitive and Primitive Campgrounds (see Figure 5.1) 

Provide semi-primitive and primitive-vehicle-accessible camping opportunities at designated sites in 

support of wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Continue to provide semi-primitive and primitive camping 

opportunities at 12 designated campgrounds.  

Delineate campground boundaries to eliminate sprawl. 



Develop additional amenities at Big Spring and Catnip Reservoir 

campgrounds and convert to fee campgrounds. 

Relocate up to nine campgrounds to minimize impacts to sensitive 

riparian habitats and cultural resources (see also strategy for 

Objectives 3a and 3b). 



Consolidate up to four campgrounds with other existing 

campgrounds to reduce impacts to sensitive riparian habitats and 

cultural resources (see also strategy for Objectives 3a and 3b). 

 

Rationale: Currently, there are five semi-primitive and seven primitive campgrounds designated on 

Sheldon Refuge; however, these campgrounds have no clear boundaries and individual campsites have no 

formal delineation. Additionally, refuge camping areas lack natural barriers that limit vehicle traffic, 

posing disturbance threats to sensitive riparian areas and cultural sites. Vegetation and cultural resources 

are most vulnerable to the impacts of undefined camping. The physical impacts of camping can be 

unsightly and are inconsistent with the natural setting desired on Sheldon Refuge. 

The majority of scoping comments received were in support of moving campgrounds out of sensitive areas 

and providing enhanced facilities at the developed Virgin Valley Campground. 

Objective 8j: Primitive Camping 

Provide opportunities for permit-only primitive backcountry camping in support of wildlife-dependent 

public uses and to maintain primitive character and outstanding opportunities for solitude. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Require Special Use Permits for all overnight use outside designated 

campgrounds. 

  
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-64 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Increase public awareness of primitive backcountry camping 

opportunities and natural features to minimize pressure on current 

developed and semi-primitive campgrounds. 

 

Monitor number of backcountry permits issued and develop more 

comprehensive regulations if use exceeds appropriate thresholds for 

solitude (which would be established though monitoring of existing 

use and visitor surveys). 

 

Rationale: At present, permit-only primitive backcountry camping is considered underutilized, and the 

program could be further developed to alleviate pressure on existing developed, semi-primitive, and 

primitive campgrounds. This would provide visitors with a sense of solitude and an enhanced appreciation 

for the vast landscape. Backcountry camping is consistent with wilderness policy and established WSAs 

on Sheldon Refuge, and provides a compatible camping alternative in support of wildlife-dependent public 

uses. Overnight backcountry use would be maintained at a low level that does not cause readily apparent 

environmental impact and preserves outstanding opportunities for solitude. 

Objective 8k: Horseback Riding 

Provide horseback riding opportunity in support of wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Allow horseback riding throughout Sheldon Refuge under current 

regulations.   

Allow horseback access to the backcountry for overnight use outside 

of established campgrounds.   

Monitor use by horseback riders and develop more comprehensive 

regulations if use increases.  

Rationale: Recreational horseback riding is not considered a wildlife-dependent public use; however, it 

does support priority wildlife-dependent uses such as hunting and wildlife observation. Other than travel 

on foot, horseback riding is the only form of non-mechanized transportation into Sheldon Refuge’s 

wilderness backcountry. Horseback riding on Sheldon Refuge has historically occurred in small numbers, 

and estimates of current refuge use from incidental observation are less than 10 horseback groups per year. 

The current level of use is believed to have very little impact on refuge habitats. If monitoring as part of 

Alternative 2 (preferred) determines that there are impacts related to use of springs, introduction or spread 

of noxious weeds, or conflict with other public uses is occurring, Sheldon Refuge would establish 

thresholds for impacts from horseback riding and regulate as necessary to maintain a compatible level of 

use. 

Objective 8l: Rock Collecting 

Provide opportunities for rock collecting which are compatible with refuge purposes, goals, and other 

public uses. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-65 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Continue to allow the surface collection and removal of up to seven 

pounds of rock per person, per day.   

Develop outreach materials to educate the public about appropriate 

rocks for collection, acceptable collection methods, and potential 

conflicts with other Federal regulations. 

 

Increase law enforcement to maintain fewer than five violations 

related to rock collecting per year. 

Implement mandatory Special Use Permits if five or more violations 

associated with rock collecting are documented in two years of any 

five-year period. 

 

Rationale: While not a priority, wildlife-dependent public use, collecting rocks and minerals on Sheldon 

Refuge is a pre-existing compatible use that has become popular with some visitors and that Sheldon 

Refuge has the authority to authorize. The public can surface-collect up to seven pounds of material per 

day, which includes petrified wood, opal, and agate. Refuge brochures currently promote this activity and 

a compatibility determination was prepared and last updated in 1999. However, rock collecting can cause 

conflict with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) enforcement because individuals engaged in rock collecting, either knowingly or unknowingly, 

may also illegally collect cultural or historic resources (e.g., arrowheads and fossils). While violations 

associated with rock collecting are suspected to occur on Sheldon Refuge, it is unknown how many 

violations occur or if a sufficient number of violations are inadvertent or unintentional that violations could 

effectively be reduced through additional regulation or permit. The preferred alternative proposes an 

adaptive management strategy to more accurately document where and why violations occur and adjust 

refuge outreach efforts accordingly. 

Objective 8m: Vehicle Access 

Allow off-highway vehicle (OHV) access in support of wildlife-dependent public uses on roads open to 

vehicle traffic. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Allow OHVs refuge-wide on roads designated open to vehicle traffic. 

  

Require OHV operators without a certificate of operation under 

Nevada Revised Statute 490.080 to register their vehicle(s) with 

Sheldon Refuge and limit use to only wildlife-dependent recreation 

on roads designated open to public use of vehicles. 



Rationale: OHV use is an accepted mode of transportation on roads only open to vehicle traffic in support 

of compatible wildlife-dependent public use; recreational use of these vehicles is not. However, current 

limitations and restrictions on the use of OHVs on Sheldon Refuge are neither well-communicated nor 

enforced. In addition, illegal OHV use within proposed wilderness areas and WSAs is a management 

concern as is damage caused to roads and adjacent habitats during wet conditions. Illegal off-road travel to 

retrieve game, and access remote areas for recreational use is also a growing concern because of increasing 

damage to fragile habitats in the High Desert. Reducing the number of OHV violations and damage to 

natural resources is necessary to ensure the use remains compatible with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-66 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

and the Wilderness Act. For three reasons—the remoteness and rugged terrain of Sheldon Refuge, the 

small number of law enforcement officers, and the inability to positively identify individual OHVs for law 

enforcement purposes—requiring OHV users obtain Special Use Permits is one of the only practical ways 

to both inform the public and effectively enforce existing regulations. 

Objective 8n: Transportation Management 

Within three to five years of the final decision for the CCP, develop and adopt a transportation 

management plan (see also Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 depicting maps of the three transportation management 

alternatives). 

Public Access and Transportation: Manage a network of roads, routes, and trails to provide access for 

compatible wildlife-dependent public uses consistent with recognized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Setting descriptions for Primitive, Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded 

Natural, and Rural categories (see Appendix L). 

Other Access and Transportation: For roads and routes currently closed or not designated open to 

general public use, authorize access and transportation for administrative use necessary to implement 

management goals and objectives and for special uses such as mining claims, mill site claims, private 

lands, power line rights-of-way, and other non-public uses on a case-by-case basis by Special Use Permit. 

Special Use Permits would determine reasonable routes, modes, and frequency for transportation consistent 

with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Develop a brochure with a detailed transportation map and road 

policy.   

Implement seasonal road closures on routes open to public travel to 

reduce soil erosion and wildlife impacts.  

Continue to allow public use of all vehicle routes outside the 

proposed wilderness areas for wildlife-dependent public uses 

(approximately 365 miles; see Figure 2.1). 

 

Designate vehicle routes open to public use that are determined to 

have minimal or no impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat or 

impacts that can be minimized through management actions such as 

re-routing, placement of culverts, and construction of waterbars, and 

that also provide access determined necessary to support wildlifedependent public uses (approximately 300 miles, plus an additional 

25 miles that are proposed to be re-opened contingent upon 

wilderness proposal). Designate other routes necessary to support 

Sheldon Refuge operation and administrative needs (see Figure 2.2). 



Convert Kinney Camp access route to a pedestrian trail to support 

environmental interpretation and wildlife observation (see Figure 

2.2). 



Designate vehicle routes open to public use that are determined to 

have minimal or no impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat without 

additional management action to minimize or reduce impacts and that 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-67 

also provide access determined necessary to support wildlifedependent public uses (approximately 289 miles, plus an additional 

33 miles proposed to be re-opened contingent upon wilderness 

proposal). Designate other routes necessary to support refuge 

operations and administrative needs (see Figure 2.3). 

Identify and place signs indicating roads and routes closed to public 

use and the use of mechanized equipment and vehicles.  

Identify and place signs indicating roads and routes open to public 

use and the use of mechanized equipment and vehicles. Inform 

Sheldon Refuge visitors that all unmarked roads and routes are closed 

to public entry and use. 



Increase signage and develop an auto tour route adjacent to Highway 

140. 

Maintain all improved primary access routes (Highways 140, 8A, 34, 

34A; Summit Lake/Badger, Bog Hot, and Virgin Valley roads).  

Increase the frequency of maintenance on improved roads. 



Maintain only state, county, and other improved roads where 

agreements are currently in place (Highways 140, 8A, 34, 34A; 

Summit Lake/Badger and Bog Hot roads). 

 

Rehabilitate and naturalize closed, abandoned, or illegal roads and 

routes using methods that require minimal disturbances over the 

shortest distance necessary. 



Rationale: Vehicle access is important to support wildlife-dependent public uses on Sheldon Refuge, but a 

large number of routes have appeared over time as a result of mineral prospecting, ranching, fire 

suppression, and trespass. In addition, there is a need to allow access and transportation along other 

existing roads and routes for valid existing rights and uses. Sheldon Refuge is interested in providing for a 

variety of visitor experiences and access means, including vehicular, horseback, and pedestrian access. At 

present, there are several hundred miles of roads on Sheldon Refuge used by motorized vehicles, many of 

which are duplicative (i.e., they lead to the same destination), routed through sensitive ecological or 

cultural areas, or were not specifically opened for public uses and consequently have been closed. Within 

the Virgin Valley area alone, more than 120 miles of routes have been established through prospecting and 

mining. These routes are located in highly erodible soils, often cross seasonal drainages at unsuitable 

locations or without adequate construction, and provide little or no access necessary for wildlife-dependent 

public uses. Consequently, authorizing use of these routes on a case-by-case basis through a Special Use 

Permit may be appropriate, but there is no need to designate these routes open for general public use. Road 

status (open, closed, or administrative) should be based on a combination of administrative needs 

(including fire protection); habitat, wildlife, and wilderness concerns; cultural and historical resource 

protection; safety considerations; current public use program and anticipated changes; and maintenance 

capability. Roads open to vehicular traffic should be classified by vehicle capability, seasonal conditions, 

and long-term maintenance standards and needs. 

A comprehensive evaluation of the road network was completed for the entire network of roads and 

motorized routes throughout Sheldon Refuge. Each route was evaluated using three sets of criteria: 

1) Public Use criteria included associated wildlife-dependent uses; access to specific destinations; the 

presence of alternate routes in close proximity or to the same destination; conflicts with other uses; 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-68 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

law enforcement difficulties and issues associated with vehicle access; natural appearance and 

revegetation of the route; and hazards to public safety from current route condition. 

2) Resource Impact criteria received more weight in the evaluation than did Public Use criteria and 

included erosion and other soil impacts; damage to riparian habitats and other rare, unique or 

sensitive habitats (see Goal 4); disruption, disturbance, or harassment of wildlife; and impacts or 

disturbance to known sites of cultural, historic, or religious importance. The evaluation included 

impacts from use of the route itself and from activities associated with use of the route. 

3) Access and Transportation criteria included function of the route as a collector for other routes; as a 

route connecting to other existing roads outside the refuge; and as a route providing access to 

trailheads or key points of access to non-motorized portions of the refuge. 

The final determination for vehicle routes proposed under Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) included 

only those routes that had no net adverse impact or only slightly net adverse impacts that could be 

acceptably reduced through intensive management actions such as route realignment; culverts, waterbars, 

or other water control structures; or seasonal closure. Routes included under Alternative 3 included only 

those routes that had no net adverse impact or only a slightly net adverse impact that could be acceptably 

reduced through minimal management action and activity (e.g., seasonal closure). 

Photo 2.15 The majority of vehicle routes within Sheldon Refuge are primitive and 

not suitable for two-wheel drive (Photo Aaron Collins). 

Objective 8o: Commercial Outfitting and Guiding 

Within one year of the final decision for the CCP, develop and implement a Commercial Hunting Outfitter 

and Guide Operations Plan. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-69 

Review qualifications and issue five-year Special Use Permits for up 

to 10 commercial operators to guide and outfit hunters.   

Rationale: Commercial hunting guides often provide opportunities for hunters who would not be able to 

participate otherwise, and these guides increase the probability that less experienced hunters can enjoy a 

safe and successful opportunity which might be available only once in their lifetime. Sheldon Refuge 

encourages family oriented sport hunting consistent with promoting positive hunting values and hunter 

ethics. The hunting program at Sheldon Refuge emphasizes quality hunting experiences, which includes 

less crowding, less competition, fewer conflicts between hunters, relatively undisturbed wildlife, greater 

hunter safety, and less interference from or dependence on mechanized aspects of the sport. Commercial 

guiding activities authorized on refuge lands would contribute to these principles under established Special 

Use Permit conditions. Through a wilderness MRA, Sheldon Refuge has determined no more than 10 

commercial guide operations would be needed to provide necessary services to the public. Due to the large 

proportion of lands currently proposed for wilderness designation, the maximum number of 10 permits 

would apply to the entire Sheldon Refuge. Guides would compete for five-year Special Use Permits 

through a prospectus system based upon determination of which submitted proposals best meet criteria 

established by the Service and Sheldon Refuge, and which provide the best quality services to the public. 

Permits for guides in good standing could be renewed for one additional five-year period without 

competition. 

Objective 8p: Administrative Facilities 

Within five years of the final decision for the CCP, develop and implement a facilities plan to identify 

buildings and structures necessary to support refuge operations and enhance visitor services. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Maintain current Sheldon Refuge Office and shop complex at 

Dufurrena.  

Conduct energy audit implement recommendations to reduce energy 

costs.  

Relocate Sheldon Refuge administrative offices to Highway 140. 

Construct additional quarters and facilities to support increased 

staffing and volunteers necessary to implement the CCP. 

Rationale: To fully implement the CCP, additional facilities would be necessary to accommodate more 

volunteers and increased staffing. The current administrative offices for the Sheldon Refuge are located in 

a small mobile home trailer and are barely adequate for year-round operations. Maintaining the existing 

facilities would require remodeling and is expected to become increasingly more expensive due to the type 

and age of the trailer. The most efficient and cost-effective option to meet all needs is to construct a new 

facility along Highway 140 to accommodate both administrative and public use needs. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-70 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Photo 2.16 The Sheldon Refuge Office cannot accommodate the visiting public and 

the necessary office space. 

2.2.9 Goal 9. Protect and manage Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge 

Wilderness Study Areas to maintain wilderness character and values. 

Objective 9a: Wilderness Study Areas 

Manage WSAs to protect wilderness character. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Manage approximately 341,500 acres identified as WSAs and/or 

proposed wilderness area for naturalness, wildness, and opportunities 

for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 

 

Manage approximately 424,360 acres identified as WSAs and/or 

proposed wilderness area5

 for naturalness, wildness, and 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 



Manage approximately 384,325 acres identified as WSAs and/or 

proposed wilderness area for naturalness, wildness, and opportunities 

for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 

 

Continue to use motorized equipment and vehicles on previously 

established routes to conduct prescribed fire and selective thinning of 

juniper consistent with the 2001 MRA. 

 

 

5

 Acreage figures that include proposed wilderness areas differ slightly from the 1974 proposal due to more precise 

mapping techniques used for calculations in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-71 

Determine the minimum administrative action necessary within the 

proposed wilderness areas and WSAs through the CCP/EIS 

alternatives and impact analysis. 

  

Consistent with Refuge System policy for management of proposed 

wilderness areas, determine the minimum tool necessary to 

implement actions within each alternative, which could include 

activities otherwise prohibited by Section 4c of the Wilderness Act 

and Manual Section 610 FW 1.6. Actions to be analyzed include 

gathering of horses and burros; inventory, monitoring, and study of 

large mammals; removal of abandoned commercial livestock 

developments; restoration and rehabilitation of springs and playas; 

thinning and removal of expanding juniper; maintenance of guzzlers; 

and weed control (see Appendix G). 

 

Rationale: As part of the wilderness review, the Service determined that 388,772 acres on Sheldon Refuge 

satisfy the minimum criteria for wilderness and merit further evaluation as WSAs. These WSAs were 

further evaluated to determine their suitability for wilderness designation as part of the CCP/EIS. The 

remaining 50,405 acres were not found to meet the minimum criteria but were previously proposed for 

wilderness designation. Service policy (see 610 FW 4) also directs that WSAs are to be managed so as to 

not adversely affect wilderness character until completion of the wilderness review and, if appropriate, 

action by Congress. In addition, those areas proposed in 1974 for designation as wilderness will continue 

to be managed as wilderness until further action by the President and/or Congress. If and when the 

President proposes to Congress that the WSAs recommended by the Service be designated as wilderness, 

those proposed wilderness areas will be managed as wilderness in accordance with Service Policy 610 FW 

1. Current Service policy for the management of proposed WSAs was completed after the 2001 MRA for 

juniper treatment within Sheldon Refuge. To ensure consistency with current policy, a minimum 

requirement decision and analysis including an MRA needs to be completed for management activities 

planned within these areas. 

Objective 9b: Wilderness Recommendations 

Identify and recommend areas suitable for wilderness designation. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Recommend 341,500 acres previously proposed for wilderness 

designation (see Figure 2.4).  

Recommend approximately 341,495 acres for wilderness designation 

which best coincide with habitat management objectives and existing 

public uses (includes approximately 266,903 acres currently 

proposed, see Figure 2.5). 



Recommend approximately 236,791 acres for wilderness designation 

which represent the most pristine areas within Sheldon Refuge 

(includes approximately 193,966 acres currently proposed, see Figure 

2.6). 

 

Rationale: Consistent with the Wilderness Stewardship Policy (610 FW 1), Sheldon Refuge conducted a 

wilderness inventory and study in association with development of this CCP. Based upon this inventory 

and study, Sheldon Refuge proposes 341,495 acres be recommended for wilderness designation. This 

recommendation is included as Appendix F and is the preferred alternative for this CCP. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-72 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

The Big Mountain, Sage Hen Hills, Gooch Table, Fish Creek Mountain, Rye Creek, Round Mountain, 

Catnip Mountain, Big Spring Table, Railroad Point, Alkali Peak, Hell Creek, Guano Creek, Massacre Rim 

Contiguous, Sheldon Contiguous Inholdings, Fish Creek Table-Little Catnip, Bateman, and Tenmile WSAs 

have been determined to be suitable for wilderness designation. These recommendations are preliminary 

administrative determinations that will receive further review and possible modification by the director of 

the USFWS, the Secretary of the Interior, and/or the president of the United States. Congress has reserved 

the authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation. 

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. 

Objective 10a: Historic Structures (see Figure 5.1) 

Within 10 to 15 years of the final decision for the CCP, complete an inventory of historic structures and 

determine appropriate level of protection and preservation. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Maintain necessary law enforcement measures. 

  

Develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

  

Record all historic structures as Sheldon Refuge facilities for the 

purposes of asset and property management, evaluating historic 

priority, and maintaining Federal compliance. 

 

Continue minimal inventory, protection, and rehabilitation as current 

staff time and funding allow.  

Inventory and protect all sites through the use of partnerships, 

rehabilitate two to three of the most important structures, interpret 

one site (e.g., Kinney Camp or Virgin Valley Ranch), and collect an 

oral history. 



Collect new information on historic resources. 



Make some structures (i.e., Little Sheldon Civilian Conservation 

Corps Overlook Cabin or Badger Mountain Work Cabin) available 

for overnight rental, improve other structures for Sheldon Refuge use, 

and collect an oral history. 



Let sites deteriorate and revert to natural conditions. 

Rationale: Most historic structures within Sheldon Refuge are associated with late nineteenth and early 

twentieth century homesteading and ranching, or the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) activities between 

1935 and 1941 (see Table 5.1). Historic structures (with the exception of historic buildings at the Alkali 

Ranch) have had initial basic evaluations and surveys, but detailed inventories and collection of historic 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-73 

data have not been completed. These sites contain wood, stone, or concrete buildings and structures, as 

well as buried historic artifact deposits. The effects of weather and vandalism on them are increasingly 

evident with the passage of time. Visitors value these sites and often visit them. The highest priority 

structures would be rehabilitated. 

An untapped and important resource, which needs to be utilized as soon as possible, is the oral history, 

which can record information from long-time residents of the area and descendants of original settlers. 

With the continued passage of time, this rich history is forgotten or lost. 

Both the Kinney Camp and Virgin Valley Ranch sites provide the best opportunities for interpretation. 

Both are relatively accessible to the public and could easily be incorporated into the proposed auto tour 

route. The Virgin Valley Ranch is near wet meadow and riparian habitats and provides waterfowl and 

other wildlife viewing opportunities. Kinney Camp has several historic buildings and unique corral 

construction, with more opportunities for solitude and less evidence of modern developments, which help 

to recreate the historic setting for interpretation. 

Photo 2.17 The historic Kinney Camp homestead is centrally located to other public uses within Sheldon Refuge. 

Photo 2.18 The Overlook Cabin at the west entrance to Sheldon Refuge is 

representative of work done by the Civilian Conservation Corps. 

Objective 10b: Interpretation of Prehistoric Cultural Resources 

Use partnerships to opportunistically inventory, evaluate, stabilize, and interpret prehistoric cultural 

resources. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-74 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Conduct inventory, evaluation, and protection for Federal compliance 

at active refuge management sites.   

Develop and conduct a systematic inventory, evaluation, and 

protection plan for approximately 10% of Sheldon Refuge. 

Interpret and educate the public on prehistoric resources, 

emphasizing first peoples, prehistoric land, and resource use. 

Establish inventory and research program with universities and/or 

scientific organizations.  

Exchange information and coordinate planning with Tribes, historical 

institutions, and other preservation partners for research, 

interpretation, and protection of cultural resources. 

 

Rationale: Sheldon Refuge is rich with prehistoric cultural sites. They include rock art, lithic scatters, 

material quarries, resource utilization sites, and village sites. The two largest threats to archaeological sites 

at Sheldon Refuge are feral horses and disturbance associated with public use. Looting of archaeological 

and historic sites has been a serious problem for decades on Sheldon Refuge. 

To address these challenges the first need is to inventory and research a sample of the archaeological sites 

of Sheldon Refuge, particularly at places that sustain high use by the public or feral horses. Once the 

information potential and specific management needs of the resources have been identified, an 

implementation plan can be prepared to recover scientific data, stabilize erosion, protect cultural 

information, and interpret cultural resources for the public. Due to current staffing levels and higher 

priorities for any additional future staffing and programs, accomplishment of the strategies identified for 

this objective would be primarily through partnerships and agreements with other agencies and 

organizations. 

Photo 2.19 Petroglyphs scattered throughout Sheldon Refuge remind visitors of the 

region’s earliest inhabitants. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-75 

Objective 10c: Paleontological Resources 

Use partnerships to opportunistically inventory, evaluate, protect, and research paleontological resources. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Provide protection measures to ensure that important paleontological 

resources are not adversely impacted.   

Establish inventory and research program with universities or 

scientific organizations to identify, map, and research paleontological 

resources. 



Inventory and assess paleontological collections. 



Rationale: Preliminary studies carried out in the 1980s identified rich and diverse paleontological 

resources on Sheldon Refuge, primarily in the lacustrine deposits of Virgin Valley and the Thousand Creek 

basin. Limited excavation and collection of specimens by several universities occurred during this time. 

There was also a large expedition in the early 1900s. Since then little information has been gathered to 

identify and research the extent and importance of these resources. 

Objective 10d: Partnerships 

Develop partnerships opportunistically to help document and record cultural resources. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Establish inventory and research program with university or scientific 

programs.   

Work with local historical societies to research historic records and 

capture oral histories.  

Inventory and assess cultural resource collections. 

 

Initiate projects similar to Passport in Time projects conducted on 

National Forests. 

Rationale: Limited funding of the cultural resources program on Sheldon Refuge has, at present, mainly 

kept the program at a very basic level of site identification and compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA 

during active Refuge management projects. Only a small portion of Sheldon Refuge has been inventoried 

extensively and had sites recorded appropriately. Future increases in funding at Sheldon Refuge would be 

directed toward projects more directly related to the conservation of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. 

Therefore, accomplishment of objectives for the protection and management of historic, prehistoric, and 

paleontological resources could realistically be accomplished through continued development of 

partnerships.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-76 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Objective 10e: Tribal Coordination and Consultation 

Coordinate and consult with Tribes on natural and cultural resource protection. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Annually coordinate with staffs of Tribes. 

  

Share cultural resource information between Tribes and Sheldon 

Refuge.   

Establish Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

protocol and develop Memorandum of Understanding for handling 

inadvertent discoveries. 

  

Coordinate with tribal cultural resource programs to identify and plan 

for management of significant sites. 

Rationale: Although Sheldon Refuge has had direct consultation and meetings with the Northern Paiute 

Tribe in the past, it is important that communication and consultation become more regular and systematic 

on issues of shared interest. In partnership with local Tribes (e.g., Summit-Lake Paiute, Fort McDermott, 

Fort Bidwell, Burns-Paiute, and Cedarville Rancheria), Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act protocol and procedures for handling inadvertent discoveries of human remains, burial 

objects, and sacred objects need to be addressed. 

2.2.11Goal 11. Reduce illegal and unauthorized activities on Sheldon Refuge. 

Objective 11a: Law Enforcement 

Within five years of the final decision for the CCP, develop a Law Enforcement Plan. 

Alternatives Alt 1 

(no 

action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes)

Objective as written above applies to alternatives indicated ()   

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Work with partners to develop educations materials to avoid illegal 

activities.   

Provide adequate patrolling, and enforcement of regulations to 

eliminate unauthorized use of areas closed to public use of vehicles.  

Increase both law enforcement patrols and regular staff presence to 

reduce unauthorized or illegal activities.  

Provide training for staff to recognize and deal effectively with 

specialized violations. 

Rationale: Illegal and unauthorized uses that occur on Sheldon Refuge presently include illegal OHV use, 

camping outside of designated areas, poaching, archaeological theft, vandalism, and theft of refuge signs. 

Illegal uses persist partly because of the lack of public knowledge and support, as well as limited law 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 2-77 

enforcement capability. Currently the Sheldon Refuge Manager also serves as a law enforcement officer, 

and one full-time officer is assigned to both Sheldon and Hart Mountain refuges. Due to the vast area to 

patrol, additional law enforcement is necessary for adequate coverage. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-78 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

This page left blank intentionally. 
@"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

UV140

UV140

UV34A

UV8A

UV34

O R E G O N

N E VA D A

Catnip Reservoir

Big Spring Reservoir

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Private Lands (Inholdings)

@" Refuge Headquarters

9" Refuge Campgrounds

BLM Wilderness Study Areas

Highways

Existing Vehicle Routes

(clipped to Refuge)

Figure 2.1 

Public Vehicle Access for

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Alternative 1

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge FINAL CCP / EIS

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

0 3 6 Mi

0 6 12 Km. Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 4/12/2012

File: 10-092-4.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-80 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
@"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

?"

UV140

UV140

UV34A

UV8A

UV34

O R E G O N

N E VA D A

Catnip Reservoir

Big Spring Reservoir

Proposed location for

Sheldon NWR

Visitor Contact Station

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Private Lands (Inholdings)

BLM Wilderness Study Areas

@" Refuge Headquarters

?" Proposed Visitor Contact Station

9" Refuge Campgrounds

Public Vehicle Routes

(Alternative 2)

Public Vehicle Routes

(Alternative 2, Proposed)

Rehabilitate or Relocate

(Alternative 2)

Rehabilitate or Relocate

(Alternative 2, Proposed)

Highways

Figure 2.2 

Public Vehicle Access for

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Alternative 2

FINAL CCP / EIS Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

0 3 6 Mi

0 6 12 Km. Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 4/19/2012

File: 10-092-6.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-82 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
@"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

?"

UV140

UV140

UV34A

UV8A

UV34

O R E G O N

N E VA D A

Catnip Reservoir

Big Spring Reservoir

Proposed location for

Sheldon NWR

Visitor Contact Station

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Private Lands (Inholdings)

BLM Wilderness Study Areas

@" Refuge Headquarters

?" Proposed Visitor Contact Station

9" Refuge Campgrounds

Public Vehicle Routes

(Alternative 3)

Public Vehicle Routes

(Alternative 3, Proposed)

Rehabilitate or Relocate

(Alternative 3)

Rehabilitate or Relocate

(Alternative 3, Proposed)

Highways

Figure 2.3 

Public Vehicle Access for 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Alternative 3

FINAL CCP / EIS Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

0 3 6 Mi

0 6 12 Km. Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 4/12/2012

File: 10-092-5.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-84 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
@"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

?"

Summit 

Lake 

Rd

V irgin Va lley Rd

Knott Creek

Sagebr u sh Creek Rd

Bog 

Hot Rd

Cat n ip 

C r e e k

UV34A

UV34

UV8A

UV140

O R E G O N

N E VA D A

Catnip Reservoir

Big Spring Reservoir

Proposed location for

Sheldon NWR

Visitor Contact Station

0 3 6 Mi

0 6 12 Km

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Private Lands (Inholdings)

@" Refuge Headquarters

?" Proposed Visitor Contact Station

9" Refuge Campgrounds

Current Proposed Wilderness Areas

Recommended Wilderness Areas

(Alternative 1)

BLM Wilderness Study Areas

Highways

Existing Vehicle Routes

Figure 2.4 

Wilderness Recommendations

Alternative 1

FINAL CCP / EIS Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

. Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 4/12/2012

File: 10-092-7.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-86 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
@"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

?"

Summit 

Lake 

Rd

V irgin Va lley Rd

Knott Creek

Sagebr u sh Creek Rd

Bog 

Hot Rd

Cat n ip 

C r e e k

UV34A

UV34

UV8A

UV140

O R E G O N

N E VA D A

Catnip Reservoir

Big Spring Reservoir

Proposed location for

Sheldon NWR

Visitor Contact Station

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Private Lands (Inholdings)

@" Refuge Headquarters

?" Proposed Visitor Contact Station

9" Refuge Campgrounds

Current Proposed Wilderness Areas

Recommended Wilderness Areas

(Alternative 2)

BLM Wilderness Study Areas

Highways

Existing Vehicle Routes

Figure 2.5 

Wilderness Recommendations

Alternative 2

FINAL CCP / EIS Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

0 3 6 Mi

0 6 12 Km. Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 4/12/2012

File: 10-092-8.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-88 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
@"

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

?"

Summit 

Lake 

Rd

V irgin Va lley Rd

Knott Creek

Sagebr u sh Creek Rd

Bog 

Hot Rd

Cat n ip 

C r e e k

UV34A

UV34

UV8A

UV140

O R E G O N

N E VA D A

Catnip Reservoir

Big Spring Reservoir

Proposed location for

Sheldon NWR

Visitor Contact Station

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

Private Lands (Inholdings)

@" Refuge Headquarters

?" Proposed Visitor Contact Station

9" Refuge Campgrounds

Current Proposed Wilderness Areas

Recommended Wilderness Areas

(Alternative 3)

BLM Wilderness Study Areas

Highways

Existing Vehicle Routes

Figure 2.6 

Wilderness Recommendations

Alternative 3

FINAL CCP / EIS Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

0 3 6 Mi

0 6 12 Km. Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 4/12/2012

File: 10-092-9.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

2-90 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.1 Geographic and Ecosystem Setting 

3.1.1 Great Basin Ecosystem 

The Great Basin Ecosystem is defined by sagebrush-steppe, salt desert shrub, and pinyon-juniper 

woodland habitats and the various other fish and wildlife species which live within those habitats. 

This ecosystem encompasses a portion of the Columbia Basin Plateau in eastern Oregon and 

southern Idaho as well as the Great Basin Region extending from the Sierra Nevada Mountains in 

eastern California, across most of Nevada north of the Mojave Desert, to the Rocky Mountains in 

western Utah. The Great Basin Ecosystem, comprising three ecoregions—the Columbia Plateau, 

Great Basin, and Wyoming Basins—supports the majority of sagebrush in North America (Suring et 

al. 2005a). 

The majority of Sheldon Refuge falls within the Great Basin, and secondly, Columbia Plateau 

ecoregions. Sheldon Refuge is dominated by expansive communities of sagebrush steppe. 

Approximately 111 million acres of the northern intermountain region in the United States are 

classified as true sagebrush steppe, which predominantly consists of a sagebrush shrub component 

with an understory of native bunchgrasses and forbs (West 1999). The sagebrush-steppe ecosystem 

now constitutes one of North America’s most imperiled and neglected ecosystems (Dobkin and 

Sauder 2004; Mac et al. 1998; Noss and Peters 1995). 

3.2 Climate 

Variability is a natural part of the climate system and has occurred throughout the earth’s history 

driven by complex interactions among the earth’s solar orbit, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, 

continental ice sheets, ocean circulation, and other factors (see summary by Inkley et al. 2004). 

However, it is widely accepted by the scientific community that the earth is now undergoing a period 

of rapid climate change at a rate that has the potential to result in abrupt changes in ecosystems and 

mass species extinctions (Inkley et al. 2004; USFWS 2008b). Increasing surface and water 

temperatures; rising sea-level; melting sea ice and glaciers; changing precipitation patterns; growing 

frequency and severity of storms; and increasing ocean acidification are among the many climatedriving changes observed to date (USFWS 2008b). In addition, climate change may magnify the 

influences of other threats to ecosystem conservation on national wildlife refuges, including habitat 

loss and fragmentation, changes in water quality and quantity, and increased transportation corridors 

(Scott et al. In Review). As summarized by Scott et al. (In Review), the current threats to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System potentially exacerbated by climate change include invasive nonnative species, plant and animal disease, urbanization and increased economic pressure, altered 

hydrological regimes, sea level rise, extreme weather events, and regime shift (entire ecological 

communities transformed from historical conditions, either latitudinal or altitudinal). 

Specific to the Great Basin, documented climate changes have occurred during the past 100 years, 

including 1) region-wide warming; 2) increase in precipitation; 3) decline in snow pack; and 4) 

earlier spring arrival (Chambers 2008). Region-wide warming, while widespread, has varied across 

the region (Wagner 2003). Minimum temperatures have increased more than maximum 

temperatures, and the variability in inter-annual temperatures has declined. As a result, the 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

3-2 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

probability of very warm years has increased and very cold years declined (Chambers 2008). Since 

the 1950s, annual precipitation across the Great Basin has increased 6%-16%. Variability between 

years has also increased, with a heightened probability of extreme high-precipitation years 

(Chambers 2008). Trends in the April 1st snow pack have been declining at most monitoring sites in 

the Great Basin. Elevation and mean winter temperature have a strong effect on snow pack, with the 

warmest sites exhibiting the largest losses (Chambers 2008). Finally, the timing of spring snowmeltdriven streamflow is now approximately 10 to 15 days earlier than in the mid-1900s, including an 

increase in variability between years in spring flow (Baldwin et al. 2003; Stewart et al. 2004). 

Although future climate is impossible to accurately predict, the comparison of various climate 

models and extensive analysis has led to some generally accepted predictions for the next 100 years 

(see discussion by Inkley et al. 2004). The degree of future climate change will depend on the 

increase of CO2 by 2100 and will vary in the Great Basin due to large differences in topography 

(Chambers 2008). Warming is projected to increase between 2 and 5 ̊C (3.6 to 9 ̊F) over the next 

century for Western ranges (Cubashi et al. 2001). There is greater variability among models for 

projected precipitation changes (Inkley et al. 2004), and average projected changes across the West 

are near zero (Cubashi et al. 2001). However, losses in snow pack are likely to continue and even 

accelerate (Mote et al. 2005). Most watersheds in the Great Basin exhibit high natural variability in 

unregulated streamflow (Hurd et al. 1999), and this variability may increase (Chambers 2008). 

Climate trends that lead to changes in hydrology will have a large effect on wetlands and other 

shallow water bodies (Scott et al. In Review). One scenario for western stream flows are changes in 

the current seasonal proportionality of flows: increased winter flow; reduced and earlier spring peaks; 

and reduced summer and fall flows (Chambers 2008). Water resources in these arid regions are 

already in high demand and changes or decreases in water availability will exacerbate competition 

for water between wildlife, urban centers, agriculture (Hurd et al. 1999), and livestock. Plant 

invaders, including annual grasses (e.g., cheatgrass), perennial forbs, and woody species may be 

advantaged by higher levels of CO2. In addition, grazing by cattle on refuges in arid regions may 

exacerbate the effects of drought stress and aid in the spread of exotic species (Scott et al. In 

Review); grazing by feral horses and burros is likely to have similar impacts. Some suggest that 

grazing may also interact with climate-driven vegetation changes to further alter plant communities 

and wildlife habitat in these areas (Donahue 1999). 

Naturally occurring climate cycles impact the life cycles and demographics of both individual 

wildlife species and certain relationships among species (see Kim et al. 2008). Potentially more 

important for ecosystems and wildlife than projected climate change are changes in variability and 

extremes (Inkley et al. 2004). Models predict more hot extremes and fewer cold extremes; reduced 

day and night temperature differences as nighttime temperatures raise more than daytime 

temperatures; decreased relative humidity; and increased heat indices (Brown et al. 2004; Inkley et 

al. 2004). These factors will likely extend fire seasons, with more fires occurring earlier and later 

than is currently typical, thereby increasing the total area burned in some regions (McKenzie et al. 

2004). If climate change increases the variability and length of time for extreme fire weather, larger 

and more severe fires could be expected (Chambers 2008). The effect of unusually wet years on fuel 

accumulation will be especially important in dry, sparsely vegetated areas such as desert grass and 

shrublands (Kipfmueller and Swetnam 2000). In more arid portions of the Great Basin, the 

frequency and extent of fire is likely to be higher in years with better growing conditions (high fall, 

winter, and spring precipitation) and as a result of fuel accumulation the previous growing season 

(Westerling et al. 2006). Progressive invasion by cheatgrass, expansion of pinyon-juniper species, 

and increases in tree density are likely to result in increases in fire frequency and severity (Link et al. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-3 

2006; Miller et al. In Press). Infectious diseases and insect outbreaks could also increase under 

several different warming scenarios (Logan 2006), placing other species at risk. 

As temperature and rainfall patterns change, some species will likely benefit and others may not 

(Inkley et al. 2004). For example, inhabitants of high elevation zones may experience shrinking 

habitats and local extinctions may occur among mammalian, avian, and butterfly species (Murphy 

and Weiss 1992); amphibians and reptiles in these areas may be at particular risk (see Inkley et al. 

2004). Localized species which are limited in their distribution and do not migrate will also likely be 

some of the most highly impacted. For a sampling of species-specific examples see Epps et al. 

(2004), Beever et al. (2008), Kim et al. (2008), and Zakharov and Hellmann (2008). Of particular 

interest for Sheldon Refuge, simulations indicate that the potential range of big sagebrush (Artemisia 

tridentata), a dominant and vital species in the area, may shift northward in response to increases in 

the mean temperature of the coldest month accompanied by a significant contraction of its current 

range (Shafer et al. 2001). Others predict that the most shrubland losses in the United States will 

occur in the Great Basin, where the potential for increased precipitation will lead to the replacement 

of shrubs by savannas; savannas have been simulated to increase by more than 50% under several 

warm scenarios (Bachelet et al. 2001). 

Overall, range shifts in plants are likely to depend upon factors including soil types, migratory 

pathways, seed dispersal mechanisms, and pollinator availability. Shifts by wildlife are likely 

dependent upon availability of migration corridors, suitable habitats, and concurrent movement of 

forage and prey. Further complicating these potential shifts will be other landscape changes such as 

roads, urban development, and habitat fragmentation, all of which can present significant barriers to 

species range shifts (Inkley et al. 2004). 

3.3 Hydrology 

3.3.1 Water Resources 

Water resources within Sheldon Refuge are typical of the closed watersheds in the Great Basin—

with no outlet to an ocean. Streams, ponds, and playas within these watersheds are intermittent and 

typically dry during the summer months. There are also numerous wetlands and springs within 

Sheldon Refuge. These water resources support wetland communities that make up a small fraction 

of the land area of Sheldon Refuge. Despite the small size they are crucial oasis for the majority of 

wildlife on Sheldon Refuge. Numerous artificial water resources have been created throughout 

Sheldon Refuge in the form of reservoirs, stock ponds, guzzlers, and pit reservoirs 

Sheldon Refuge water supply is dependent on the accumulation of snow during the winter months. 

The size of the winter snowpack, and its persistence into the early summer, determines how much 

water will accumulate in playas and reservoirs and how much will flow through the creeks. 

3.3.1.1 Streams/Creeks 

In general streams at Sheldon Refuge are small, often less than 5 feet wide. Year-round flow is not 

common except in reaches near springs or areas where the water table is close to the ground surface. 

Badger Creek is the only stream system within Sheldon Refuge for which hydrologic data have been 

collected (USGS 2010a). These data were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) between 

1963 and 1973 and are probably characteristic of most streams within Sheldon Refuge. As shown in 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

3-4 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Figure 3.1.A, surface water has been relatively common during snowmelt runoff, between March and 

June, but typically dry for the remainder of the year. Nearly 75% of the days for which flows in 

Badger Creek were above 0 cubic feet per second (cfs) occurred between March and June (Figure 

3.1.B). Stream gage data collected at Mahogany Creek (USGS 2010b; Figure 3.2A), located just 

south of Sheldon Refuge, show a similar pattern for the percentage of days where stream flow 

exceeded 0 cfs with about 65% of all runoff occurring between March and July during snowmelt 

runoff (Figure 3.2.B). 

A

Date

1/1/63 1/1/64 1/1/65 1/1/66 1/1/67 1/1/68 1/1/69 1/1/70 1/1/71 1/1/72 1/1/73 

Discharge (cfs)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Average flow: 0.14 cfs

B

Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Percent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

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. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-5 

A

Year

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Discharge (cfs)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Average flow: 3.38 cfs

B

Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Percent 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

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. 

The Virgin Creek/Thousand Creek watershed is the largest stream system within Sheldon Refuge 

(Photo 3.1). Virgin Creek flows year-round along most of its length and supports extensive wet 

meadow and riparian habitat in the Virgin Valley. Although many other creeks on Sheldon may flow 

continuously during the snowmelt period, year-round flow is only found in the vicinity of springs or 

in areas where the water table is close to the ground surface. 

3.3.1.2 Springs/Seeps 

A spring “is a place where ground water flows from rock or soil onto the ground surface” (Wilson 

and Moore 1998). There have been 130 springs identified on Sheldon Refuge concentrated in the 

western and southern portions of Sheldon Refuge (Collins 2009). These springs are important 

because they are often the only year-round water source for streams and wetlands. A spring’s aquifer 

is analogous to a stream’s watershed. With Sheldon Refuge it is believed the aquifers for springs 

above 6,000 feet in elevation have different water sources than those at lower elevations. 

More than 50% of springs within Sheldon Refuge are above 6,000 feet in elevation (Figure 3.3). The 

aquifers for these springs are very likely localized, relatively small, and receive most of their flow 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

3-6 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Photo 3.1 Nearly the entire Virgin Creek watershed is within Sheldon Refuge. 

Sheldon Springs by Elevation

Elevation Zone

12345678

Percentage of Springs in Zone

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

4060 ft 5742 ft 7886 ft

Zone From To

1 4060 4733

2 4733 5322

3 5322 5742

4 5742 6036

5 6036 6330

6 6330 6667

7 6667 7150

8 7150 7886

Figure 3.3 Percentage of springs found in different elevation zones on Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

from annual snowmelt. These characteristics cause flow to be highly variable throughout the year as 

snowmelt water travels only a relatively short distance before being forced onto the ground surface—

leaving little flow at the spring later in the year. This dependence on snowmelt and annual 

precipitation makes these higher elevation springs much more susceptible to changes in climate and 

local weather patterns. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-7 

For springs at lower elevations, aquifers are generally much larger, collect larger amounts of water, 

and have much more consistent flow throughout the year as water gradually percolates through a 

permeable rock such as fractured basalt and travels longer distances before eventually being forced 

onto the ground surface by an impermeable rock such as the volcanic tuff layers commonly found 

within Sheldon Refuge (Photo 3.2). The distribution of springs on Sheldon Refuge suggests this 

scenario is plausible. Nearly 78% of the mapped springs are found between 5,700 and 6,700 feet, 

which is comparable to the elevation where most tuff deposits are exposed (USGS 1984). 

Photo 3.2 Lower elevation springs like the one shown are commonly found at the 

bottom of draws and small canyons. 

3.3.1.3 Water Improvements 

Early pioneers in the Sheldon area quickly recognized that successful agriculture required irrigation 

during the summer months. These settlers built most of the region’s large reservoirs to help ensure 

water was available through July, August, and September. By the time Sheldon Refuge was 

established, the biggest reservoirs (Catnip, Big Spring, and Swan Lake) were already built. Early 

management activities on Sheldon Refuge focused on additional development of water resources to 

increase year-round water for wildlife. Ponds were dug in seeps, spring flow diverted to watering 

troughs, and stock ponds built. Although these activities have been common since the 1930s there is 

debate about how effective these activities are for wildlife (Broyles 1995). 

There have been 183 water improvements identified on Sheldon Refuge (Figure 3.4). These 

improvements include reservoirs, stock ponds, pit reservoirs, gabions, diversion canals, and water 

control structures. Figure 3.4 also includes digitized boundaries of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

3-8 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Figure 3.4 Mapped water improvements and USGS National Hydrography Dataset water 

bodies on Sheldon Refuge. 

Note: Water improvement data should be considered draft until field verified. 

Reservoirs 

Reservoirs on Sheldon Refuge support fishery resources as well as habitat for waterfowl and wildlife. 

The largest are presented in Table 3.1. 

Table 3.1 Twelve Largest Reservoirs on Sheldon Refuge 

Name Acres Name Acres 

Swan Lake* 643 Big Spring* 249 

Rye Patch* 109 Alkali 85 

Catnip* 73 Racetrack* 31 

Bog Hot 22 Dufurrena 21* 21 

Dufurrena 20* 15 Dufurrena 13* 14 

Dufurrena 19* Rock Springs Table* 

Acreages were derived from data in the USGS National Hydrography Dataset. Bog Hot is located on a 

private inholding and Dufurrena 13 is being re-configured. Reservoirs marked with an asterisk are 

inventory dams according to USFWS Dam Safety. 

Catnip Reservoir, Big Spring Reservoir, and the Dufurrena Ponds typically hold water year-round. 

The remaining reservoirs fill seasonally or may only have water in them during multi-year wet 

Catnip Mtn

Rock Spr. Table

Gooch Table

Big Spr. Butte

Swan Lake

Catnip Res.

Big Spring Res.

Alkali Lake

Dufurrena Ponds

Virgin Creek

Badger Creek

Craine Creek

Thousand Creek

Wall Canyon Creek

State Route 140

Sheldon NAR:

Water Improvements Mapped by Sheldon and WRB Staff

0246 1 Miles I Water Body

Stream

Stream Intermittent

Refuge Boundary

Other Highway

Principal Highway

Elevation (ft)

4060 - 4733

4733 - 5322

5322 - 5742

5742 - 6036

6036 - 6330

6330 - 6667

6667- 7150

7150 - 7886

Water Improvements
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-9 

periods. The USFWS Dam Safety program has identified 10 inventory dams on Sheldon Refuge. 

Inventory dams are higher than 6 feet and store more than 20 acre-feet of water (see Table 3.1). 

Fifty-two of the water improvements in Figure 3.4 have been identified as dams impounding water. 

Most of these are in fact small check dams or dikes less than 10 feet high built using soil and rock 

from upslope to create what is commonly referred to as a stock pond. 

Stock ponds 

Stock ponds are typically earthen dams built across ephemeral drainages or depressions. These small 

reservoirs are intended to capture snowmelt runoff and create a watering place that will persist into 

summer. Ponds form behind these check dams in the spring and early summer but will usually be 

dry by mid-summer. Seventy water improvements in Figure 3.4 are identified as stock ponds. 

Guzzlers 

Guzzlers are water improvements built to provide an additional water source for wildlife where none 

existed before. These contraptions collect precipitation and divert it into a water storage tank. Water 

in the tank is fed into a small drinking trough that wildlife can access. There are 18 guzzlers 

identified on Sheldon Refuge. Of these, 12 are designed for chukar and six are designed for bighorn 

sheep. Most of these are built and maintained by NDOW. 

Playas/pit reservoirs 

Playas are natural depressions where water collects in the spring and early summer. Water is 

typically less than 6 inches deep and present during snowmelt runoff or after larger rain events. 

These features are usually dry each summer and may not have water in them for several years. Early 

settlers and refuge staff developed many playas by excavating large pits in them (Photo 3.3). These 

pits hold water longer in the summer and at greater depths than undisturbed playas. Twenty-two 

water improvements shown in Figure 3.4 are pit reservoirs in playas. Although there are other playas 

on Sheldon Refuge they have not been identified as having pit reservoirs in them. 

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). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

3-10 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.3.1.4 Wetland Resources 

Wetlands at Sheldon occur wherever there is permanent water. 

Wet meadows 

Wet meadows are found in the valleys adjacent to the larger streams on Sheldon Refuge. They are 

typically associated with streams and springs that flow year-round, such as Virgin and Thousand 

creeks. Small wet meadow communities (<3 acres in size) are found in the vicinity of high elevation 

springs and seeps. 

Wet meadows are defined as areas that may flood with surface water for portions of the year and the 

water table is within 10 feet of the ground surface, year-round. The vegetation community is 

dominated by wetland plant species such as sedges and rushes. Ranchers historically grazed cattle in 

these areas and today overuse by feral horses and burros is damaging many of these meadows. 

Meadows with extensive grazing suffer from soil compaction, vegetation removal, and headcutting. 

Headcuts occur where surface water runoff initiates sudden downward soil erosion. Once this type 

of erosion becomes established an incised drainage channel forms, lowering the water table and 

drying the adjacent meadow habitat. 

Riparian communities 

Riparian habitat is an important resource for wildlife on Sheldon Refuge. These communities are 

associated with year-round water in creeks and some of the larger springs. Vegetation is dominated 

by willows and stands of aspen or cottonwood. 

Like any habitat near a permanent water supply many of Sheldon Refuge’s riparian communities 

were grazed when cattle were allowed on Sheldon Refuge. Today, feral horses and burros continue 

to impact these areas by removing vegetation and compacting soil (USFWS 2007a). Beaver 

introduced into the Virgin Creek watershed in the 1950s led to destruction of some of the aspen 

forests there. Today, beaver dams in the Virgin Creek drainage have helped create thick stands of 

willows. 

Open water marsh 

Marshes are usually associated with human-made impoundments. The Dufurrena Ponds and the IXL 

wetland impoundments are examples of this habitat type. Cattail and bulrush (tule) are the dominant 

wetland vegetation although willows can become established in these areas too. Virtually all of these 

communities are associated with human-made or beaver-built impoundments. 

3.3.1.5 Groundwater Resources 

Groundwater resources in the Sheldon area were investigated by Sinclair (1963a, 1963b) for the State 

of Nevada. It appears that there have not been any other significant investigations of groundwater 

resources on Sheldon since then. 

Sinclair (1963b) concluded that most groundwater in the area is found in the unconsolidated sands 

and gravels (alluvium) that have accumulated in Sheldon Refuge’s valleys. He speculated that a 

groundwater barrier exists at the head of Thousand Creek Gorge. Groundwater “backs up” upstream 

of this barrier, helping keep the water table near the ground surface in the Virgin Valley. The high 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-11 

water table in the valley maintains wetland habitat and perennial flow in Virgin Creek. Similar 

hydrogeologic conditions may exist in other valleys with permanent water. 

The Virgin Valley and other valleys like it have enough water in them to support some groundwater 

production. However, these basins are not large enough to support development beyond local 

domestic uses. Groundwater development for municipal or industrial uses would quickly deplete 

groundwater resources in the local valley-fill aquifers and lead to drying nearby wet meadow, 

riparian, and stream ecosystems. 

At the present it appears that groundwater development on Sheldon is limited to domestic production 

primarily in the Virgin Valley Mining Area. Well log records from Nevada Department of Water 

Resources identify 12 wells that have been drilled within Sheldon Refuge, 10 of which are located in 

the Virgin Creek/Thousand Creek watershed. 

The current scale of groundwater development does not appear to be affecting water resources in the 

Virgin Valley. However, if development increases, water resources could be impacted quickly. 

Groundwater development in the Virgin Valley Mining Area is a more direct threat to water 

resources than development outside Sheldon Refuge. Groundwater pumping from alluvial deposits 

in the Virgin Valley would lower the water table and reduce the extent of permanent, year-round 

Virgin Creek flow. 

3.3.1.6 Water Supply and Climate Change 

The water supply for all water resources on Sheldon Refuge is dependent on the accumulation of 

snow during the winter months. Runoff and precipitation patterns (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2) indicate 

snow accumulation and subsequent melting determines how much water will infiltrate into 

groundwater aquifers, accumulate in reservoirs, and the extent of year-round flow in refuge creeks. 

3.3.2 Water Quality 

A review of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) online data (EPA 2010) indicates there are no 

Total Maximum Daily Load or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System violations in the 

vicinity of Sheldon Refuge. 

Most of Sheldon Refuge is uninhabited with very little development. The greatest concentration of 

infrastructure on Sheldon Refuge is in the Virgin Valley Mining Area in the form of roads, houses, 

and mining operations. There is a threat of sediment runoff into wetlands and ponds from adjacent 

mining operations and roads during storm events. 

3.3.3 Water Rights 

Water in Nevada is considered a resource of the State. The State grants individuals, corporations, 

municipalities, and government agencies the right to use the State’s water. 

Sheldon Refuge’s size and remoteness protects most of the identified water resources inside Sheldon 

Refuge. Because, the headwaters of the largest streams are inside Sheldon Refuge there is little 

chance upstream users can divert water from stream resources. High elevation springs are fed by 

local aquifers inside Sheldon Refuge boundary and above potential groundwater development areas. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

3-12 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

A review of water right files in the Service’s Water Resources Branch office and State of Nevada’s 

water right database identified 139 possible water rights or Federal reserve water right claims within 

the boundaries of Sheldon Refuge, the majority of which are either appropriative or reserved water 

rights belonging to the Service. Three water rights are not held by the Service and are located on 

private inholdings. 

Water rights within Sheldon Refuge are associated with springs, streams, wetlands, wells, reservoirs, 

ditches and canals. Of particular interest in the CCP is the management of certain reservoirs and 

associated aquatic and riparian habitats. A more detailed discussion of other water rights within 

Sheldon Refuge is included in the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Water Resource Assessment 

Report (Wurster 2009). 

3.3.3.1 Reservoirs and Water Rights 

Forty-four of the water improvements identified in Figure 3.4 are identified as dams and 71 are 

identified as stock ponds. Of the 183 water improvements, 28 are associated with an existing 

appropriative water right Place of Use (Table 3.2). 

Two (Alkali and Big Spring) of the 18 reservoirs have storage rights associated with them. The 

others do not have rights to store water but there are rights to use water from those reservoirs to 

irrigate fields and water stock. Fortunately, in Nevada the right to use water from a reservoir confers 

the right to store water in that reservoir (Palmer 1993). 

Three reservoirs in Table 3.3 are found on inholdings or inside the Virgin Valley Mining Area. 

These include a small dam in the vicinity of Bog Hot Springs and a small check dam on Badger 

Creek at the Kennedy Property. 

Table 3.2 Named Reservoirs and Stock Ponds within 750 Feet of an Appropriative Water Right 

Place of Use 

Reservoir/Stock Pond Name Reservoir/Stock Pond Name 

Alkali Lake Big Spring Reservoir 

Catnip Reservoir Campground Pond 

Dufurrena Pond 19 Dufurrena Pond 20 

Dufurrena Pond 21 Dufurrena Pond 22 

IXL North Impoundment A IXL North Impoundment B 

North Lake Rye Patch Reservoir 

Sheep Pen Reservoir Smith Lake 

Swan Lake South Lake 

Stock Pond at Catnip Springs Swan Mountain Reservoir 

Table 3.3 Reservoirs, Stock Ponds, and Pit Reservoirs with Prepared Federal Reserve Water 

Right Claims 

Reservoir Name Reservoir Name Reservoir Name Reservoir Name 

Andy’s Reservoir Balzedar Beside 34A Big Basin #3 

Buzzard’s Roost Celia Middle Center Center 

Chukar Gunsight Highway 140 Hobble Spring #2 

Hobble Spring #3 Horse Lake Jog Little Lake 

Lower Jacobs Middle Jacobs Mud Spring North Onion Lake 

North Sagehen North Swan Creek Nut Mountain Perlite 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-13 

Reservoir Name Reservoir Name Reservoir Name Reservoir Name 

Racetrack Springs Rainbow Rock Springs Table Round Mtn. Lake 

Section 18 Section 8 Sidehill Spring South Onion Lake 

South Swan Creek Swan Lake Trench The Knob Unnamed #1 

Unnamed #2 Unnamed #3 Upper Jacobs Upper Wall Canyon 

West Boundary 

3.4 Topography 

The entire Sheldon Refuge is located between 4,230 and 7,300 feet in elevation, with more than 12 

mountain tops over 6,500 feet. The topography of Sheldon Refuge is characterized by large expanses 

of high basalt plateaus or “tables” and broad mountains separated from one another by valleys and 

canyons. The most dramatic of these canyons is Thousand Creek Gorge with cliffs dropping more 

than 450 vertical feet from the basalt table rim (Photo 3.4). Located in the eastern portion of Sheldon 

Refuge, Thousand Creek itself flows into the dry Bog Hot Valley which is at the lowest elevation of 

Sheldon Refuge. Catnip Mountain with its broad ridges is deceptively the highest point within 

Sheldon Refuge at 7,292 feet. The western portion of Sheldon Refuge differs somewhat with more 

typical mountain and valley topography including Yellow Peak, which drops abruptly from its 7,191 

foot summit to the bottom of Long Valley 1,600 feet below. 

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). 

3.5 Geology/Soils 

Soils in Sheldon are semi-arid, very young, and poorly developed. The soils are largely a result of 

lake sedimentation, volcanic activity, and water erosion. Chemical and biological soil development 

processes, such as rock weathering, decomposition of plant materials, accumulation of organic 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

3-14 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

matter, and nutrient cycling proceed slowly in this environment. Soil recovery processes are also 

slow; therefore, disruption of soil can lead to long-term changes in ecology and productivity. In 

many areas, natural or geologic erosion rates are too fast to develop distinct, deep soil horizons. The 

soils of Sheldon Refuge are complex and diverse. 

Management practices may affect soils’ ability to maintain productivity by influencing disturbances 

such as displacement, compaction, erosion, and alteration of organic matter and soil organism levels. 

When soil degradation occurs in semi-arid, high desert regions, natural processes are slow to return 

site productivity. Prevention of soil degradation is far more cost-effective and time-effective than 

remediation or waiting for natural processes. Any activities that remove vegetative cover increase 

the erosion rate. Some soils are particularly vulnerable to soil erosion. If the surface layers of these 

soils are washed or blown away, the productivity potential is lost for a geologic time span (BLM 

2003). 

The following soils map unit descriptions are excerpted from the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge 

Renewable Natural Resources Management Plan (USFWS 1980). 

The Rolling Hills map unit occurs in mountainous terrain and foot slopes of prominent hills from 

6,000 to 6,500 feet in elevation. Soils are moderately deep to deep and stony or gravelly on the 

surface. Erosion hazard is moderate. About 71,598 acres or 12% of Sheldon is covered by this unit. 

The Rockland map unit occurs around 6,000 feet elevation in small clumps or strips on rocky ridges 

and similar mountainous areas where bedrock outcrops occur. Soils on this unit are shallow to 

moderately deep over basalt bedrock and are stony and gravelly throughout. Erosion hazard is slight 

to moderate. This unit occupies about 4,200 acres or 0.7% of Sheldon Refuge. 

The Stony Terrace and Claypan Terrace map units occur on gently sloping tablelands around 5,600 

feet elevation. These units often occur in association; with the soils of stony terrace being very stony 

on the surface and the soils of claypan terrace having gravelly loamy surface layers. Stony terrace 

occupies 93,500 acres or 16% of Sheldon while claypan terrace occupies 100,000 acres or 17% of 

Sheldon Refuge. 

The Arid Rolling Hills map unit occurs on nearly level to rolling areas from 4,300 to 5,400 feet 

elevation. Soils of this unit are shallow, very stony, and have a moderate erosion potential. This unit 

occupies 63,900 acres or 11% of Sheldon Refuge. 

The Arid Loamy Terrace map unit occurs on nearly level to gently sloping basin terraces from 4.500 

to 5,500 feet elevation. The soils are gravelly throughout with a hardpan or cemented gravel at 18 

inches. Erosion hazard is slight. About 95,927 acres or 17% of Sheldon is covered by this unit. 

The Snow Pockets map unit occurs on north facing slopes where snowdrifts form and persist after 

snow is gone from the general terrain. Slope gradient is from 15% to 60% and elevation is above 

6,000 feet. 

The Mountain Swale map unit occurs in mountainous terrain as narrow alluvial fans in the bottom of 

drainages and as small basin-like depressions in the uplands. Elevation is about 6,000 to 7,000 feet. 

Soils are loamy, deep and very gravelly, and erosion hazard is slight. Only 201 acres of this unit 

occur on Sheldon in isolated patches. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-15 

The Poorly Drained Bottom map unit occurs as nearly level bottoms in basins having large or 

mountainous watersheds and is usually associated with perennial springs. Elevation is 4,500 to 6,500 

feet. Surface soil layers are black; subsoils are very gray and mottled due to poor drainage. A 

restrictive layer usually occurs at three to four feet which retains the water table. Hazard for gully 

erosion is high. There are only 444 acres of meadow on Sheldon Refuge. 

The Rolling Hills and Juniper South Exposure map units occur on prominent hills, ridges, plateaus, 

and south facing slopes with a 2% to 50% gradient. Elevation is about 4,300 to 6,000 feet. Soils are 

stony to very stony throughout the profile and are usually shallow over basalt bedrock. Erosion is 

slight. These two map units cover 820 acres on Sheldon Refuge. 

The Aspen Grove map unit occurs near some springs on Sheldon but the areas are very small. Soils 

of this unit have thick, dark colored surface layers with loamy and gravelly subsoils. Erosion hazard 

is slight. 

Riparian areas occur along Hell, Virgin, Catnip, and Fish creeks and some spring sites. The soil is 

easily eroded. 

The Virgin Valley Hills are a unique geological and physiographic area. It is typified by lacustrine 

deposits, steep truncated slopes and butte caps of igneous rock. The soil is extremely fragile and 

erodible. About 34,208 acres or 6% of Sheldon is in this area. 

3.6 Environmental Contaminants 

A number of sites within Sheldon Refuge have been evaluated for environmental contaminants, 

including lead-based paint, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and soil contaminants from past 

mining activities. 

In 2001 lead paint screening was conducted for 16 sites, which included a number of structures and 

buildings. Samples indicated elevated levels of lead from one small building at the Little Sheldon 

Headquarters/Work Station. Also in 2001, 17 measurements were taken to detect VOCs, with no 

positive results. 

Soil samples collected in 2001 indicated a moderate threat from lead contamination associated with 

buildings at the IXL Ranch, the Little Sheldon Headquarters/Work Station, and the Virgin Valley 

Ranch. Mercury contamination at an abandoned mining site along Hell Creek was determined to 

pose a relatively low threat (USFWS 2001a). 

3.7 Land Use 

Within Sheldon Refuge are a relatively small amount of private lands, including inholdings and 

patented mining claims. These inholdings and patented claims are entirely surrounded by public 

lands and as a result, some have permits for vehicle access, electric transmission lines, and other uses 

which affect Sheldon Refuge. 

The vast majority of lands surrounding Sheldon Refuge are public lands managed by the BLM. As 

multiple-use public lands, a wide variety of land uses occur on surrounding BLM lands. Uses 

include mining, grazing, high-voltage electrical transmission lines, natural gas transmission 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

3-16 Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

pipelines, geothermal energy development, wind energy development, OHV recreation, conservation 

of historic landmarks and trails, and wilderness preservation. Other surrounding lands include the 

Paiute-Summit Lake Reservation, and various private ranches. 

3.7.1 Valid Existing Rights, Rights-of-Way, and Easements 

3.7.1.1 Rights-of-Way 

Both permanent and temporary rights-of-way exist for State of Nevada Highway 140, for a private 

overhead electrical line extending from the eastern boundary of Sheldon Refuge to various properties 

and mining claims in the Dufurrena area, and for access to a private inholding in the western portion 

of Sheldon Refuge. 

3.7.1.2 Access to Private Inholdings 

There are seven separate parcels of privately owned land which are within and completely 

surrounded by lands managed by Sheldon Refuge. As a result, access to these parcels must be 

granted by Sheldon Refuge in the form of a Special Use Permit to allow reasonable access for use of 

those lands. As part of the initial wilderness review and study completed for Sheldon Refuge in 

1974, an inventory of motorized routes throughout the entire Refuge was completed. At that time no 

motorized route existed to any of the seven inholdings. 

Since 1974, motorized access along a designated unmaintained route has been authorized by the 

Service to only one parcel, and continues to be allowed under a valid Special Use Permit. Motorized 

access has not been authorized to the two inholdings located within the Alkali Peak Proposed 

Wilderness Area or the four remaining inholding parcels south of Fish Creek Table. 

3.7.1.3 Easements 

There are no existing easements within Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-1 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

This chapter addresses the biological resources and habitats found on Sheldon Refuge. However, it 

is not an exhaustive review of all species and habitats. The chapter begins with a discussion of 

biological integrity, as required under the Refuge Improvement Act. The bulk of the chapter is then 

focused on the presentation of background information used in development of the management 

goals, objectives, and strategies of this CCP. Background information includes a description, 

location, condition, and trends of associated wildlife or habitats, and stresses and sources of 

ecological stress (collectively, “threats”). 

4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

Analysis 

The landscapes that make up Sheldon Refuge extend across large portions of 11 states in the 

Intermountain West, but very little of the sagebrush biome remains undisturbed or unaltered from its 

condition prior to European settlement (West 1996). These cold-desert rangelands, the so-called 

western rangelands, were considered more complex and biologically rich less than 150 years ago 

than at present (Dobkin and Sauder 2004). The sagebrush-steppe ecosystem as a whole now 

constitutes one of North America’s most imperiled and neglected ecosystems (Dobkin and Sauder 

2004; Mac et al. 1998; Noss and Peters 1995) due to profound influences of livestock grazing. 

Agriculture and herbicide use, mining, energy development, power line and natural gas corridors, and 

the expansion of road networks have also fragmented landscapes or completely eliminated sagebrush 

from extensive areas; these changes may have pushed these sagebrush systems in some areas beyond 

ecological thresholds for recovery (see Dobkin and Sauder 2004). Across the Great Basin, this has 

resulted in alteration of plant community composition and soils, changes to the natural fire regime, 

and spread of exotic plant species (Bock et al. 1993b; Fleischner 1994; Miller and Rose 1999; 

Rotenberry 1998; Saab et al. 1995; Yensen 1981; Young 1994; Young and Sparks 2002). More than 

60% of the remaining sagebrush steppe now has either exotic annual grass in the understory or has 

been completely converted to non-native annual grasslands (West 2000). In addition, more than 90% 

of the region’s flowing waters and their associated riparian habitats have been compromised by 

livestock and agricultural development (Chaney et al. 1990; Ohmart 1994). 

As detailed by Vale (1975), early writings by the first Europeans exploring the northern 

Intermountain West described pristine vegetation visually dominated by vast stands of sagebrush; 

grass was generally confined to wet valley bottoms, moist canyons, and mountain slopes (also see 

Welch 2005). However, sagebrush was long considered by land managers to be an undesirable shrub 

and subsequently reduced throughout its range in western North America (see summary by Welch 

2005). Prior to the end of World War II, most treatment of sagebrush was by mechanical methods 

such as plowing, chaining, and disking, although fire and heavy grazing pressure had been used in 

some areas prior to mechanical control. After the mid-1940s, use of herbicides, primarily 2,4-D, 

became a widespread tool in reducing the abundance of sagebrush (and inadvertently many other 

shrubs and forbs) (see Baker et al. 1976; Svejcar 1997), with the basic premise that sagebrush was 

competing for nutrients, water, and space with more desirable grasses preferred by livestock (Baker 

et al. 1976; Dobkin and Sauder 2004). There is anecdotal evidence that small areas on Sheldon 

Refuge were treated (Deming 1959). But as early as the 1950s, individuals began to question 

sagebrush control efforts as a serious threat to the maintenance of populations of sage-grouse, 

pronghorn, and mule deer, and to identify species of birds (i.e., sage-grouse, sage thrasher, sage 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-2 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

sparrow [Amphispiza belli], and Brewer’s sparrow [Spezella breweri]) that would be adversely 

affected if sagebrush were eradicated (Baker et al. 1976). 

Among land uses, the introduction of livestock and associated habitat alteration have had the most 

widespread impact on western ecosystems (Bock et al. 1993a; Fleischner 1994; Ohmart 1996). 

Livestock (i.e., cattle, sheep, and horses) were introduced to the Great Basin rangelands in the mid1800s and were afforded abundant forage due to centuries of fire disturbance (Gruell 1995). 

Competition among settlers, plentiful forage, and limited knowledge of range-animal relationships 

encouraged excessive numbers of livestock when compared to contemporary standards (Gruell 1995; 

Rouse 1942). Wire fencing, a fundamental livestock management tool, also exacerbated problems 

attributed to habitat degradation and fragmentation by creating obstacles that inhibited daily and 

migratory movements of native wildlife species (Fleischner 1994; Harrington and Conover 2006). 

Across the Great Basin, overgrazing, in combination with alteration of natural fire regimes and 

climate change, has also resulted in encroachment and habitat conversion of native communities 

(Miller et al. 2000; Suring et al. 2005b). 

These historical land use practices included the area now known as Sheldon Refuge, and overgrazing 

in this area can be attributed to two separate periods: approximately 1880 to 1940 and 1940 to 1976 

(USFWS 1980). The first homesteaders arrived in the area now known as Sheldon Refuge around 

1880 and were associated with the cattle and sheep livestock industry (USFWS 1985). Also 

beginning in the late 1890s and well into the twentieth century, there was a market demand for 

horses, and there is evidence of campsites on Sheldon Refuge that were selected because of 

geographical advantages for horse trapping (USFWS 1985). In addition to homesteader activity, 

Sheldon Refuge was also part of an enormous cattle and land domain of the Miller and Lux Land and 

Livestock Company, which controlled most of the deeded land within the area. During this period, 

cattle and horses were the principal livestock grazed (Fallon 1941). The horses occupied the range 

year-round, while most of the cattle were wintered in nearby Surprise Valley on supplemental hay. 

In 1926, large numbers of domestic sheep (approximately 20,000) were documented ranging across 

Sheldon Refuge from April to October each year (Fallon 1941). By the mid-1930s, local managers 

began to discuss a lack of effective range management and document signs of overuse, including 

evidence of sheet erosion and degraded range conditions (Fallon 1941; Rouse 1942; Rouse and 

Fallon 1940; Rush 1936; USFWS 1942). It was believed that range productivity may have been 

permanently impaired by the loss of topsoil (Rouse and Fallon 1940). 

The second period of overgrazing, 1940 to 1976, was defined by uncontrolled cattle and horse 

grazing with approximately 20,000 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) average use under BLM 

administration. Unknown numbers of domestic sheep grazed on Sheldon Refuge until at least 1948 

(USFWS 1948). It is suspected that domestic sheep were then restricted from Sheldon Refuge 

sometime after the mid-1950s (USFWS 1952); while the exact date is unknown, it likely preceded 

the reintroduction of California bighorn sheep in 1968. Uncontrolled grazing is range use with few 

restrictions as to where, when, or extent of use. As a result, cattle, horses, and sheep could 

selectively concentrate their utilization in prime forage areas around water sources (USFWS 1980). 

Anderson and Franzen (1978) found during the mid-1970s that excessive annual utilization during 

the growing season had resulted in uniformly low vigor of key forage species over much of Sheldon 

Refuge, and that it was indicative of an unacceptably slow rate of ecological improvement. 

The Service assumed grazing responsibility on Sheldon Refuge under the Refuge Administration Act 

in 1976. Any grazing permits issued subsequent to 1976 were managed in accordance with the 

Refuge Administration Act, as amended, and associated regulations and policies. As of 1980, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-3 

approximately 18,700 cows were grazed on Sheldon Refuge between April and late October by 10 

permitees; the season of use paralleled that implemented on adjacent BLM lands (USFWS 1980). 

Following recommendations in the 1980 Refuge Management Plan (USFWS 1980), livestock 

grazing was reduced to an approved use of up to 17,721 AUMs and areas for grazing use were 

restricted. Ecological conditions appeared to be improving by the mid-1980s toward potential 

natural communities and increased soil stability (Anderson 1984), although issues associated with 

overuse, both by cattle and feral horses, were still noted into the mid-1990s (St. George et al. 1993). 

Beginning in the early 1990s, the Conservation Fund, with a grant from the Mellon Foundation, 

purchased all remaining grazing permits on Sheldon Refuge from willing sellers at fair market value 

and retired them from use. The last permits were purchased and retired in 1994. As a result, there 

are no valid claims of grazing rights or privileges on Sheldon Refuge. 

Since 1994, Sheldon Refuge has been one of the largest contiguous blocks of land in the Great Basin 

that is free from domestic cattle and sheep grazing, and apparent ecological conditions have 

continued to improve. However, feral horses and burros continue to graze uncontrolled on Sheldon 

Refuge as their population numbers have increased (Collins 2008a), impeding further potential for 

ecological recovery. Although their numbers have never approached those documented for cattle and 

sheep, feral horses and burros can affect the landscape in ways different than other livestock; for 

example, wintering horses and burros remain on the Sheldon Refuge year-round, exerting grazing 

pressure on native plant communities during times of the year when other livestock would normally 

receive supplemental feeding (Fallon 1941; Young et al. 1972). Year-round and long-term overuse 

can result in a systematic weakening and reduction of grasses and forbs, resulting in a loss of species 

and structural diversity and monotypic stands of less palatable species. For more information on the 

specific effects of feral horses and burros on habitats within Sheldon Refuge and in the sagebrush 

ecosystem see USFWS (2008a). 

In addition to livestock utilization, associated predator control efforts across the West also altered 

western rangeland ecosystems. Across the West, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, other large 

predators, and many small predators were poisoned, shot, and trapped unremittingly during most of 

the 1900s (Carrier and Czech 1996). High desert species regarded as competitors with livestock have 

also been periodically targeted, including wild ungulates (e.g., pronghorn) and small mammals (e.g., 

ground squirrels [Spermophilus spp.], mice) (see Carrier and Czech 1996). On Sheldon Refuge, 

formal predator control was largely initiated between 1955 and 1967, primarily for coyote and bobcat 

(McNay 1980), but control efforts also targeted rodents, raccoons (Procyon lotor), American badgers 

(Taxidea taxus), porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum), and raptors (Deming 1959; Sheldon Refuge files); 

Sheldon Refuge staff conducted informal predator control efforts at least between 1941 and 1968 

(USFWS 1941, 1968). The reduction or elimination of predators over vast areas may have had 

profound effects on natural rangeland ecosystems. Coyotes, for example, have been suggested to 

play a keystone role in a multitude of habitats including chaparral, grassland, and wetland 

ecosystems. Keystone predators have a regulatory effect on medium-sized predators (e.g., badgers, 

skunks (Mephitis spp.), bobcats, foxes (Vulpes spp.), ravens (Corvus spp.), eagles). Removal of 

coyotes can therefore result in increased abundance of medium-sized predators, which in turn 

reduces the abundance and diversity of prey species; alteration of the prey base could have cascading 

effects throughout the ecosystem (see summary by Henke and Bryant 1999). In addition, coyotes can 

indirectly impact interactions for species such as sage-grouse. For example, the presence of coyotes 

reduces the number of mammalian nest predators that prey on sage-grouse eggs (e.g., fox, badger, 

raven). By also limiting the number of prey species (e.g., jackrabbits [Lepus spp.], ground squirrels), 

coyotes also reduce the number of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos, a significant predator of adult 

sage-grouse) and reduce competitors for forage. Indeed, it has been suggested that coyote control 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-4 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

may inadvertently contribute to sage-grouse declines and that a healthy coyote population has the 

potential to enhance the long-term prospect for many sage-grouse populations (Mezquida et al. 

2006). There is currently no open harvest seasons for predator species on Sheldon Refuge, and there 

is little direct knowledge regarding trends in their populations; however, we can expect that both prey 

and predator populations have been restored to a more natural equilibrium than previously observed. 

As a result of these factors, the ecosystem within and surrounding Sheldon Refuge has undergone 

dramatic alteration since pre-European settlement times. However, despite these alterations, Sheldon 

Refuge does remain one of the last, relatively intact representations of the sagebrush-steppe 

ecosystem in the Great Basin. The five most discernible changes within Sheldon Refuge include 1) 

continuing disturbance from feral horse and burro activity; 2) influx of invasive and encroaching 

species, particularly non-native; 3) changes in the natural fire regime; 4) changes in hydrology 

associated with water developments; and 5) habitat alteration associated with roads and off-highway 

vehicles, and mining. 

4.1.1 Feral Horses and Burros 

The release of domesticated animals from captivity into the wild, whether intentional or accidental, 

has created serious problems for native species on a global scale (Douglas and Leslie 1996). Feral 

horses and burros are defined as non-indigenous, unbranded, unclaimed descendants of domestic 

horses and burros which roam free on certain refuge lands in the western United States (7 RM 6.5). 

Burros and horses, the most common feral species on western rangelands (Douglas and Leslie 1996), 

occur in substantial numbers on Sheldon Refuge. Burros became feral when domestic animals were 

released into the wild following the decline of mining, the advent of the railroad, and availability of 

motorized vehicles (Douglas and Leslie 1996; McKnight 1958). Similarly, horses became feral prior 

to establishment of Sheldon Refuge as animals escaped or were released from ranches and grazing 

allotments. The fact that feral horses within Sheldon Refuge descended from domestic animals is 

well documented. During a horse gather conducted in 1948, at least 74% of the over 2,500 horses 

removed from Sheldon Refuge were branded. The majority of the remaining horses were attributed 

to a single grazing operator (USFWS 1948). Further, at least one grazing operator appeared “to have 

more horses than their license cover[ed]” (Fallon 1941:32), and another was documented to be 

singularly responsible for 400 horses on the range (four times the number of cattle for that operator; 

Fallon 1941). 

The feral horse population on Sheldon Refuge during the early 1990s averaged 200 to 300 animals as 

a result of a proactive population control program; without control efforts, the population has 

substantially increased during recent years to an estimated 1,341 individuals in 2008 (Lubow 2009). 

In addition, Sheldon Refuge is surrounded by BLM HMAs, and horses may have moved onto 

Sheldon Refuge from these areas. A more detailed accounting of feral horse and burro population 

dynamics and impacts to the landscape can be found in Douglas and Leslie (1996) and USFWS 

(2008a). Recent efforts to control the feral horse and burro populations have been focused on 

conducting periodic gathers for adoption. Methods used to gather and adopt feral horses from 

Sheldon Refuge have been thoroughly investigated (USFWS 2008a) and will not be discussed here. 

Feral horse and burro herds continue to exert continual grazing pressure on Sheldon Refuge. This 

grazing pressure has likely resulted in reduced shrub and perennial grass cover, lower species 

diversity, increased competition with pronghorn and other native grazers, and other documented 

impacts (Autenrieth 1982; Beever et al. 2003b; Fagerstone and Ramey 1996; Meeker 1979; 

Salwasser 1980). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-5 

Grazing within Sheldon Refuge has played a factor in deciduous woodland decline. The reduction in 

deciduous woodlands, including aspen, has undoubtedly reduced suitable nesting habitat and 

availability of nest sites for cavity-nesting species dependent upon large trees; studies have 

emphasized the importance of snags and live trees with heartwood decay to cavity-nesting birds 

(Dobkin et al. 1995). 

4.1.2 Invasive, Non-Native, Encroaching, and Expanding Species 

4.1.2.1 Upland Habitats 

Non-native species 

It has been long recognized that native plant communities within the big sagebrush–bunchgrass 

vegetation type are extraordinarily subject to invasion by non-native annual species (Jardine and 

Anderson 1919 as cited in Young et al. 1972). Approximately 30 species of plants that are 

introduced, non-native, and often noxious now occur within native vegetation types on Sheldon 

Refuge (Sheldon Refuge files). Invasive plant species displace native vegetation, altering the 

composition and structure on vegetation communities, affecting food webs, and modifying ecosystem 

processes (Olson 1999). The spread of invasive plant species across the Great Basin was likely 

facilitated by the rapid increase in grazing that resulted from European exploration and settlement in 

the American West. Invasive plants are most likely to become established where native vegetation 

has been disturbed (e.g., intensively grazed sites, cabin sites, campgrounds, hiking trails, off-road 

tracks, roads, and fire suppression lines; see Masters and Sheley 2001). Most invasive plants also 

need some form of transportation to reach new areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Several 

potential modes of transportation, or “vectors”, continually travel throughout Sheldon Refuge in the 

form of highway traffic, off-highway vehicles, people, pets, domestic stock, feral horses and burros, 

wildlife, and firefighting equipment. Changing climates and associated habitat alteration will likely 

increase opportunities for invasive species to spread because of their adaptability to disturbance 

(Inkley et al. 2004). 

Belsky and Gelbard (2000) identified the following disturbance factors that contribute to plant 

community vulnerability to invasion: selective grazing of native plants over weed species; trampling 

vegetation and compacting soils; impacts to biological (microbiotic) soil crusts and mycorrhizal 

fungi; impacts to soil nitrogen levels; and changes in fire regimes. Feral horses and burros have been 

found to contribute to many of these factors (USFWS 2008a). Knapp (1996) found that cattle, sheep, 

and feral horses facilitated cheatgrass spread in the Great Basin. Further, Beever et al. (2007) found 

that sites with horses tended to have more grazing resistant forbs and exotic plants (particularly 

cheatgrass) than those areas where horses had been removed 10 to 14 years previously. 

Primary non-native, invasive, or noxious upland plants on Sheldon Refuge include cheatgrass, 

knapweed (Centaurea diffusa, C. maculosa), kochia (Bassia scoparia), hoary cress (Cardaria 

draba), yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), bull 

thistle (Cirsium vulgare), scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), and Russian thistle (Salsola spp.) 

Other invasive plants found within Sheldon Refuge that are rapidly invading upland wildlife habitats 

across the West include medusahead wildrye (Taeniatherum caput-medusea), and rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) (Knick et al. 2003). Currently, the combined invasive species cover is 

estimated to be less than 1% of the total refuge area (less than 5,750 acres), and substantial 

occurrences are generally confined to road corridors and other sites of disturbance. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-6 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

The introduction of cheatgrass to the arid potions of the sagebrush ecosystem has fundamentally and 

perhaps irreversibly altered the natural fire regime by increasing the frequency and severity of fires 

(West 1979 as cited in Knick et al. 2005). Cheatgrass alters successional patterns in post-fire plant 

communities by interfering with native seedling establishment, competing with established 

perennials for resources, and shortening the interval between fires. Cheatgrass dominance and 

associated fires reduce populations, diversity, and recovery of biological soil crusts, which affect 

nutrient cycling, water infiltration, and potential soil erosion (Zouhar 2003). Cheatgrass has also 

been associated with soil organic matter loss, and changes in its composition and distribution (Norton 

et al. 2004). Cheatgrass was well established throughout much of its current distribution in the 

Intermountain West by 1930. However, cheatgrass has rapidly increased its dominance in native 

plant communities during the past 30 years. Although cheatgrass can colonize regions in the absence 

of fire, the combination of fire, livestock grazing, habitat management practices, other disturbances, 

and climate conditions have most rapidly facilitated the heavy dominance by cheatgrass in some 

sagebrush systems (see summary by Knick et al. 2005). The expansion of cheatgrass is of particular 

concern to Sheldon Refuge. However, compared with much of the rest of the Great Basin, current 

cheatgrass infestation on Sheldon Refuge is considered relatively low and primarily confined within 

travel corridors and other disturbed sites (e.g., mining areas, campgrounds, historic homesteads, 

burned areas). 

Other non-native species that have been introduced to uplands on Sheldon Refuge include California 

(valley) quail, chukar, and Hungarian (gray) partridge. The impacts of these species to the 

environment are considered low. California quail have been released throughout northern Nevada 

and eastern Oregon; 130 quail were first noted on Sheldon Refuge in 1941 and hunting for these 

birds was first allowed within Sheldon Refuge in 1961, although populations are not considered large 

(Sheldon Refuge files). Chukar were first introduced to Sheldon Refuge in 1941, and harvest has 

been allowed since 1961 (USFWS 1971). Little information is available regarding Hungarian 

partridge; they were first noted on Sheldon Refuge in 1940 but are only occasionally sighted and 

thought to occur in limited numbers (Sheldon Refuge files; USFWS 1971). 

Native and indigenous species 

One of the other, most evident changes in vegetation of the Great Basin during the past 120 years has 

been the expansion of pinyon-juniper woodlands into the sagebrush ecosystem (Miller et al. 2000; 

Suring et al. 2005a). Over 90% of the existing western juniper woodlands have developed in the last 

100 years; only 3%-5% is considered old-growth (Miller et al. 2008; USDI 1990); see Section 4.2.7 

for information specific to Sheldon Refuge. Prior to European settlement, juniper was primarily 

confined to rocky ridges or surfaces with sparse vegetation; however, newly formed juniper 

woodlands now occupy more productive sites with deep well drained soils (see Miller et al. 2000). 

Expansion of western juniper coincides with European settlement in this portion of the Great Basin 

and it has been hypothesized that climate, altered fire frequencies, and grazing in the late 1800s were 

the primary factors (Miller and Rose 1995). On Sheldon Refuge, western juniper is successionally 

aggressive and can drastically alter or eliminate the understory component after encroachment. 

Conversion of sagebrush communities to juniper woodlands places additional stress on the 

sagebrush-steppe ecosystem that has been severely reduced in area and degraded in quality (Suring et 

al. 2005a). Juniper expansion is of particular concern because the presence of trees in deeper welldrained soils, where they historically were not abundant, causes increased soil erosion; reduced 

stream flows; reduced forage production; altered wildlife habitat; changes in plant community 

composition, structure, and biodiversity; and the replacement of mesic and semi-arid plant 

communities with woodlands (Miller et al. 2005). The replacement of aspen, riparian, and mountain 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-7 

big sagebrush communities by western juniper may have detrimental effects on wildlife populations 

dependent upon these habitats. In summary, low levels of western juniper can be beneficial for many 

wildlife species but increasing dominance at both the community and landscape levels will result in a 

general decline in landscape and plant community diversity, resulting in a decline of wildlife 

abundance and diversity (Miller et al. 2005). Sagebrush encroachment is occurring on some meadow 

habitats on Sheldon Refuge, most likely as a result of lowered water tables and other factors (see 

Section 0). 

Deciduous woodland and snowpocket aspen stands are declining in abundance across much of the 

West (see Dobkin et al. 1995; Heltzel and Earnst 2006), and on Sheldon Refuge as well. Ongoing 

risk factors for western aspen stands include low aspen densities, little regeneration, and encroaching 

sagebrush and juniper species (Bartos and Campbell 1998). 

There is considerable controversy about whether elk (Cervus canadensis) once occupied rangelands 

of the Great Basin and Desert Southwest, and debate centers on recent transplants of elk and/or 

colonization by elk into these areas (Wisdom and Thomas 1996). There is evidence that elk 

originally occupied most grassland biomes throughout western North America, including major 

portions of the Great Basin and Desert Southwest. However, it has been suggested that a lack of 

permanent water likely restricted historical elk occurrence in large numbers in the driest portions of 

these regions; these dry areas, including Sheldon Refuge, presumably are outside the historical range 

of this species (see Wisdom and Thomas 1996). Elk were considered extinct from Nevada by the 

end of the nineteenth century (Nevada Department of Wildlife [NDOW] 1997). Between the 1930s 

and 1990s, elk were released at sites in eastern and central Nevada; their populations are currently 

expanding (NDOW 1997). To date, individual elk have been only occasionally spotted on Sheldon 

Refuge. 

4.1.2.2 Riparian and Wetland Systems 

Non-native, invasive, or noxious plants that occur in riparian areas on Sheldon Refuge include 

pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium, L. perfoliatum), saltlover (Halogeton glomeratus), Russian olive, 

Canada thistle, common reed (Phragmites australis), and water hemlock (Cicuta maculate). 

Throughout the semi-arid rangeland, woody species (e.g., Artemesia spp.) have expanded into wet 

meadow systems at the expense of grasses and forbs (see Berlow et al. 2002). Factors influencing 

this expansion include 1) reduced natural fire frequency due to livestock (including feral horses and 

burros) grazing of herbaceous species; 2) decreased soil moisture from widespread soil compaction 

and disturbance from livestock trampling; 3) increased aridity (i.e., lowered water table) from 

grazing-induced changes in hydrology; 4) changes in the abundance of native wildlife; 5) increased 

shrub seed dispersal by livestock; and 6) interactions among the above factors (see Berlow et al. 

2002). 

In addition to invasive or expanding plants, there are species of non-native amphibians and fish 

which have been introduced to waterways on Sheldon Refuge. Guppies have been released by 

visitors at several locations on Sheldon Refuge; this species is very adaptable and can occupy a wide 

range of habitats, particularly warm springs (Williams et al. 1980). Exotic fish establishment is 

known to have a detrimental effect on native fisheries. For example, the absence of native chubs in 

Thousand Creek Spring is most likely a result of the introduction and subsequent establishment of 

guppies (Williams et al. 1980). Rainbow trout were first introduced into Virgin Creek in 1934 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-8 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

(Williams et al. 1980) and subsequently into other areas of Sheldon Refuge, which has resulted in the 

loss of the native species of Alvord cutthroat trout due to hybridization (Bartley and Gall 1991). 

Bullfrogs have also been introduced to areas in Virgin Valley, and the population in the late 1970s 

was described as large (Storm 1980). Bullfrogs are voracious predators and eliminate native frogs in 

areas where they are introduced (Storm 1980). The full impact to the native frog populations on 

Sheldon Refuge both from predation by bullfrogs is unknown. In 2009, chytrid fungus 

(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) was documented on Sheldon Refuge (see Section 4.1.3). 

Chytridiomycosis, a disease caused by the chytrid fungus, is thought to be one of the biggest threats 

facing amphibian species worldwide; bullfrogs have been proposed as an important vector of the 

chytrid fungus (Weldon et al. 2004). Section 4.1.3 discusses this disease in more detail. 

4.1.2.3 Control Efforts 

Already a very significant problem in some areas for native plants and wildlife, invasive species 

control efforts will be essential, including extensive monitoring and spot control to preclude larger 

impacts (Inkley et al. 2004). Mechanical and physical methods have been used to combat invasive 

and encroaching plants in a variety of habitats, specifically in areas with encroaching western 

juniper. Chemical control methods are also being investigated for herbaceous species, and refuge 

staff are working with cooperators to develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan and associated 

pesticide use proposals, where appropriate. Despite recommendations to remove or control invasive 

animals (e.g., guppies, Storm 1980; bullfrogs, Williams et al. 1980) no attempts have been made to 

date. 

4.1.3 Disease 

Emerging infectious diseases pose a serious potential threat to wildlife conservation (Daszak et al. 

2000). Greater sage-grouse are highly susceptible to West Nile virus (WNv) infection and once 

infected, there is little to no chance of survival (Clark et al. 2006). WNv was first confirmed in 

Greater sage-grouse in 2003 in northeast Wyoming. That year, WNv mortality contributed to a 25% 

decline in survival of marked birds in Wyoming and Montana (Naugle et al. 2004). Between 2004 

and 2008, Greater sage-grouse, passerines, and feral horses were sampled for WNv antibodies on 

Sheldon and Hart Mountain refuges. To date, all sage-grouse and passerines have tested negative. 

However, of the feral horse samples tested in 2008 and 2009, 19% and 7%, respectively, tested 

positive for specific WNv neutralizing antibody (Franson et al. In Review). Specific WNv 

neutralizing antibodies were first detected in feral horses samples collected at Sheldon Refuge in 

2005 when a single horse was found positive. Antibody positive status indicates an exposure to the 

virus, not necessarily that the animal is capable of transmitting the virus at the time of sampling. To 

transmit the virus the animal would have to have a virus positive result. To date, it is still widely 

believed that infected horses cannot infect a mosquito (Dusek 2008). However, a full understanding 

of the implications of WNv for sage-grouse conservation requires a long-term, coordinated 

monitoring strategy (Naugle et al. 2005). 

In 2009, chytrid fungus was detected in introduced non-native bullfrogs in the Virgin Valley on 

Sheldon Refuge (Sheldon Refuge files). Bullfrogs have been proposed as an important vector for 

transmission of the chytrid fungus to native frogs and other amphibians (Weldon et al. 2004). 

Chytridiomycosis, a disease caused by the chytrid fungus, is thought to be one of the biggest threats 

facing native amphibian species worldwide (Weldon et al. 2004). Chytridiomycosis has been 

proposed as the cause of death in frog populations in the rain forests of Australia and Panama and 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-9 

associated with the decline of frog populations in Ecuador, Venezuela, New Zealand, and Spain 

(Weldon et al. 2004). The full impact to the native frog populations on Sheldon Refuge, outside of 

Virgin Valley, from this introduced disease is unknown. 

Recently, large die-offs of wintering populations of bats have been documented in the eastern U.S. as 

a result of white-nose syndrome (WNS). WNS is such named because of a white fungus observed 

growing on the noses of some infected bats. The disease is not well understood, but one hypothesis 

is that infected bats arouse from hibernation to attempt to deal with the fungal infection and in doing 

so prematurely use up all of their fat reserves. The earliest evidence of WNS was documented at a 

cave in New York in 2006; since then, hundreds of thousands of bats have died. WNS is spread by 

bat-to-bat contact as well as by humans exploring caves and mines. To date, WNS has not been 

reported in the western United States; however, it generally accepted that it will eventually spread 

across many regions of North America (Western Bat Working Group 2009). 

Many studies have identified disease as one of the most common factors limiting native and 

reintroduced bighorn sheep populations in the latter half of the twentieth century (see summary by 

Cassirer and Sinclair 2007). Disease, primarily bacterial pneumonia, has played an important role in 

the dynamics of bighorn sheep populations and has been responsible for numerous declines 

throughout North America; catastrophic all-age disease events are commonly reported in bighorn 

sheep populations. However, in some cases and even in the absence of a large-scale die-off, chronic 

or sporadic pneumonia-caused mortality could also be a primary factor limiting population growth 

(Cassirer and Sinclair 2007). 

4.1.4 Changes in the Fire Regime 

Fire regimes are the pattern of fire across the landscape and are defined by the combination of the 

frequency, intensity, severity, and time of year in which natural fire occurs within any particular area 

over a period of time. Areas within Sheldon Refuge are classified for fire management purposes 

based upon the frequency in which fires occur and the current condition of vegetation and fuels 

relative to historical conditions. 

Fire is one of the dominant and most visible disturbances in the Great Basin and has played a 

significant role in shaping the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem of the western United States (Knick et al. 

2005; Miller et al. 1994; Pyne 1982; Wright and Bailey 1982; Young et al. 1972); the plants and 

animals native to the sagebrush steppe evolved under the influence of periodic natural fire. After 

investigating fire episodes in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem from 1540 to 1940, Barnett et 

al. (1997) concluded that 4% (4 million acres) of the Columbia Basin sagebrush types burned 

annually. Historically, fires in the Great Basin shrublands typically produced a mosaic of burned and 

unburned areas. 

The distribution of soils, topography, moisture conditions, and fuels resulted in a mosaic of openings 

and uneven-aged stands of sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2004; Suring et al. 2005b). However, fire may 

not be beneficial in all situations to all species or detrimental to all species in all situations (Rose and 

Miller 1998; Wright and Bailey 1982). Additionally, there is some disagreement on the frequency 

and spatial scale of fires prior to European settlement (Dobkin and Sauder 2004). Fire is important in 

the maintenance of forb and grass components, facilitates nutrient cycling, and regulates other 

ecosystem processes within the sagebrush community (Knick et al. 2005). In the short term, fire 

generally increases the availability and palatability of herbaceous plants and crown-sprouting shrubs 

(e.g., rabbitbrush [Ericameria nauseosa], chokecherry, snowberry), while materially reducing other 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-10 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

shrub and juniper cover. In the long term, the development of shrubs results in the re-establishment 

of critical cover (Gruell 1995). Then as sagebrush cover and density increase during succession, 

cover and density of associated herbaceous plants often decline (Britton and Clark 1985; Gruell 

1995; Harniss and Murray 1973; Wright and Bailey 1982). 

Prior to European settlement, fires in the Great Basin were believed to have occurred on average 

every 20 to 200 years (Burkhardt and Tisdale 1976; Houston 1973; Miller et al. 1994), depending on 

the existing plant community. Use of fire by Native Americans prior to European settlement in 

southeastern Oregon and northern Nevada has also been suggested, and it has been argued that the 

nomadic Paiute of eastern Oregon may have used fire on a widespread basis (see Gruell 1995). 

However, documentation of Native American use of fire is fragmented at best, and there are those 

that disagree with the overall extent of fire use (see Williams 2002). It is thought that European 

settlement during the 1850-1870s altered fire occurrence, and the resulting fire exclusion profoundly 

changed the vegetation composition in the Great Basin. In some areas characteristic fire-return 

intervals are now much longer as a result of fire suppression and the loss of fire fuels to livestock 

grazing; in other places, fire-return intervals are dramatically shorter due to the spread and 

dominance of fire-promoting exotic species, such as cheatgrass (Dobkin and Sauder 2004). The 

introduction of livestock and exclusion of fire have increased the distribution and density of juniper 

and big sagebrush across the Great Basin (Miller et al. 1994; Young and Evans 1981) and have 

resulted in declines in aspen density and regeneration. Prior to European settlement, fires probably 

created aspen communities with a mosaic of differing age classes, characterized by age classes of 

less than 60 to 100 years old, with stands over 100 years old being rare (Miller et al. 2001). Mosaics 

of different seral stages have changed to rather homogenous stands of dense sagebrush with 

corresponding reductions in herbaceous understory species as a result of fire suppression and 

livestock influence (Champlin and Winward 1982; Crane and Fisher 1986; Crawford et al. 1992; 

Goodrich 1999; Hironaka et al. 1983; Kauffman 1990; Tart 1996; Winward 1985; Wright and Bailey 

1982; Young 1990). 

4.1.4.1 Frequency of Fire within Sheldon Refuge 

Following the area’s settlement by ranchers and miners, the number of human-caused fires increased, 

but both these and other lightning-caused fires were aggressively suppressed and extinguished. 

Between 1935 and the early 1980s all natural fires were aggressively suppressed throughout Sheldon 

Refuge (USFWS 2009). Beginning in the 1960s and continuing through the 1980s, a limited amount 

of prescribed burning was conducted within Sheldon Refuge. The use of prescribed burning 

increased in the late 1980s and continues to be used to achieve a variety of management objectives. 

From 1993 through 2004 an average of four natural fires occurred within Sheldon Refuge each year. 

The number of natural fires within any particular year during the same time period varied from zero 

to 10. On average, an additional six fires per year were ignited as prescribed fire to achieve habitat 

management objectives. The number of prescribed fires within any particular year during the same 

time period ranged from zero to 12 (Figure 4.1). 

Documented lightning-caused fires after 1890 have remained relatively small. Excluding the Badger 

Fire which burned approximately 38,000 acres in 1994 (approximately 6% of Sheldon Refuge), an 

annual average of 1,659 acres burned by natural fires from 1993 through 2004 on Sheldon Refuge 

(USFWS 2008a). Prescribed fires have also remained small in size. From 1993 through 2004 the 74 

prescribed fires burned an annual average of 327 acres. This average increased from 2005 through 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-11 

2008 to an average of 1,365 acres; a total of 1,014 acres were burned via prescribed fire in 2009 

(NFPORS 2009). 

Under current fire management, the frequency of fires has been increasing, particularly prescribed 

fire, but the average size of an individual fire remains relatively small when compared to presumed 

natural conditions. 

4.1.4.2 Fire Intensity within Sheldon Refuge 

Lightning-caused fires within Sheldon Refuge are generally intense, fast-moving fires driven 

primarily by localized winds. Flame lengths range from 8 to 12 feet, and up to 20 feet in length in 

steep terrain (USFWS 2008a). In contrast, prescribed fires are usually conducted during the phase of 

dormancy of perennial grasses, generally after summer cure and prior to green-up, and as a result are 

less intense. 

4.1.4.3 Fire Severity within Sheldon Refuge 

Despite the intense nature of fires within Sheldon Refuge, natural fuel conditions throughout much of 

Sheldon Refuge are discontinuous and light—generally resulting in the potential for rapid fires but 

with low to moderate severity. Shrubs and other woody plants can be killed or completely consumed 

by flames of varying intensity, but basal stems of perennial bunchgrasses, and underground plant 

rhizomes, suckers, and runners are left intact to regrow and sprout the following season. When fuel 

conditions are above normal, fire intensity and duration can increase to the point all plants are killed 

or consumed (USFWS 2009). 

In the western portion of Sheldon Refuge of mid and higher elevations, natural fuel conditions are 

generally more continuous and heavy, resulting in the potential for higher severity fires which can 

completely remove the dominant overstory canopies of western juniper, mountain mahogany, 

bitterbrush, and sagebrush—resulting in replacement by early successional plant communities. 

4.1.4.4 Timing of Fires within Sheldon Refuge 

The majority of lightning-caused fires occur from June through September, with some fires 

occasionally starting as early as mid-May or as late as mid-October. Prescribed fires are typically 

conducted from September through April, but prescribed fires have been ignited during every month 

of the year when management prescriptions for ignition have been met. 

4.1.4.5 Current Fire Regime within Sheldon Refuge 

Clearly existing conditions and management actions do not correspond to a natural fire regime. Past 

land management practices, including fire suppression, which occurred even before Sheldon Refuge 

was established, have potentially altered the patterns and types of vegetation and fuel across the 

landscape. In addition, the paramount importance of safety dictates that prescribed burns are 

conducted only when strict environmental conditions are met, which are not typical of the hotter, dry, 

and windy summer conditions of natural fires. Prescribed burning does not mimic natural fire 

because it generally occurs when conditions are cooler and wetter than during the summer months 

when lightning-caused fires would typically occur. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-12 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Presently, the condition of the fire regime within Sheldon Refuge is characterized as having a high 

(>66%) departure from historical conditions (USFWS 2009). 

4.1.5 Human Disturbance and Habitat Fragmentation 

4.1.5.1 Water Developments 

Nearly every riparian and aquatic habitat system in Nevada has been altered or modified to some 

degree from pre-European settlement, through actions such as channelization, construction of dams 

and diversions, regulation of flows or diversion of flows for agriculture, groundwater depletion, 

recreational and urban development, de-watering activities (e.g., mining), and the introduction of 

non-native aquatic species (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006), and the situation is no different within 

Sheldon Refuge. Hydrologic processes have been materially altered by previous water development 

efforts for livestock, including spring boxes, diversions, troughs, canals, dug-outs, and artificial 

ponds and reservoirs. Water diversions, pumping, and associated groundwater depletion can 

eliminate riparian habitats entirely because springs and ephemeral streams can easily be pulled 

underground by removal of a water source (Herbst 1996). 

In efforts to enhance the distribution and productivity of livestock and game species, water sources 

have been built across Sheldon Refuge (see Figure 3.4). Although use of water catchments continues 

to be a popular management tool in the western United States, the efficacy of such efforts has been 

questioned and their use is controversial, particularly within wilderness areas (see summary by Cain 

et al. 2008). On Sheldon Refuge, water catchments or guzzlers have been constructed primarily for 

the benefit of chukar (a non-native species, see Section 4.1.2) and California bighorn sheep (Wurster 

2009). Other modifications and alterations of riparian and aquatic habitats within Sheldon Refuge 

are the result of hundreds of spring diversions, small and large dams, dug-outs, troughs, and 

diversion canals. Almost 60% of surveyed sites on Sheldon Refuge were noted as being developed 

(Collins 2009). Of those developed sites, it was estimated that at least 48% of the structures were 

either only partially functioning or had already failed (Collins 2009). Repair of these structures must 

be weighed between the costs of restoration and ecological values. However, it is possible that some 

riparian systems have been lost entirely or altered so dramatically that they no longer provide the 

range of habitat opportunities that they would offer if they were not manipulated or otherwise 

managed (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). For example, constructed reservoirs such as Big 

Spring, Catnip, and Swan Lake are incontrovertible features of the landscape of Sheldon Refuge. 

Although the creation of these reservoirs necessitated loss of native habitat by inundating riparian 

habitats, affecting wetlands by altering water availability downstream, and creating habitats which 

support non-native aquatic and invasive plant species, many now provide significant summering, 

wintering, and migratory staging sites for waterbirds (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

4.1.5.2 Fences 

Currently, Sheldon Refuge has approximately 200 miles of residual allotment fences remaining from 

historical livestock grazing management. Much of this interior fencing is in extreme disrepair and 

has become an entanglement hazard for wildlife; efforts are ongoing to remove these hazards. 

However, one consequence of Sheldon Refuge being surrounded by BLM HMAs is that feral horses 

and burros may be moving onto Sheldon Refuge from these adjacent lands. This has necessitated 

additional fencing construction and maintenance along the exterior Sheldon Refuge boundary. 

Negative impacts of fences can be mitigated by proper design, and current fence construction 

standards on Sheldon Refuge use BLM wildlife fencing standards for all new fence construction. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-13 

4.1.5.3 Habitat Alteration Associated with Roads and Off-highway Vehicle Use 

Among the most widespread forms of natural landscape modification landscape during the past 

century has been the construction and maintenance of roads. To date, more than 550,000 miles of 

roads have been built on Federal lands to facilitate resource extraction, recreation, and transportation 

(Havlick 2002). Over 22% of the contiguous United States is estimated to have been ecologically 

altered by the nation’s road network, and that roads in rural areas have the greatest total ecological 

effect (Forman 2000; Riitters and Wickham 2003). Further, the typical western watershed has more 

than 20% of its total land area within 0.2 mile of a road, and many have more than 40% (Riitters and 

Wickham 2003). 

Within Sheldon Refuge, vehicle use occurs on approximately 850 miles of road, routes, and trails. 

This includes unauthorized and illegal use within proposed wilderness areas and other areas closed to 

vehicle use. Since 1974, route density within Sheldon Refuge has more than doubled from 

approximately 0.37 mile of route per square mile to roughly 0.84 mile of route per square mile. 

Improper placement of roads in riparian areas has increased erosion, siltation, disturbance to wildlife, 

and habitat fragmentation (see Section 6.1.2.1; Ohmart 1996; Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Many remote campgrounds and roads are also situated in or near riparian areas, creating additional 

disturbance. 

4.1.5.4 Recreation Uses and Activities 

Specific recreational use impacts to riparian and aquatic systems within Sheldon Refuge include 

bleach and soap added to springs, soil compaction, removal of vegetation and resulting erosion from 

camping along edges, and manipulation of water flow from installing tubs and water diversions (e.g., 

Virgin Valley bathhouse). Disturbance, displacement, and habituation of wildlife due to recreation 

activity have been well documented and studied in other areas (Hammitt and Cole 1987). Other than 

impacts associated with hunting and vehicle use we presume impacts to wildlife and their habitats 

from wildlife observation, photography, sport fishing, and interpretation occurring on Sheldon 

Refuge occur seasonally and are short-term in nature due to the relatively few number of refuge 

visitors. Hunting is not considered a short-term seasonal use because this activity occurs from 

August until early February each year, and typically includes overnight camping within Sheldon 

Refuge. As noted in other sections of this document, we estimate most impacts occur within Virgin 

Valley where uses and facilities are congregated and at other public use facilities such as semiprimitive and primitive campgrounds. 

4.2 Refuge Habitats and Vegetation Types 

The Great Basin and Columbia Plateau ecoregions include a variety of distinct habitats and 

vegetation types. Each habitat type is defined by the relative abundance of associated plant species. 

The health and function of these habitat types are the foundation upon which management of Sheldon 

Refuge is based and are therefore very important for developing and implementing future 

management decisions (Table 4.1). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-14 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Table 4.1 Estimated Acres by Landcover Type, Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada 

(See also Figure 4.2, which displays the location and distribution of these various habitat types.) 

Vegetation Types1 Habitat Types Estimated 

Acres 

Percentage 

of Total 

Area 

Intermountain Basins Big Sagebrush Big sagebrush steppes 

and shrublands 133,617 23.898%

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Low sagebrush 

shrublands and steppes 133,500 23.877%

Intermountain Basins Greasewood Salt desert scrubs and 

greasewood flats 

23,669 4.233%

Intermountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert 10,716 1.917%

Intermountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Montane sagebrush 

steppes 

180,343 32.255%

Northern Rocky Mountain Deciduous Shrub 2,445 0.437%

Intermountain Basins Semi-desert Grassland 

Semi-desert grasslands 

and steppes (including 

Great Basin wildrye 

stands) 37,327 6.676%

North American Arid West Emergent Marsh Emergent marshes and 

wet meadows 

3,511 0.628%

Cattails 172 0.031%

Open Water 

Streams and reservoirs 

(including springs and 

springbrooks) 455 0.081%

Intermountain Basins Playa 

Ephemeral wetlands 

(includes playas, salt 

flats, and mudflats) 7,131 1.275%

Barren Cliffs, canyons, talus 

slopes, and barren lands 

 

Intermountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 10,164 1.818%

Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland Deciduous woodlands 

and shrublands 275 0.049%

Intermountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Mountain mahogany 

woodlands 9,009 1.611%

Intermountain Basins Juniper Western juniper 

woodlands 4,863 0.870%

Invasive Annual Forbland 857 0.153%

Invasive Annual Grassland 1,054 0.189%

Total area classified (excludes outlier properties) 559,109.18 

1

 Does not include spring and springbrooks habitats, which are too small to be mapped by landcover type. 

4.2.1 Sagebrush-steppe and Other Shrubland Habitats 

4.2.1.1 Description and Location 

Sagebrush is often the dominant shrub on salt-free soils at elevations between 492 and 10,826 feet 

(Miller and Eddleman 2001). There are five main types of sagebrush or shrubland habitat on 

Sheldon Refuge: 1) montane sagebrush steppe; 2) big sagebrush steppe (Photo 4.1); 3) big sagebrush 

shrubland; 4) low sagebrush shrubland and steppe; and 5) salt desert scrub and greasewood flat. This 

nomenclature generally follows that described in LANDFIRE (2007) and the Southwest Regional 

Gap Analysis Project (NatureServe 2004). Further detail may also be found in Rogers and Tiehm 

(1979). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-15 

Photo 4.1 Typical sagebrush-steppe habitat within Sheldon Refuge. 

Big sagebrush steppe 

These stands are dominated by basin big sagebrush (A. t. spp. tridentata) occurring in deep, friable 

soils. Other shrubs include rabbitbrush and Wyoming big sagebrush (A.t. ssp. wyomingensis). 

Native perennial bunchgrasses and forbs predominate the understory and include bluebunch 

wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Thurber’s needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum), Great 

Basin wildrye, and Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda). The forb component can be diverse with 

more than 200 species identified over the range of this habitat type in the Great Basin. Native annual 

forbs may dominate following disturbance. 

Big sagebrush shrubland 

These stands are dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush. Other shrubs include spiny hopsage 

(Grayia spinosa), basin big sagebrush, and rabbitbrush. Sandberg’s bluegrass is the primary 

herbaceous species; other native species include needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comata), 

bluebunch wheatgrass, and Great Basin wildrye. Forbs are relatively sparse except following 

disturbance and include lupine (Lupinus spp.). 

Low sagebrush shrubland and steppe 

These stands are dominated by low sagebrush. Rabbitbrush and bitterbrush also occur. Associated 

species include Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), bluebunch wheatgrass, Thurber’s needlegrass, 

squirreltail (Elymus spp.), Sandberg’s bluegrass, and prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha). A 

variety of forbs are usually present including Phlox spp., Lomatium spp., Crepis spp., buckwheat 

(Polygonaceae spp.), and Lupinus spp. 

Two rare plants are known to occur in this habitat type on Sheldon Refuge: rose biscuitroot and 

grimy ivesia. The first species, rose biscuitroot, is found in scree and rock fissures overlying clay 

soils in low sagebrush shrublands. The second species, grimy ivesia has been documented occurring 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-16 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

as a dominant plant in sparsely vegetated gravelly and rocky areas within a matrix of shrublands 

dominated by low sagebrush and mountain sagebrush (Nachlinger and Tiehm 1996). The Sheldon 

Refuge population of grimy ivesia represents 86% of the known individuals within Nevada and 85% 

of all globally known plants (Nachlinger and Tiehm 1996). 

Salt desert scrub and greasewood flat 

These habitats occur as a mosaic of low shrub communities interspersed with native bunchgrasses on 

alkaline or moderately saline soils where a relatively high water table is present. Precipitation is also 

a major factor, and winter moisture accumulation amounts will affect spring plant growth. Some 

communities are further maintained by intra- or inter-annual flooding cycles followed by extended 

drought. Common shrubs include greasewood, shadscale saltbrush, fourwing saltbrush (Atriplex 

canescens), silver sagebrush (Artemesia cana), winterfat (or whitesage), and spiny hopsage. 

Common herbaceous species include Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), needle-and-thread, 

saltgrass, squirreltail, sea-blight (Suaeda torreyana), and globemallows (Sphaeralcea spp.). 

Montane sagebrush steppe 

These stands are dominated by mountain big sagebrush. Mountain big sagebrush generally occupies 

moist, productive rolling upland sites. Bitterbrush is a common component of these sites. Other 

common shrubs include threetip sagebrush (Artemisia tripartite) and mountain shrub species (e.g., 

currant, wild rose [Rosa spp.], and snowberry). Herbaceous species include Thurber’s needlegrass, 

Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Sandberg’s bluegrass. 

Other associated sagebrush-steppe communities 

Biological soil crusts are an integral component of rangeland soils and occur across Sheldon Refuge. 

These complex assemblages of lichens, liverworts, mosses, cyanobacteria, and algae dominate the 

uppermost part of the soil surface (Rosentreter and Eldridge 2004). Biological soil crusts provide 

living cover in environments where soil conditions and high evapotranspiration rates do not support 

dense vascular plant cover. They reduce soil erosion and enhance nutrient cycling in semi-arid and 

arid plant communities (see Kaltenecker et al. 1999; Rostentreter and Eldridge 2004). 

4.2.1.2 Condition and Trends 

Big sagebrush steppe 

Basin big sagebrush has a variable mean fire-return interval (<50-150 years). Ecologically 

significant fires are generally mixed lower severity fires with high severity fires that occur on longer 

intervals. Periodic drought and insect outbreaks are also factors. Shrub canopy closure of 30%-40% 

may occur, but it is considered rare. Recently, invasive annual grasses have encroached on patches 

of varying size. Across the Great Basin, a lack of fire has resulted in a greater proportion of the lateseral closed canopy class than is thought to have occurred historically. Livestock grazing has further 

increased the proportion of rabbitbrush and decreased native bunchgrass vigor and abundance in all 

seral stages. On Sheldon Refuge, these habitats are confined to areas of deep soils with adequate 

moisture and are generally in overall fair condition. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-17 

Big sagebrush shrubland 

Wyoming big sagebrush habitats historically experienced relatively infrequent fire due to highly 

variable fire fuels; average fire-return intervals were estimated to be 25 to 100 years (Rose and Miller 

1998). Shrub die-offs have occurred, but the causes are largely unknown. Typical canopy cover in 

this habitat ranges from 8% to 23%; at 12% to 15% cover understory production can begin to decline 

(Winward 1991). Return of a site following disturbance with a previously high canopy cover (~20%) 

to a shrub-dominated canopy can take upward of 40 years in drier sites (Winward 1991). In the 

Great Basin, past overgrazing has allowed invasive annual grasses, mostly cheatgrass, to establish 

within many of these habitats. In some areas, cheatgrass has contributed to larger and more frequent 

fires than occurred historically and is resulting in habitat conversion. In addition, grazing has also 

contributed to an increased density of large shrubs and a reduction in perennial grasses. On Sheldon 

Refuge, grazing by feral horses continues to be a main concern in these habitats. While 

encroachment by cheatgrass in disturbed areas is also a concern, these habitats appear to be in overall 

fair condition. 

Low sagebrush shrubland and steppe 

Fire in low sagebrush habitats does not carry well and is infrequent under all but extreme conditions. 

Prior to European settlement, the estimated mean fire-return interval in low sagebrush habitats was 

100 to 200 years (Rose and Miller 1998); it is likely that the period of fire suppression has not yet 

pushed this habitat beyond its historical fire-free interval (Ballard 2002). These habitats regenerate 

slowly following fire, and prescribed fire treatments in these types of less productive habitats have 

had mixed results (Rose and Miller 1998). Disturbed low sagebrush habitats are also commonly 

threatened by invasion from exotic annual grasses, including cheatgrass; invasive plants are less 

likely to invade undisturbed sites in good condition. Some stands across the Great Basin have seen 

reductions in large perennial bunchgrasses as a result of past grazing history. On Sheldon Refuge, 

while grazing by feral horses and burros continues to be a main concern, these habitats appear to be 

in overall fair to good condition. 

Salt desert scrub and greasewood flat 

Moisture supporting these intermittently flooded wetlands is usually derived off-site, and they are 

dependent upon natural watershed function for persistence (Reid et al. 1999). However, the length 

and severity of drought in the Great Basin has increased since the beginning of the twentieth century. 

Disturbance events are generally unpredictable and include drought (mean 70 years), flooding (mean 

100 years), and fire (mean 150-1,000 years) although stand-replacing fire is rare. Historical 

overgrazing by livestock on Sheldon Refuge contributed to an increase of shrubs on these sites, and a 

significant proportion of Great Basin wildrye stands have been converted to greasewood dominated 

habitats (Photo 4.2). Upland salt desert shrub and greasewood communities are also easily invaded 

and, in the short term, replaced by cheatgrass and other invasive plant species (e.g., Halogeton spp.). 

In some areas of the Great Basin, the invasion of cheatgrass has altered fire behavior and frequency 

in these community types. On Sheldon Refuge, ongoing grazing by feral horses and burros precludes 

restoration. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-18 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Photo 4.2 Typical salt desert scrub and greasewood habitat within Sheldon Refuge 

(Photo Gail Collins). 

Montane sagebrush steppe 

Mountain sagebrush habitats incur stand-replacing fire every 12 to 15 years on average, ranging from 

three to 38 years (Miller and Rose 1998). The disturbance pattern largely creates a variety of age 

classes across the larger landscape ranging from 100 to 5,000 acres in size. Under pre-European 

settlement conditions, mosaic burns generally killed the above-ground portion of at least 75% of 

plants (also called topkill) due to the relatively continuous herbaceous layer. These stands also incur 

periodic mortality due to insects, disease, winter kill, rodent outbreaks, and drought. These 

disturbances in combination may have significantly reduced the cover of dense stands every 50 to 

100 years. 

Bitterbrush is a major component of some mountain big sagebrush habitats on Sheldon Refuge and is 

considered a valuable forage shrub on many ranges occupied by wintering ungulates. Initially, fire 

exclusion coupled with intensive spring perennial grazing by livestock appeared to favor bitterbrush 

stand establishment, growth, survival, and increased density (Bunting et al. 1985; Rice 1983; 

Salwasser 1979). However, livestock overgrazing, senescence, extreme natural fire, and 

encroachment by big sagebrush has severely reduced bitterbrush abundance across much of its range 

(Murray 1983; see Ganskopp et al. 2004). Currently, diminished bitterbrush recruitment and reduced 

vigor are attributed mainly to the absence of disturbance, including fire (Adams 1975; Bedunah et al. 

2004; Rice 1983; Roberts et al. 1989; Salwasser 1979). Plant age and vigor in particular can 

contribute to sprouting responses; shrubs less than five or greater than 60 years old do not sprout well 

(Martin and Driver 1983; USDA 1999). Other sources of disturbance include periodic defoliation by 

insects (e.g., tent caterpillar, grasshopper, tussock moth) and disease (e.g., root rot, fungus) (Dryer et 

al. 2007). However, many species of insects and mites inhabit bitterbrush, several of which are 

beneficial; bitterbrush is insect pollinated (Dryer et al. 2007). 

Fire exclusion in many bitterbrush stands has resulted in increased competition from western juniper 

and big sagebrush encroachment. Indeed, protection of stands from fire to the point of advanced age, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-19 

where excessive fuel has accumulated, plant competition has developed, or the plants have not 

developed sprouting capability, has led to bitterbrush stands that are increasingly susceptible to fire 

across the Great Basin (Martin and Driver 1983). In the Badger Mountain area of Sheldon Refuge, 

natural fire re-occurred in 1994, 1997, and 2000. After the 1994 fire, there was marked recruitment 

of bitterbrush seedlings on the margins of the burned area (Clements and Young 2006). But the 1997 

and 2000 fires in the same area may have eliminated some of the seed source necessary for further 

shrub recruitment (Clements and Young 2006). On Sheldon Refuge, while grazing by feral horses 

continues to be a main concern, these habitats appear to be in overall fair condition. 

4.2.2 Other Associated Sagebrush-steppe Communities 

4.2.2.1 Associated Wildlife 

Birds 

Bird species whose distribution is closely tied to sagebrush habitats during at least part of the year are 

considered sagebrush obligates (Braun et al. 1976; Paige and Ritter 1999). Shrubland and grassland 

birds are declining faster than any other group of species in North America (Dobkin 1994; Paige and 

Ritter 1999; Saab and Rich 1997). In fact, sagebrush habitats have been identified as one of the top 

most threatened bird habitats in the United States (American Bird Conservatory 2007). Dobkin and 

Sauder (2004) documented significantly declining population trends for 16 of the 25 upland bird 

species considered. In addition, Paige and Ritter (1999) identified 18 bird species associated with 

sagebrush ecosystems that were of conservation concern. These species represent an important 

component of the biodiversity of the western United States but have seen little conservation action 

(Knick et al. 2003). Recently, the three primary passerine species of sagebrush habitats, Brewer’s 

sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher, have received special conservation status in one or more 

western states (Knick and Rotenberry 2002; Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). The status of 

populations on Sheldon Refuge is unknown. 

Greater sage-grouse 

Widespread concern for sagebrush-obligate wildlife due to loss of sagebrush habitats has been 

primarily focused on Greater sage-grouse (habitat distribution shown in Figure 4.3), the flagship 

game bird of these landscapes (see Dobkin and Sauder 2004). Sage-grouse on Sheldon Refuge have 

been documented to nest in shrub habitats, including low sagebrush, big sagebrush, and bitterbrush 

sites (Klebenow and Burkhardt 1982). While shrubs also provide important forage, the importance 

of forbs and insects in the sage-grouse diet has been well documented (Drut et al. 1994; Evans 1986; 

Gregg 2006). For example, Huwer et al. (2008) found that increasing forb cover in areas with <20% 

forb cover may lead to increased chick survival and grouse productivity. For more information on 

sage-grouse ecology, see Connelly et al. (2004) and CalPIF (2005). 

Sage-grouse have been extirpated in British Columbia, Nebraska, New Mexico, Arizona, and 

Oklahoma (Braun 1991, 1993). Within the core area of their range, sage-grouse populations have 

dramatically declined (Braun 1998; Wisdom et al. 1998). In 2008, the Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) conducted new population trend analyses that incorporated an 

additional four years of data beyond the Connelly et al. 2004 analysis (WAFWA 2008). Although 

the WAFWA analyses used different statistical techniques, lek counts also were used. WAFWA 

results were similar to Connelly et al. (2004) in that a long-term population decline was detected 

from 1965 to 2007 (average 3.1% annually; WAFWA 2008). WAFWA attributed the decline to the 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-20 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

reduction in number of active leks (WAFWA 2008). Across Nevada, annual rates of change suggest 

a long-term decline for sage-grouse. The statewide population reached a low in the mid-1990s and 

according to Connelly et al. (2004) did not appear to have changed substantially since that time. In 

the mid-1980s, a study in an area adjacent to Sheldon Refuge suggested that high harvest rates 

combined with low annual recruitment were affecting the low density sage-grouse population 

(Zunino 1987). 

Recorded estimates of sage-grouse numbers and population trends have been maintained since 1942 

on Sheldon Refuge (USFWS 1971); however, methods were not standardized until the mid-1990s 

(Collins 2008b). The primary method used to monitor trends in sage-grouse populations within 

Sheldon Refuge is by conducting helicopter surveys to count the number of male birds annually at 

designated lek areas during the breeding season. In 2004 the population of sage-grouse within 

Sheldon Refuge was estimated at 2,896 to 3,475 birds (Sage-grouse Conservation Team 2004). In 

2007, 2008, and 2009, a population decrease was noted for Sheldon Refuge, which had shown 

population increases each year since calculations were first established in 2003 (Collins 2010; Sagegrouse Conservation Team 2007; Sheldon Refuge files). 

Hunting for sage-grouse within Sheldon Refuge has been conducted intermittently and for various 

purposes over the past 50 years. There was no hunting for sage-grouse on Sheldon Refuge between 

the refuge’s establishment in 1931 and 1960. A limited annual sport hunting season was initiated in 

1961 (USFWS 1971) but was subsequently closed. In 1995, the Service, in cooperation with the 

State of Nevada, initiated a limited permit-only hunting season for Greater sage-grouse on the 

majority of Sheldon Refuge (Collins 2008b; Day 2009) specifically to collect bird wings for use in 

estimating population productivity and reproduction. Although population trend can be estimated 

from lek counts alone, production data help determine whether recruitment rates are high enough to 

sustain a population. Nest success and recruitment of juveniles into the population are usually cited 

as the most significant parameter influencing sage-grouse population trend (Armentrout et al. 2004). 

The nest success for 2008 was estimated to be 61%. This was higher than all other areas in the 

western region of Nevada, which includes Washoe, Humboldt, and Churchill counties. However, the 

accuracy of this estimate is questionable due to greater susceptibility of immature birds to hunter 

harvest and concerns related to inadequate sample size. Wing data from birds harvested on Sheldon 

Refuge are also used to estimate sage-grouse sex and age ratios. Monitoring upland game population 

trends with sex and age ratios from hunter harvests is a common practice, although recent analyses 

indicate that the number of samples required to generate precise population estimates currently 

exceeds the harvest levels of most states (Hagen and Loughin 2008). Questions regarding the ability 

to conduct meaningful population analysis from hunter-harvested wings have previously been noted 

for Sheldon Refuge (Klebenow and Burkhardt 1982). Despite the limitations of wing data, they 

probably provide the only viable means for assessing the effects of management actions on 

production at the state or local population management unit scale (Sage-grouse Conservation Team 

2004). 

The hunt on Sheldon Refuge is considered the most conservative in Nevada and is conducted by 

permit during two separate two-day seasons during September each year. In total, 75 permits are 

issued, each of which allow a maximum daily harvest of two birds and a maximum possession limit 

of four birds for a maximum allowable harvest of 300 birds. The average annual harvest reported is 

144 birds. NDOW and Sheldon Refuge coordinate the timing and harvest limit of the hunting 

season(s). All permit holders are required to deposit one wing from each sage-grouse harvested in 

collection barrels on Sheldon Refuge. In addition, hunters must return a questionnaire to USFWS 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-21 

stating if they actually hunted, where they hunted, and how many birds they harvested. The 

compliance rate for returning the questionnaire was 90% in 2001 (Armentrout et al. 2004). 

In 2010 the USFWS listed Greater sage-grouse as a candidate species under the Endangered Species 

Act, meaning that the Service finds that listing the Greater sage-grouse (rangewide) (as a threatened 

or endangered species) is warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. The Service 

recognizes the need to recover sage-grouse populations throughout the United States to ensure the 

continued existence and survival of the species. In support of sage-grouse population recovery 

efforts, 25 birds were translocated from Sheldon Refuge to Washington in 2004, and 22 birds were 

translocated to California in 2007. 

Other birds 

Sagebrush-steppe and shrubland habitats on Sheldon Refuge provide important habitat to a range of 

other bird species. As discussed above, the major sagebrush-steppe obligate passerine species are 

Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher. In addition, many other birds seasonally occupy 

shrub-steppe habitats on Sheldon Refuge including vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), horned 

lark (Eremophila alpestris), lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius 

ludovicianus), green-tailed towhee (Chlorura chlorura), gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii), Say’s 

phoebe (Sayornis saya), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), western kingbird (Tyrannus 

verticalis), and white-throated swift (Aeronautes saxatalis). Shrub-steppe uplands also provide 

foraging habitat for raptors, including bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), long-eared owl (Asio 

otus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), red-tailed hawk (B. jamaicensis), and prairie falcon. Of the 

listed species above, Greater sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, bald eagle, ferruginous 

hawk, white-throated swift, and loggerhead shrike have been identified as Nevada Species of 

Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Mammals 

Pronghorn 

Pronghorn (habitat distribution shown in Figure 4.4), a sagebrush-obligate species within the Sheldon 

and Hart Mountain refuges are migratory, and the populations of these two refuges are thought to 

intermingle (Pyle and Smith 1990). There have been few accurate total population counts of 

pronghorn on Sheldon Refuge or adjacent lands; generally efforts have been directed toward herd 

composition rather than population census. For all survey efforts (composition and census), 

discrepancies in location and distribution of the population during surveys, differences in the timing 

and intensity of effort, poor and varied techniques, and lack of available resources have contributed 

to the complexity of this issue (USFWS 2001b). 

Pronghorn were nearly extirpated from North America in the late 1800s by sport and commercial 

hunting. Following the enactment of protective laws, pronghorn subsequently increased by >3,200% 

during the twentieth century; they have been second only to deer species in abundance and harvest in 

the United States (Yoakum et al. 1996). Pronghorn populations have undergone large fluctuations 

since Sheldon Refuge was established. Three population trends are evident on the Sheldon and Hart 

Mountain refuges since the 1930s. First, summer numbers gradually declined from a peak in the late 

1930s to a low in the mid-1950s. The population then increased in the late 1950s, and was 

apparently stable between the 1950s and 1970s. Pronghorn increased again in the 1980s (Pyle and 

Smith 1990). There were recent concerns in the mid- to late 1990s that the population on Hart 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-22 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Mountain Refuge was at risk of decline (USFWS 2001b). Early data from studies initiated during 

that period suggested that predators were responsible for the majority of pronghorn fawn mortality 

and that predator control was necessary for the recovery of the declining population (USFWS 

2001b). Ultimately, predator control efforts were postponed indefinitely in part due to an unexpected 

improvement in fawn survival, and both the Hart Mountain and Sheldon pronghorn populations have 

since substantially increased (Collins 2008a). This indicates that predation was not the primary 

limiting factor. Indeed, additional data has since demonstrated that both the fawn’s date of birth and 

previous summer’s precipitation are highly important factors in fawn survival (Whittaker 2008). 

There was no harvest season for pronghorn within Sheldon Refuge between 1936 and 1967. 

Conservative harvest regulations were implemented in 1968, with an emphasis on quality hunting 

experiences (Pyle and Smith 1990). 

For studies of pronghorn habitat requirements, diet, intra-species interactions, and population 

dynamics within Sheldon Refuge see Deming (1954), Meeker (1979), McNay (1980), and Maher 

(1991). Low sagebrush habitats on Sheldon Refuge in particular are important for pronghorn, 

especially for wintering and fawning. Sagebrush is also an important forage source year-round, with 

forbs contributing heavily to the diet during the summer. Winter weather severity and 

spring/summer precipitation strongly influence pronghorn population numbers, trends, production, 

recruitment, distribution, and seasonal movements (USFWS 2001b). 

Mule deer 

Mule deer populations (habitat distribution shown in Figure 4.4) have experienced wide fluctuations 

over the past 60 years due to past land management practices. The current decline of populations 

throughout the western United States most likely is the result of habitats that have reached optimum 

levels during and following a period of extreme disturbance. It is unlikely these lands will again 

support such high historically observed numbers of mule deer (Gruell 1986). 

Studies have confirmed that mule deer diets on Sheldon Refuge are dominated by bitterbrush and 

mountain mahogany (Woodis 1989). Important mule deer fawning habitats on Sheldon Refuge also 

include mountain big sagebrush and mountain mahogany sites, and the Virgin Valley is important for 

spring foraging (Burkhardt et al. 1982). Data also indicate that some mule deer summering on 

Sheldon Refuge migrate off-refuge during the winter (Burkhardt et al. 1982; Sheldon Refuge files). 

There were no open seasons for deer harvest between 1936 and 1951. By the mid-1950s, mule deer 

ranges on Sheldon Refuge were noted as being severely overgrazed and attempts were made to 

reduce the wintering mule deer population by as much as 30% (USFWS 1956). However, in the 

early 1960s, it was noted that liberal harvest regulations, including either-sex and extended seasons, 

were potentially impacting Sheldon Refuge’s mule deer population outside of the closed areas 

(USFWS 1962). Currently mule deer hunting is managed to limit take and maximize quality hunting 

experiences. 

Pygmy rabbit 

Pygmy rabbits (habitat distribution shown in Figure 4.3) are a sagebrush habitat specialist of 

heightened conservation concern for which data on distribution, movement, and space use are limited 

(USFWS 2003). Following declines in Oregon and Washington and a lack of solid information 

about its status elsewhere, the species was designated as a Federal species of special concern. In 

2010, the Service determined that there has been some loss and degradation of pygmy rabbit habitat 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-23 

range-wide, but not to the magnitude that constitutes a significant threat to the species and that 

protection under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted. 

While the population status of pygmy rabbits on Sheldon Refuge is largely unknown, recent 

investigations found that pygmy rabbits were still present throughout all of their historical range in 

Nevada (Larrucea and Brussard 2008). Pygmy rabbits are uniquely dependent on big sagebrush for 

cover and food, occupying some of the remaining sagebrush steppe in the Great Basin where 

sagebrush is relatively tall and dense and soils are deep. Dense sagebrush provides thermal cover 

and protection from predators (see Siegel-Thines et al. 2004). In addition to providing cover, 

sagebrush dominates the diet of pygmy rabbits throughout the year, with substantial use of grasses 

and forbs when seasonally available (see summary by Sanchez and Rachlow 2008). There are 

indications that pygmy rabbits use larger home ranges than expected for their body size, and that 

their range is influenced by gender, season, and dispersion of resources. 

Other mammals 

Additional sagebrush-obligate or shrubland mammal species on Sheldon Refuge include kit fox 

(Vulpes macrotis), sagebrush vole (Lagurus curtatus), and Great Basin pocket mouse (Perognathus 

parvus). Other mammal species that utilize shrubland habitats on Sheldon Refuge include bobcat, 

coyote, mountain lion, desert wood rat (Neotoma lepida), black-tailed jack rabbit (Lepus 

californicus), Nuttall’s (mountain) cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii), dark kangaroo mouse 

(Microdipodops megacephalus), northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster), and Preble’s 

shrew (Sorex preblei). Many of the inhabitants of salt-desert scrub, in particular, require burrows for 

nesting, hunting, predator avoidance, and thermoregulation. Of the listed species, Preble’s shrew, 

sagebrush vole, kit fox, pygmy rabbit, and mule deer are listed as Nevada Species of Conservation 

Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Reptiles and amphibians 

The main sagebrush-obligate reptile species that occurs on Sheldon Refuge is the sagebrush lizard. 

Other species found in shrub uplands include collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris), desert horned 

lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), pygmy short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii), western 

whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), and striped whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus). The desert horned 

lizard and pygmy short-horned lizard are listed as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife 

Action Plan Team 2006). 

Amphibians include the Great Basin spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus intermontanus). This species is 

unique in that it occupies arid regions of sagebrush flats and shrublands, breeding in temporary or 

permanent water bodies. While little is known of their movement capabilities, it is suspected they 

may move several hundred feet between breeding sites and terrestrial habitats (Hammerson 2005). 

4.2.2.2 Threats 

Across the Great Basin, human-caused disturbance and habitat fragmentation associated with 

livestock grazing, fencing, agriculture, mining, urban development, and recreational access are all 

considered threats. In addition, encroachment of western juniper, expanding invasive plant species, 

changes in the natural fire regime, disease, and grazing from feral horses and burros are also threats 

to these habitat types and associated fish and wildlife within Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-24 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Shrubs and trees increased with the increasing length of fire-return intervals after the 1870s, and 

currently a dense shrub or tree layer dominates much of the mountain big sagebrush–bunchgrass 

communities in much of the Great Basin. Burkhardt and Tisdale (1976) concluded that firefrequency intervals of 30 to 40 years would be adequate to keep western juniper from invading many 

sagebrush-grassland communities. As communities cross the threshold and juniper begins to 

dominate a site, the rapid decline of understory fine and woody fuels greatly reduces the potential for 

fire to occur (Miller et al. 2001). However, the decline of intact Wyoming big sagebrush–bunchgrass 

communities in the larger region has generated debate regarding the value and risks associated with 

using prescribed fire in an attempt to mimic historical fire regimes; in particular, the potential for 

prescribed fire to promote exotic annual grass invasion. Sites that have transitioned from shrubsteppe to woodland due to encroachment of western juniper may now only burn under severe weather 

conditions that create crown fires in tree-dominated communities (Knick et al. 2005). 

Human disturbance and habitat fragmentation 

Anthropogenic influences in shrub-steppe ecosystems have changed the landscape of the 

Intermountain West (see Section 4.2.1). This includes habitat fragmentation associated with 

livestock grazing, fencing, agriculture, mining, urban development, and recreational access. 

4.2.3 Semi-desert Grasslands and Steppes 

4.2.3.1 Description and Location 

These habitat types include semi-desert steppes and grasslands characterized by sparse to moderately 

vegetated mosaic of shrubs and perennial grasses (Photo 4.3). The herbaceous layer is dominated by 

drought-resistant perennial bunchgrasses including bluebunch wheatgrass, Thurber’s needlegrass, 

Sandberg’s bluegrass, Great Basin wildrye, needle-and-thread, and Indian ricegrass. Shrubs include 

greasewood, spiny hopsage, saltbrush (Atriplex spp.), sagebrush, bitterbrush, and rabbitbrush. 

Nomenclature follows that described in LANDFIRE (2007) and the Southwest Regional Gap 

Analysis Project (NatureServe 2004). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-25 

Photo 4.3 Typical semi-desert grassland habitat within Sheldon Refuge. 

4.2.3.2 Condition and Trend 

The composition and structure of the semi-arid or desert grasslands of western North America have 

changed dramatically over the past 150 years. Native brushy or woody species in these communities 

have increased in density and cover due to changes in local conditions (Van Auken 2000). Causes 

for shrub or woody plant encroachment in semi-arid grasslands have been much debated. Most often 

cited as reasons are climate change, chronic high levels of grazing, changes in fire frequency, 

changes in grass competitive ability, spread of seed by livestock, small mammal populations, 

elevated levels of carbon dioxide, and combinations of these factors (see Van Auken 2000). Chronic 

high levels of grazing associated with the introduction of cattle (and likely feral horses and burros) 

appear to be a primary factor in the conversion of semi-arid grasslands into shrublands or woodlands. 

However, the mechanisms are still not well understood (Van Auken 2000). At the same time, fire 

frequency and fire size in these semi-arid grasslands have decreased, resulting in larger and denser 

stands of woody plants and less grass. There is historical evidence of fires in these systems from the 

earliest travelers and European settlers, although some argue that there was not enough fuel in these 

grasslands to carry an extensive fire; today natural fires are rare (see Van Auken 2000). 

4.2.3.3 Associated Wildlife 

Birds 

Semi-desert steppes and grasslands support several breeding bird species including Greater sagegrouse, horned lark, mountain bluebird (Sailia currucoides), savannah sparrow (Paserculus 

sandwichensis), vesper sparrow, and western meadowlark. Grasslands also provide foraging habitat 

for raptors including American kestrel (Falco sparverius), ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, longeared owl, short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), northern shrike 

(Lanius excubitor), red-tailed hawk, and rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus). The Greater sagegrouse, ferruginous hawk, short-eared owl, and western burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicalaria) are 

listed as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-26 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Western burrowing owl 

Populations of burrowing owls have declined in many portions of their range. The owls are listed as 

endangered in Canada, a species of National Conservation Concern in the United States, and are 

listed, or being considered for listing, in many western states (Conway et al. 2008; Klute et al. 2003). 

The status of the population on Sheldon Refuge is largely unknown. For details of burrowing owl 

ecology, see Klute et al. (2003). 

Mammals 

Semi-desert steppes and grasslands on Sheldon Refuge provide habitat for pronghorn, mule deer, kit 

fox, coyote, bobcat, mountain lion, yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris), American badger 

(Taxidea taxus), black-tailed jackrabbit, white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii), Belding’s ground 

squirrel (Spermophilus beldingi), Ord’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii), and northern grasshopper 

mouse. Species included as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority are mule deer and kit fox 

(Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Reptiles and amphibians 

Reptiles documented in these habitats on Sheldon Refuge include desert horned lizard, long-nosed 

leopard lizard (Gambelia wislizenii), pygmy short-horned lizard, rubber boa (Charina bottae), 

western whiptail, striped whipsnake, and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis). The desert horned 

lizard, pygmy short-horned lizard, and long-nosed leopard lizard are listed as Nevada Species of 

Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). Amphibians include the Great Basin 

spadefoot toad, although the distribution of this species is limited by available ponds for breeding. 

4.2.3.4 Threats 

In addition to feral horses and burros (see Section 4.1.1), human disturbances associated with 

recreation use and habitat fragmentation from vehicle routes and utility rights-of-way (see Section 

4.1.5) are considered threats to these habitat types and associated wildlife within Sheldon Refuge. 

4.2.4 Emergent Marshes, Wet Meadows, Streams, Reservoirs, Springs, 

Springbrooks, and Ephemeral Wetlands 

4.2.4.1 Description and Location 

Riparian habitats in western rangelands have exceedingly high values for human society, fish, and 

wildlife. Their resource values far exceed the approximate 0.1% of the land area they cover (Ohmart 

1996). These areas serve to trap and stabilize eroded sediments, detoxify compounds, act as 

phosphorus sinks for soil enrichment, and serve as denitrification areas to provide high water quality 

(Ohmart 1996). Riparian areas are also the most ecologically productive and diverse of all terrestrial 

habitats. This results from a variety of physical environments arising from moisture gradients, 

margins of often highly contrasting vegetation components, and a general mosaic of habitats created 

by dynamic stream changes (Clary and Medin 1999). Riparian habitats are also particularly 

important in the arid refuge environment where the presence of water and relatively cool, often 

shaded conditions provide an ecological importance and diversity far beyond their extent; a large 

portion of both the flora and fauna in riparian zones exists nowhere else (Clary and Medin 1999; 

Ohmart 1996). Although many desert aquatic species are adapted to life in ephemeral, saline, or 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-27 

geothermal habitats, prolonged disruption of aquatic environments has resulted in the loss of 

biodiversity in the Great Basin (Herbst 1996). 

On Sheldon Refuge, water is scarce during the summer months, and the most consistent water 

sources are natural springs and associated springbrooks, the majority of which are located between 

5,700 and 6,700 feet in elevation. See Section 3.3 for a more detailed description water sources and 

hydrology within Sheldon Refuge. 

There are four major types of aquatic and riparian habitats on Sheldon Refuge: 1) ephemeral 

wetlands; 2) emergent marshes and wet meadows; 3) springs and springbrooks; and 4) streams and 

reservoirs. Nomenclature used generally follows that described in LANDFIRE (2007) and the 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (NatureServe 2004). Further detail may also be found in 

Rogers and Tiehm (1979). 

Emergent marshes and wet meadows 

These areas are generally broad flat areas that include wet meadows, ponds, fringes around lakes and 

along slow-flowing streams, and springbrooks (Photo 4.4). Water levels may be stable or fluctuate 

over a season, and these areas include seasonally flooded meadows or shallow freshwater 

floodplains. There is generally a diverse array of native wetland plants including emergent plants, 

sedges, and moist-soil plants. Common vegetation include bulrush (Scirpus sp., Schoenoplectus

spp.), cattail, rushes, sedges, pondweed, pond lily (Nuphar spp.), and canarygrass (Phalaris spp.). 

Shrub species, where present, include willow, aspen, and chokecherry (Prunus spp.). 

Photo 4.4 Typical wet meadow habitat within Sheldon Refuge. 

Streams and reservoirs 

Stream habitats have water temperatures generally <75 ̊F, and include flowing water with wellvegetated cover, stable banks free from barriers and diversions, stream velocity breaks, and in 

relatively silt free, rocky riffle-run areas (Photo 4.5). Substrates range from soft bottom sediments to 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-28 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

rocky riffle-run areas. Vegetation found along the reservoirs is generally characterized by species 

that are tolerant to fluctuations in water levels. Common species found on or near the shores include 

wedgeleaf dock (Rumex triangulivalvis), povertyweed (Iva axillaries), spikesedge (Eleocharis spp.), 

and cattail (Typha latifolia). 

Springs and springbrooks 

Ephemeral or perennial freshwater springs and associated springbrooks have a range of water 

temperatures (<78 ̊F to >86 ̊F). Substrates range from boulders and gravel to fines and vegetation 

and there is generally low to no turbidity. The vegetation found at these sites is very similar to that 

of riparian communities described earlier. However, unique and rare vegetation communities can be 

found at some of the thermal springs and may include desert centaury (Centaurium exaltatum), alkali 

pepperweed (Lepidium dictyotum), and boraxweed (Nitrophila occidentalis). 

Ephemeral wetlands 

Ephemeral wetlands include shallow swales with basin topography; these barren and sparsely 

vegetated areas include playas, salt flats, and mudflats (Photo 4.6). These systems hydrate via 

overland flow or groundwater discharge. The soils are lacustrine or palustrine and alkaline to 

hypersaline. Herbaceous species include fourwing saltbrush, spiny hopsage, and Great Basin 

wildrye. 

Ephemeral wetlands within Sheldon Refuge consist almost entirely of small, closed basins called 

playas, which collect precipitation and runoff from the surrounding areas. Playas are formed and 

maintained through a combination of dissolution of subsurface basin material and wind deflation 

(Gustavson et al. 1995; Osterkamp and Wood 1987; Reeves and Reeves 1996). These processes 

concentrate salts and clay minerals in playa soils, making them more alkaline, and reduce water 

infiltration. As a result, playa habitats may become flooded after even a small amount of 

precipitation. Playas range in size from less than an acre tens of thousands of acres. Most playas 

within Sheldon Refuge are less than 50 acres in size. Because playa hydrology is determined by 

localized weather conditions, playas may be flooded seasonally or annually for several consecutive 

years, or may be dry for a number of years and flooded only rarely. Playa flooding is highly variable 

and may range from of only a thin film of water to several inches of water. Because playas are 

closed basins, water remains until it evaporates or infiltrates into the soil. During flooded conditions, 

typically during spring, playas teem with aquatic invertebrates. These invertebrates provide 

important forage for migrating birds. As playas begin to dry later in the season, the moist soils 

support grasses, sedges, and forbs, which provide forage for pronghorn, deer, sage-grouse, and other 

wildlife. Little research or literature is available related to playa formation and ecology, but for the 

Southern High Plains region of Texas and New Mexico, Haukos and Smith (2003) stated that 

because scattered individual playas collectively form the basis for diversity of the region, impairment 

of the function of an individual playa contributes to the decline of biodiversity across a much larger 

area than only the impacted wetland. Therefore, successful conservation of playas and associated 

flora and fauna is dependent upon protection of as many playas as possible in the landscape rather 

than attempting to identify the best playas and concentrating efforts on a select few wetlands. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-29 

Photo 4.5 Typical stream habitat within Sheldon Refuge. 

Photo 4.6 Typical playa habitat within Sheldon Refuge (Photo Gail Collins). 

Playa habitats support a broad array of bird, amphibian, invertebrate, and plant species. Invertebrates 

and other aqatic taxa which live in playa wetlands are specially adapted to withstand prolonged dry 

periods and to then quickly mature and reproduce during brief periods when playas flood. and Smith 

(2003). Historically, plants in playas were grazed seasonally by many wildlife species, including 

pronghorn (Antilocapra americana Ord), elk (Cervus elaphus Linnaeus), and bison (Bison bison 

Hamilton-Smith). Any grazing by wildlife today is generally by small mammals, although 

pronghorn and deer (Odocoileus spp.) continue to forage in grassland playas. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-30 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

At any point-in-time, species occurrence in playas is dependent on three factors: 1) the composition 

of the available seed bank (i.e., viable seed in a position within the soil capable of germinating), 2) 

the environmental conditions of previous years that dictated species presence and replenishment of 

the seed bank, and 3) the environmental conditions of the current growing season that regulates 

germination and seedling growth from the seed bank (Haukos and Smith 1993). 

4.2.4.2 Condition and Trends 

Despite removal of domestic cattle and sheep from riparian areas, grazing by feral horse and burro 

populations continues to impact the condition of riparian habitats on Sheldon Refuge (USFWS 

2008a). Impacts include indirect effects such as reducing plant vigor or eliminating vegetation by 

grazing and trampling. 

Erosion and high levels of turbidity are common water-related issues on Sheldon Refuge (Barnett 

2002; Steblein 2007). Most springs and adjacent meadows have been trampled by previous livestock 

and current feral horse use, resulting in weakened vegetation, erosion, and headcutting. In particular, 

grazing on Sheldon Refuge has resulted in deterioration of spring-associated meadows and 

destruction of riparian vegetation (including willows and aspen). Recent surveys of springs on 

Sheldon Refuge rated approximately 43% of perennial springs as displaying moderate to severe 

grazing disturbance; feral horses were the most commonly documented ungulate, occurring at 71% 

of sites surveyed (Collins 2009). In addition, 31 springs surveyed did not meet guidelines for 

riparian protection detailed by Chaney et al. (1990): undergoing moderate to severe utilization, 

affected by uncontrolled season-long grazing by feral horses, and stubble heights <3.19 inches. 

Earlier accounts suggested that heavy grazing of Sheldon Refuge meadow habitats was the most 

serious management problem for Greater sage-grouse (USFWS 1971). While moderate levels of 

managed, seasonal grazing on Sheldon Refuge appeared to be effective in stimulating forb regrowth 

on meadows, weedy species were generally more prevalent at sites exposed to moderate to heavy 

long-term grazing (Evans 1986). Without plants to slow water movement and associated 

headcutting, the water table has dropped at some sites, and sagebrush, primarily on the periphery, has 

invaded associated riparian meadows. 

Global declines in amphibian populations are perhaps one of the most enigmatic environmental 

problems of the late twentieth century (Daszak et al. 1999). While some declines are likely due to 

habitat destruction, others are not associated with obvious environmental factors. Other potential 

causes include the introduction of predators or competitors, increased ultraviolet irradiation, acidic 

precipitation, adverse weather patterns, environmental pollution, infectious disease, or a combination 

of factors (Daszak et al. 1999). 

4.2.4.3 Associated Wildlife 

Birds 

Greater sage-grouse 

Summer and fall habitat types utilized by sage-grouse on Sheldon Refuge include both uplands and 

meadow sites, including ecotones between these types (Klebenow and Burkhardt 1982). After 

hatching, sage-grouse broods seek out riparian meadows and other moist areas where native 

broadleaved flowering plants and insects are abundant. See Section 4.2.1 for more information 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-31 

regarding Greater sage-grouse on Sheldon Refuge. On Sheldon Refuge, it has been shown that 

Greater sage-grouse generally avoid meadow areas where sagebrush encroachment has occurred. 

(Klebenow and Burkhardt 1982). 

Other birds 

Aquatic and riparian habitats on Sheldon Refuge provide important habitat for a wide variety of 

resident and migratory birds. Nevada lies within the Pacific Flyway, the primary seasonal movement 

corridor for waterbirds migrating west of the Rocky Mountains (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

The number of waterfowl that use Sheldon Refuge is not large compared to other areas, although a 

substantial number use Sheldon Refuge’s wetlands during fall migration. While most shorebirds 

using refuge wetlands are spring and fall migrants, species including American avocet, American 

bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), Virginia rail (Rallus limicola), sora 

rail (Porzana carolina), black-necked stilt, long-billed curlew, spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia), 

willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), Wilson’s phalarope, and common snipe (Capella galliango) 

are known to nest around permanent water sources. Other common waterbird species that occur 

seasonally in Refuge aquatic habitats are greater sandhill crane, black-crowned night heron 

(Nycticorax nycticorax), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), Forster’s tern (Sterna 

forsteri), black tern (Chlidonias niger), western snowy plover, greater and lesser yellowlegs (Tringa 

melanoleucus and T. flavipes), sandpipers (least [Calidris minutilla], solitary [T. solitaria], and 

western [C. mauri]), and grebes (Clark’s [Aechmophorus clarkii], eared [Podiceps caspicus], horned 

[P. auritus], pied-billed [Podilymbus podiceps], and western [A. occidentalis]). These habitats also 

provide foraging areas for a range of seasonally resident and migrating raptors, including American 

kestrel, bald and golden eagles, ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, rough-legged hawk, Swainson’s 

hawk (Buteo swainsoni), short-eared owl, long-eared owl, and western screech owl (Otus asio). 

Passerines also occupy these habitats and include bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Brewer’s 

blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), calliope 

hummingbird (Stellula calliope), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), savannah sparrow, fox 

sparrow (Passerella iliaca), vesper sparrow, and western bluebird (Sialia mexicana). Mountain quail 

(Oreortyx pictus) are native to Sheldon Refuge, and although this species has been reported only 

rarely since the 1960s, it may be occasionally observed within riparian habitats. 

Several species of waterfowl also nest on Sheldon Refuge including Canada goose (Branta 

canadensis), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), gadwall (Anas strepera), mallard (Anas platyrynchos), 

northern pintail (Anas acuta), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), redhead (Aythya americana), ruddy 

duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), green-winged teal (Anas carolinensis), 

and cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera). Limited waterfowl hunting opportunities became available on 

Sheldon Refuge beginning in 1999, the majority of which occur at the IXL Ranch wetlands, Alkali 

Reservoir, and Perry Springs (USFWS 1998a). Of the above species, those that are listed as Nevada 

Species of Conservation Priority include northern pintail, canvasback, cinnamon teal, American 

avocet, black-necked stilt, long-billed curlew, willet, greater sandhill crane, Forster’s tern, black tern, 

western snowy plover, least sandpiper, grebes, bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, 

short-eared owl, bobolink, rufous hummingbird, and mountain quail (Wildlife Action Plan Team 

2006). 

Mammals 

Riparian habitats provide critical habitat for a variety of small mammals, including Preble’s shrew, 

Merriam’s shrew (Sorex merriami), vagrant shrew (S. vagrans), water shrew (S. palustris), montane 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-32 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

vole (Microtus montanus), Belding’s ground squirrel, and white-tailed antelope ground squirrel 

(Ammospermophilus leucurus). In addition, these habitats provide important foraging areas for 

California bighorn sheep, mule deer, porcupine, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), hoary bat 

(Lasiurus cinereus), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), and little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus). 

Reported occurrences of river otter (Lontra canadensis) and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) have been 

rare. Seasonally wet areas, particularly associated with playa lakes, are a very important component 

in pronghorn summer and fall range. Of the above species, those that have been listed as Nevada 

Species of Conservation Priority include Preble’s shrew, Merriam’s shrew, vagrant shrew, water 

shrew, river otter, mule deer, California bighorn sheep, hoary bat, spotted bat, and little brown myotis 

(Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Beavers 

Beaver were released into Virgin Valley in the late 1960s by a local rancher (USFWS 1971); it is 

unknown if they historically occurred on Sheldon Refuge. By the end of the nineteenth century, 

beaver populations in North America had been rapidly depleted by overharvesting and removed from 

many riparian systems (see Svejcar 1997). If they were present on Sheldon Refuge prior to the 

decline throughout their range, the influence of beavers on the structure and functioning of riparian 

zones may have been substantial, at both the local and landscape scale. 

Fish 

Beginning in the early twentieth century, aggressive introduction programs established non-native 

trout species, including brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown (Salmo trutta), and rainbow trout, in 

many streams and reservoirs throughout Sheldon Refuge; the majority of those waters still maintain 

recreational fisheries to this day. Most recent sport-fish management efforts have focused on the 

conservation and expansion of remaining populations of endemic salmonids such as Lahontan 

cutthroat trout, while maintaining sport-fishing opportunities through the stocking of non-native trout 

species in appropriate locations including Big Spring Reservoir. 

Lahontan cutthroat trout 

Lahontan cutthroat trout were historically native to the major lakes and rivers of the Lahontan Basin of 

Nevada and California; habitat alteration preceded the listing of this subspecies first in 1973. Because of 

reduced numbers of this subspecies, individuals have been stocked in Sheldon Refuge reservoirs since 

1947 to provide a source for propagation and stocking into other waters (Williams et al. 1980). Catnip 

Reservoir continues to provide habitat for the federally listed Lahontan cutthroat trout. These trout are 

managed consistently with a special rule under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, which 

authorizes the taking of these trout in accordance with state law. The enables the public to harvest trout 

from Catnip Reservoir under a state fishing license and researchers to collect trout under a state scientific 

collection permit. NDOW conducted spawning operation and egg takes at Catnip Reservoir to produce 

either pure Lahontan cutthroat trout or a hybrid cross with rainbow trout from Big Spring Reservoir for 

sport-fish management throughout Nevada. Spawning operations and egg takes continued until 2002, 

when the water level at Big Spring Reservoir declined and rainbow trout eggs were no longer available at 

Big Spring Reservoir. Since 1959, 6.6 million cutthroat eggs have been taken at Catnip Reservoir (>1.0 

million eggs between 1990 and 2001).

Prior to the allowance of sport fishing at Catnip Reservoir in 1998, the Lahontan cutthroat trout 

population was managed solely as a brood stock source for egg production. The spawning process is 

usually stressful for the fish and mortality can be high. Therefore, stocking rates were adjusted high 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-33 

to ensure the annual spawning run was robust. Additionally, stocking rates varied because it was 

uncertain how many Lahontan cutthroat trout Catnip Reservoir could support. Over the years, by 

comparing relative body condition, biologists were able to determine that ±3,000 fish stocked per 

year produced the best results. 

Currently, it is unknown if Catnip Creek has enough spawning habitat to support a viable population 

of Lahontan cutthroat trout, regardless of sport-harvest levels. NDOW has documented Lahontan 

cutthroat trout successfully spawning in the Catnip Creek, but survival rates of the juvenile trout and 

their contribution the lake’s fishery is unknown. In 2011, NDOW plans to initiate a more 

comprehensive research project to determine the amount of contribution these naturally produced 

fish have on the fishery and if the fishery could sustain itself without hatchery augmentation. This 

project will likely take several years to accumulate enough data to make a determination. 

Big Spring Reservoir has been periodically stocked with non-native rainbow trout, but due to dry 

weather conditions and a lack of water, this reservoir has not supported a fishery for several years. 

Because Big Spring Reservoir is an artificial impoundment, there is no potential spawning habitat, 

and the fishery, even with water and under optimal conditions, does not provide any spawning 

habitat. Therefore, it is impossible for this fishery to sustain itself in the absence of hatchery 

augmentation. 

Alvord cutthroat trout 

This undescribed subspecies of cutthroat trout is presumed extinct in Oregon and Nevada as a 

consequence of hybridization with introduced rainbow trout. Rainbow trout were first introduced 

into Virgin Creek in 1934 (Williams et al. 1980), and any remaining cutthroat trout descendants are 

likely rainbow trout/Alvord cutthroat trout (Salmo gairdneri x Oncorhynchus clarki) hybrids (Bartley 

and Gall 1991). 

Chubs 

Springs, springbrooks, and streams provide habitat for Alvord and Sheldon tui chubs. The Alvord 

chub is indigenous to the Alvord Basin of southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. However, 

this species is limited in its distribution by interspecies competition, and the introduction of guppies 

has eliminated Alvord chubs from parts of Sheldon Refuge including the Dufurrena and Virgin 

Valley areas. The Sheldon tui chub is indigenous to Guano Basin of southern Oregon and northern 

Nevada (Williams and Bond 1981; Williams et al. 1980). The restricted range of this species 

resulted in its listing at one time as a species of special concern by the American Fisheries Society 

(Deacon et al. 1979). 

Reptiles and amphibians 

Species known to occur in suitable riparian and aquatic habitats include Western terrestrial garter 

snake (Thamnophis elegans), Great Basin spadefoot toad, and Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla). The 

distribution of desert amphibians in the arid environment of Sheldon Refuge is sporadic in 

association with the distribution of water resources. Isolation of species and subpopulations has 

resulted in a high level of endemism which makes Nevada’s (and the Sheldon Refuge’s) populations 

particularly susceptible to localized habitat alterations, short-term climatic conditions (e.g., drought), 

and ecological changes (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-34 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Invertebrates 

Sheldon Refuge contains a rich diversity of aquatic habitat types and inhabitant invertebrate fauna. 

Isolated desert springs and stream drainages, geothermal spring systems, and ephemeral playa lakes 

on Sheldon Refuge have been documented to contain over 200 aquatic invertebrate species, including 

several undescribed new species, rare and separate populations, and organisms specifically adapted 

to life in severe and transient desert environments (Herbst 1996). 

There are 74 gastropods listed as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan 

Team 2006), the vast majority of which are springsnails (Pyrgulopsis spp.). This genus has been 

documented on Sheldon Refuge although species have not been identified (Herbst 1996). Most 

springsnail populations are highly isolated because springs and seeps are widely dispersed and 

disconnected. Their aquatic habitats are rare and sensitive to both drought and water development, 

and populations are likely declining almost faster than we can learn about them (Wildlife Action Plan 

Team 2006). 

4.2.4.4 Threats 

Feral horses and burros, sagebrush encroachment, non-native fish and wildlife, disease, and human 

disturbances from water developments and recreation uses have been identified as threats to these 

habitat types and associated fish and wildlife within Sheldon Refuge. 

4.2.5 Cliffs, Canyons, Talus Slopes, and Barren Lands 

4.2.5.1 Description and Location 

These habitats generally include steep cliff faces, bluffs, high walls, narrow canyons, rocky ledges, 

crevices, and rock outcrops of various igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic bedrock types (Photo 

4.7). They also include areas of unstable scree, desert pavement, scarps, talus slopes, slides, dunes, 

mines, and gravel pits. These habitats are generally unvegetated to sparsely vegetated with widely 

scattered trees and shrubs (e.g., Juniperus spp., Artemesia spp.) 

One rare plant, rattlesnake stickweed, has been documented occurring at the base of steep gorge 

walls, in rocky areas below the walls, and occasionally along ledges in the rock walls on Sheldon 

Refuge. This species is considered limited in its distribution and a potential species of concern 

(Nachlinger and Tiehm 1996). The rattlesnake stickweed population on Sheldon Refuge was the 

largest documented to date and at that time represented 96% of the total known individuals 

(Nachlinger and Tiehm 1996). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-35 

Photo 4.7 Typical talus slope habitat within Sheldon Refuge (Photo Gail Collins). 

4.2.5.2 Condition and Trends 

Cliffs are unique habitats that lend topographic diversity to homogenous areas. Cliff and canyon 

habitats are important to wildlife and provide structure for nesting, roosting, denning, shelter from 

weather, protection from predators, and areas for foraging (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). Cliffs 

benefit wildlife directly by providing shelter and cover, and indirectly by providing food from 

adjacent diverse plant communities (Ward and Anderson 1988). Currently, these habitats on Sheldon 

Refuge, outside of Virgin Valley, appear to be stable and in good condition. 

4.2.5.3 Associated Wildlife 

Birds 

Several species of birds are dependent upon ledges, crevices, or talus slopes for nesting on Sheldon 

Refuge. Breeding birds include canyon wren (Catherpes mexicanus), rock wren (Salpinctes 

obsoletus), cliff swallow (Petrocelidon pyrrhonota), rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx 

ruficollis), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), Say’s phoebe, white-throated swift, 

common raven (Corvus corax), golden eagle, and prairie falcon. Other species include black rosy 

finch (Leucosticte atrata), ferruginous hawk, and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Species listed 

as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority include peregrine falcon, ferruginous hawk, and whitethroated swift (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Mammals 

California bighorn sheep 

California bighorn sheep (habitat distribution shown in Figure 4.5)are highly dependent upon open 

habitats in variable, steep, and dissected terrain for escape cover (Hansen 1982). Following their 

extirpation from Sheldon Refuge in the late 1920s, eight California bighorn sheep were re-introduced 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-36 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

from Hart Mountain Refuge in 1968 and were placed into an enclosure at Hell Creek (Thomas 1978; 

USFWS 1971). By 1975, it was suspected that sheep were escaping the enclosure. The population 

was estimated to be over 40 individuals in 1981 (Hansen 1982). California bighorn are listed as a 

Nevada Species of Conservation Priority. 

American pika 

Although long rumored to be present on Sheldon Refuge, this species was first officially documented 

in 2009 (habitat distribution shown in Figure 4.5). As summarized by Beever et al. (2008), pikas 

occur in talus and talus-like habitats across western North America and feed on grasses found near 

talus slopes and also store vegetation in hay piles among the rocks for overwinter use. Pika may be 

the most montane-obligate species in the Great Basin. Studies have found a rise in the minimum 

elevation of pika populations since historic times related to temperature driven distribution; pikas 

exhibit extreme vulnerability to elevated temperatures suggesting that climate change may be factor 

in their ecology. Pikas in the Great Basin appear to have undergone significant losses (25% of 

historical sites) during the last half century (Beever et al. 2003b) and are listed a Nevada Species of 

Conservation Priority. 

Other mammals 

Other mammal species occupying these habitats include mountain lion, bobcat, porcupine, yellowbellied marmot, bushy-tailed woodrat (Neotoma cinerea), desert woodrat, least chipmunk (Tamias 

minimus), little brown myotis, fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), 

spotted bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus spp.) Mule deer and pronghorn have also 

been observed utilizing these types of habitats for protection from wind and sun, and for food on 

south slopes free from snow (Ward and Anderson 1988). Other species listed as Nevada Species of 

Conservation Priority include mule deer, little brown myotis, fringed myotis, spotted bat, and 

Townsend’s big-eared bat. 

Reptiles and amphibians 

Several species of reptiles require talus slopes and rocky outcroppings, including collared lizard, 

side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), and night 

snake (Hypsiglena torquata). 

4.2.5.4 Threats 

In addition to threats from disease (see Section 4.1.3), and general threats from feral horses and 

burros, there are specific threats to American pika and California bighorn sheep, which are almost 

exclusively associated with cliffs, canyons, talus slopes, and barren land habitat types within Sheldon 

Refuge. In an evaluation of pika population extirpations (Beever et al. 2003a), it was found that 

many had occurred in areas open to livestock grazing, although further research was warranted. 

Feral horses may negatively influence pikas by competing for forage if grazing occurs in areas within 

66 to 164 feet of talus. Indirect influences could also include trampling of soils or vegetation, which 

also occurs with horse grazing (Beever et al. 2003a). In addition, feral burros have been implicated 

as contributing to declines in bighorn sheep numbers; it has been recommended that burros be 

removed from areas where they are sympatric with bighorn sheep (Seegmiller and Ohmart 1981). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-37 

4.2.6 Deciduous Woodlands and Shrublands 

4.2.6.1 Description and Location 

These habitats include woodlands along riparian habitats or within snowpockets dominated by shrubs 

or trees including willow, aspen, currant, wild rose, snowberry, and chokecherry (Photo 4.8). Aspen 

stands on Sheldon Refuge are mostly associated with snowpockets. They also generally dominant 

along stream banks in the higher elevations of the western portion of Sheldon Refuge and can also be 

found in the eastern portion along perennially flowing, protected streams (aspen distribution shown 

in Figure 4.6). Further detail may be found in Rogers and Tiehm (1979). 

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). 

4.2.6.2 Condition and Trends 

Decades of livestock overuse and exclusion of fire have resulted in extensive loss of woody riparian 

habitats (particularly aspen stands) and ecologically degraded conditions for much of what remains in 

the Intermountain West (Dobkin 1994; Fleischner 1994; Heltzel and Earnst 2006; Schier 1975) and 

likely Sheldon Refuge as well. For example, Wall et al. (2001) reported that three-fourths of aspen 

communities below elevations of 7,000 feet in the Great Basin have either been replaced, are being 

replaced, or have establishing populations of western juniper. Fire has been reported to be an 

important factor in facilitating the long-term presence and health of aspen across the landscape; 

disease, insects, and native browsing also influence the age structure (see Wall et al. 2001). 

Historically, total stand replacement in aspen habitats was estimated to occur every 100 years, on 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-38 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

average, with smaller disturbances every 16 years (Wall et al. 2001). On Sheldon Refuge, these 

habitats are considered in overall poor to fair condition. 

4.2.6.3 Associated Wildlife 

Birds 

Deciduous woodlands provide critical habitat for several species occurring on Sheldon Refuge. 

Known or suspected breeding birds include ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), dusky 

flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptile caerulea), broad-tailed 

hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus), calliope hummingbird, rufous hummingbird, Cassin’s finch 

(Carpodacus cassinii), lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena), Lewis’ woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis),

northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), northern oriole (Icterus galbula), Swainson’s thrush (Catharus 

ustulatus), warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), MacGillivray’s warbler (Oporornis tolmiei), orangecrowned warbler (Vermivora celata), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), and tree swallow 

(Iridoprocne bicolor). Other species include willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), American 

goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), western bluebird, black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus),

cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), yellow-breasted chat, downy woodpecker (Dendrocopos 

pubescens), hairy woodpecker (D. villosus), red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis), and varied 

thrush (Ixoreus naevius). Dobkin and Sauder (2004) documented for the Great Basin significantly 

declining population trends for five of the 12 riparian bird species considered, which includes many 

of those listed above. In addition, this habitat also supports populations of raptors including bald 

eagle, Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), long-eared owl,

northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), northern shrike,

osprey (Pandion haliaetus), red-tailed hawk, sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Swainson’s 

hawk, and western screech owl. Of these species, bald eagle, northern goshawk, Swainson’s hawk, 

rufous hummingbird, Lewis’ woodpecker, willow flycatcher, and Cassin’s finch are listed as Nevada 

Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Mammals 

Several species of mammal occur in this habitat type, including mountain lion, bobcat, coyote, 

beaver, porcupine, long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), ermine (M. ermine), Nuttall’s cottontail, 

yellow pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus), fringed myotis, little brown myotis, western small-footed 

myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), Preble’s shrew, and vagrant shrew. In addition, mule deer utilize these 

habitats for resting and foraging. Of these species, mule deer, fringed myotis, little brown myotis, 

western small-footed myotis, Preble’s shrew, and vagrant shrew are listed as Nevada Species of 

Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

Reptiles and amphibians 

Deciduous woodlands provide habitat for reptile species including northern alligator lizard (Elgaria 

coerulea) and racer (Coluber constrictor). Amphibian species include the pacific treefrog. 

4.2.6.4 Threats 

In addition to feral horses and burros (see Section 4.1.1), threats to these habitat types and associated 

wildlife within Sheldon Refuge include changes in the natural fire regime (see Section 4.1.4), and 

resulting encroachment by sagebrush and western juniper (see Section 4.1.2). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-39 

4.2.7 Mountain Mahogany and Western Juniper Woodlands 

4.2.7.1 Description and Location 

Nomenclature follows that described in LANDFIRE (2007) and the Southwest Regional Gap 

Analysis Project (NatureServe 2004). Further detail may be found in Rogers and Tiehm (1979). 

Western juniper woodlands 

The vegetation in western juniper woodlands (habitat distribution shown in Figure 4.5) is 

characterized by a mature stand of western juniper. Mature stands of western juniper exhibit 

considerable diversity in structure and composition, varying from open-shrub tree savannas to nearly 

closed-canopy woodlands. However, tree canopy cover in the majority of stands is usually less than 

20%. Ages are usually mixed with little to no recruitment in closed stands. Very old stands usually 

contain standing and downed dead trees that can persist for several hundred years, especially on dry 

sites and where downed trees do not come into contact with soil. A key indicator of mature western 

juniper woodland is the presence of old-growth trees (>130 years in age), dead snags, and 

recruitment of younger aged trees (Miller et al. 2005). Common understory shrubs include mountain 

big sagebrush, bitterbrush, and rabbitbrush (Photo 4.9). Other understory associates include 

Thurber’s needlegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, and prairie junegrass. 

Photo 4.9 Typical western juniper habitat within Sheldon Refuge. 

Mountain mahogany woodlands 

Mountain mahogany woodlands (habitat distribution shown in Figure 4.7) are dominated by curl-leaf 

mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius var. ledifolius) (Photo 4.10). These stands occupy areas 

often associated with late-enduring snowbanks and higher elevations to 8,000 feet. Mountain big 

sagebrush and scattered juniper may also occur. Common associates include Thurber’s needlegrass, 

prairie junegrass, Sandberg’s bluegrass, Idaho fescue, and Lupinus spp. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-40 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Photo 4.10 Typical mountain mahogany habitat within Sheldon Refuge. 

4.2.7.2 Condition and Trends 

The expansion of western juniper following European settlement is unprecedented. Numerous 

inventories and studies have demonstrated a rapid expansion of western juniper into adjacent 

sagebrush habitats since the late 1800s (Miller et al. 2008). This expansion is primarily the result of 

changes in the natural fire regime, which have allowed juniper to persist, and the removal of fire 

fuels through grazing by livestock. The distribution of old trees (>130 years old) is generally limited 

to rocky ridges and low sagebrush communities. Old trees are found only occasionally growing in 

deeper, well-drained soils such as mountain big sagebrush–grassland communities and are most often 

absent from aspen communities (Miller and Rose 1995). During the period of juniper expansion, 

younger trees have filled in between larger old trees creating much higher tree densities than 

historically occurred (Miller et al. 2008). On Sheldon Refuge, these habitats are overall considered 

in good condition. 

In addition to the estimated 4,863 acres of western juniper habitat, it is estimated between 8,000 and 

10,000 acres of habitat within Sheldon Refuge have been, or are in the process of being, encroached 

upon by western juniper. Currently Sheldon Refuge actively removes western juniper which has 

expanded into adjacent habitats through the use of prescribed burning and chainsaw thinning. Since 

2003, Sheldon Refuge has treated an annual average of 373 acres, primarily to remove encroaching 

juniper. The number of acres has gradually increased over the same time period, with approximately 

1,014 acres treated in 2009 (NFPORS 2009). 

Mountain mahogany stands have also exhibited dramatic increases in density and distribution, which 

has been attributed to fire exclusion (Gruell 1995). Mountain mahogany was further proliferated by 

livestock grazing which diminished competing grasses. On Hart Mountain and Sheldon refuges, 

approximately 88% and 83% of the stands sampled, respectively, have been estimated to have been 

established after 1900 (Gruell 1995). Current concerns with mountain mahogany are that many 

stands are dominated by older trees with crowns that are practically unreachable to wildlife for 

browse and little recruitment of new plants. If natural fire were to re-enter these stands in their 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 4. Biological Environment 4-41 

current overgrown conditions, it is likely most or all mountain mahogany would be killed by the 

intense heat and these areas would be lost as valuable wildlife cover, forage, and nesting habitat. 

Mountain mahogany does not easily resprout after burning, and it is difficult to establish from seed. 

Factors that may limit natural seedling establishment include the presence of mountain mahogany 

litter that inhibits seed germination, competition for water and soil resources, and browsing of 

seedlings (see summary by Ibáñez et al. 1999). On Sheldon Refuge, these habitats are considered in 

overall fair to good condition. 

4.2.7.3 Associated Wildlife 

Birds 

Mature western juniper and mountain mahogany stands provide habitat for a range of breeding bird 

species including juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi), black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica 

nigrescens), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendrocia coronata), dusky flycatcher, gray flycatcher, fox 

sparrow, mountain chickadee (Parus gambeli), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula),

Townsend’s solitaire (Myaestes townsendi), and western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica). 

Western juniper berries (female cones) provide an important source of food for Townsend’s 

solitaires, American robins, mountain bluebirds, cedar waxwings, Steller’s jays, and scrub jays 

(Lederer 1977; Poddar and Lederer 1982; Solomonson and Balda 1977). Western juniper berries are 

the sole winter food used by Townsend’s solitaires and make most of the American robin’s diet 

throughout the winter (Lederer 1977; Poddar and Lederer 1982).Other species include black-headed 

grosbeak, chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa),

Hammond’s flycatcher (Empidonax hammondii), MacGillivray’s warbler, Nashville warbler 

(Vermivora ruficapilla), northern shrike, olive-sided flycatcher (Nuttallornis borealis), pine siskin 

(Spinus spinus), red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), Townsend’s warbler (Dendroica 

townsendi), western bluebird, and western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana). These habitats are also 

important as nesting and resting habitat for migrating raptors, including Cooper’s hawk, ferruginous 

hawk, golden eagle, northern goshawk, great horned owl, northern saw-whet owl, red-tailed hawk, 

rough-legged hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk. Of these species, northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk, 

and olive-sided flycatcher are listed as Nevada Species of Conservation Priority (Wildlife Action 

Plan Team 2006). Old-growth stands differ structurally from post-settlement woodland, including 

having a greater density of cavities, which significantly influences cavity nesting species. 

Mammals 

These habitats on Sheldon Refuge provide important thermal cover for mule deer and pronghorn. 

Mountain mahogany also provides winter forage for big game (Scheldt and Tisdale 1970). Leckenby 

et al. (1982) concluded that dense stands of trees or shrubs over 5 feet tall provided optimal thermal 

cover. However, these stands provide minimal food resources. Trainer et al. (1983) reported that 

pronghorn rarely used western juniper woodlands during the winter or spring in eastern Oregon, 

preferring more open shrub-steppe communities or stands with only scattered trees. Other species 

occurring in these habitats include mountain lion, bobcat, porcupine, bushy-tailed woodrat, goldenmantled ground squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis), Great Basin pocket mouse, hoary bat, and least 

chipmunk. Of these species, mule deer and hoary bat are listed as Nevada Species of Conservation 

Priority (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-42 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

Reptiles and amphibians 

These stands provide habitat for reptiles including pygmy short-horned lizard and racer on Sheldon 

Refuge. Pygmy short-horned lizards are listed as a Nevada Species of Conservation Priority 

(Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

4.2.7.4 Threats 

Feral horses and burros (see Section 4.1.1) and changes in the natural fire regime (see Section 4.1.4) 

are considered threats to these habitat types and associated wildlife within Sheldon Refuge. 

Old-growth western juniper and mountain mahogany trees provide unique, and often irreplaceable 

biological and ecological values, such as plant and animal habitat, biodiversity and genetic pools, and 

long-term climatic records (see Waichler et al. 2001). However, juniper establishment declines with 

woodland maturity because of a decrease in seedling establishment as shrubs die out and an increase 

in intra-specific competition (Miller et al. 2000). On some more arid sites, juniper woodland 

development has also led to desertification and reduction in site productivity and understory (Miller 

et al. 2000). 
e[

e[

e[

e[

e[

e[

e[

e[ e[

e[

e[

e[

9"

9"

9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9" 9"

9"

9"

9"

9"

@"

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

Tho usan d Creek

Badg er C r eek

Craine Cre ek

UV140

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA DA

L A K E C O U N T Y

HA R N E Y C O U N T Y

C O U N T Y

C O U N T Y

P iute C re e k

WA S H O E C O U N T Y

HU M B O L D T C O U N T Y

Virg in Creek

Catnip

Reservoir

Little Catnip

Spring

West Rock

Spring

Gooch

Spring

Fish

Spring

North Hell

Creek

Badger

Wheeler

Spring

Bateman

Spring

Devaney

East Rock

Spring

Big Spring

Reservoir

Virgin

Valley

Kinney

Camp

Virgin

Valley Ranch

Gooch

Camp

IXL

Ranch

Last Chance

Ranch Little

Sheldon

Andy's

Place

Badger

Cabin

Alkali

Ranch

Pruett

Homestead

Thousand Creek

Ranch & Bunkhouse

CCC Gate House

LEGEND

@" Refuge Headquarters

Approved Refuge Boundary

Refuge Ownership

Private Lands (inholdings)

9" Campgrounds

e[ Sheldon Historic Structures

Prescribed Fires 1991-2003

Natural Fires 1985-2003

County Boundary

Service Routes

Closed Routes

No Vehicles

Public Vehicle Routes

State Line

Highway

Intermittent Stream

Perennial Stream

Lakes and Reservoirs

Figure 4.1

Fire History and Fire Protection

FINAL CCP / EIS Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

0 3 6 Mi

0 6 12 Km. Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 4/12/2012

File: 10-125-1.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-44 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'D' D'

D' D' D' D'

D'

D'D'

D' D'

D' D' D'

D' D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D' D'

D' D' D'

D'

D' D'

D' D'

D'

D'

D'

D' D'

D' D' D'

D'

D' D'

D' D'

D'

D' D'

D' DD''

D'

D'

D' D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D' D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D' D'

D'

D'

D' D' D'

D'

D'

D'

D' D' D'D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'D'

D'

D' D'

D' D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

D'

@"

Big

Spring

Reservoir

Catnip

Reservoir

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

Bog

Hot

Valley

Thou sand Creek

I d a h o C a n y o n R a n g e

Rock

Spring

Table

Gooch Table

Badg er Creek

Craine Creek

Badger Mountains

Oregon

End

Table

P u e b l o M o u n t a i n s

UV140

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA D A

LA K E C O U N T Y

H A R N E Y C O U N T Y

U N T Y

U N T Y

Big Spring C r eek

P iu te C re e k

WA SH OE C OU NTY

HU M B OLDT C OU NTY

LEGEND

@" Refuge Headquarters

Approved Refuge Boundary

Habitat Type

Aspen

Basin Big Sagebrush

Canyon Vegetation

Emergent Vegetation

Greasewood

Juniper

Low Sagebrush

Mountain Big Sagebrush

Mountain Mahogany

Mountain Shrub

Perennial Grassland

Salt Desert

Sparse Vegetation

Unclassified

Water

Wet Meadow

Wyoming Big Sagebrush

D' Seeps and Springs

County Boundary

State Line

Intermittent Stream

Perennial Stream

Highway

Public Vehicle Routes (clipped to Refuge)

Figure 4.2

Habitat Distribution

FINAL CCP / EIS Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 4/12/2012

File: 10-065-1.mxd

0 3 6 Mi

0 6 12 Km .
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-46 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Big

Spring

Reservoir

Catnip

Reservoir

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

B o g

H o t

Va l l e y I d a h o C a n y o n

R a n g e

R o c k

S p r i n g

Ta b l e

G o o c h Ta b l e

P u e b l o M o u n t a i n s

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA DA

Su mmit Lake Rd

Big

Spring

Reservoir

Catnip

Reservoir

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

B o g

H o t

Va l l e y I d a h o C a n y o n

R a n g e

R o c k

S p r i n g

Ta b l e

G o o c h Ta b l e

B l a c k R o c k R a n g e

P u e b l o M o u n t a i n s

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA DA

Sum mit Lake Rd

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

FINAL CCP / EIS

Figure 4.3 Pygmy rabbit and Greater sage-grouse distribution based on habitat

0 5 10 Mi

0 10 20 Km . Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 3/14/2011

File: 10-091-2.mxd

Pygmy rabbit: Big sagebrush steppes and shrublands 

Greater sage-grouse: Montane sagebrush steppes, low sagebrush shrublands

and steppes and big sagebrush steppes and shrublands 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-48 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Big

Spring

Reservoir

Catnip

Reservoir

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

B o g

H o t

Va l l e y I d a h o C a n y o n

R a n g e

R o c k

S p r i n g

Ta b l e

G o o c h Ta b l e

P u e b l o M o u n t a i n s

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA DA

Su mmit Lake Rd

Big

Spring

Reservoir

Catnip

Reservoir

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

B o g

H o t

Va l l e y I d a h o C a n y o n

R a n g e

R o c k

S p r i n g

Ta b l e

G o o c h Ta b l e

P u e b l o M o u n t a i n s

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA DA

Sum mit Lake Rd

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

FINAL CCP / EIS

Figure 4.4 Pronghorn and mule deer distribution based on habitat

0 5 10 Mi

0 10 20 Km . Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 3/14/2011

File: 10-091-1.mxd

Pronghorn: Low sagebrush shrublands and steppes

Mule Deer: Montane sagebrush steppes
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-50 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Big

Spring

Reservoir

Catnip

Reservoir

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

B o g

H o t

Va l l e y I d a h o C a n y o n

R a n g e

R o c k

S p r i n g

Ta b l e

G o o c h Ta b l e

P u e b l o M o u n t a i n s

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA DA

Su mmit Lake Rd

Big

Spring

Reservoir

Catnip

Reservoir

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

B o g

H o t

Va l l e y I d a h o C a n y o n

R a n g e

R o c k

S p r i n g

Ta b l e

G o o c h Ta b l e

B l a c k R o c k R a n g e

P u e b l o M o u n t a i n s

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA DA

Sum mit Lake Rd

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

FINAL CCP / EIS

Figure 4.5 California bighorn sheep, American pika, and old-growth western juniper

distribution based on habitat

0 5 10 Mi

0 10 20 Km . Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 3/14/2011

File: 10-091-3.mxd

California Bighorn Sheep and American Pika: Cliffs, canyons, talus slopes, and barren lands

Old Growth Western Juniper: Western juniper woodlands
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-52 Chapter 4. Biological Environment 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Big

Spring

Reservoir

Catnip

Reservoir

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

B o g

H o t

Va l l e y I d a h o C a n y o n

R a n g e

R o c k

S p r i n g

Ta b l e

G o o c h Ta b l e

P u e b l o M o u n t a i n s

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA DA

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

FINAL CCP / EIS

Figure 4.6 Aspen distribution based on habitat

Aspen: Deciduous woodlands and shrublands

0 5 10 Mi

0 10 20 Km . Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 3/14/2011

File: 10-091-4.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-54 Chapter 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Big

Spring

Reservoir

Catnip

Reservoir

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

B o g

H o t

Va l l e y I d a h o C a n y o n

R a n g e

R o c k

S p r i n g

Ta b l e

G o o c h Ta b l e

P u e b l o M o u n t a i n s

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA DA

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

FINAL CCP/EIS

Figure 4.7 Mountain mahogany distribution based on habitat

Mountain mahogany: Mountain mahogany woodlands

0 5 10 Mi

0 10 20 Km . Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 5/16/2012

File: 10-091-5.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

4-56 Chapter 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-1 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

5.1 Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities 

The infrastructure and facilities required to administer Sheldon Refuge are extensive. In addition to a 

number of buildings, structures, fences, and signs, Sheldon Refuge maintains a system of roads that 

provides access to administrative facilities and to fish, wildlife, plant, and habitat management and 

research project sites throughout Sheldon Refuge, and secondarily serves as public use and access. 

5.1.1 Administrative Buildings and Structures 

There are five primary administrative sites for Sheldon Refuge (Figure 5.1). These include the 

Sheldon Refuge Office (Dufurrena), the Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex Headquarters in 

Lakeview, Oregon, the Thousand Creek Bunkhouse, the Little Sheldon Headquarters/Work Station, 

and the Badger Mountain Work Cabin. With the exception of the Complex Headquarters, all of these 

administrative sites are located on refuge lands. 

The Sheldon Refuge Office, in Virgin Valley, consists of an office/visitor contact trailer, a barn and 

tack shed, two maintenance shops, a horse processing facility which includes a hay shed and corrals, 

and housing for two full-time employees (Photo 5.1). Currently the Sheldon Refuge Manager and 

two maintenance staff members are stationed at the Sheldon Refuge Office. 

Photo 5.1 The Sheldon Refuge Office at Dufurrena includes residences, maintenance 

buildings, and a small office (Photo Gail Collins). 

The Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex Headquarters consist of an office and visitor contact 

building, a storage shed, a vehicle storage lot, and office space at the Lakeview Interagency Fire 

Center. Currently the Complex Manager, Deputy Complex Manager, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, 

Fire Management Officer, Assistant Fire Management Officer, Prescribed Fire Specialist, Natural 

Resource Planner and three administrative staff members are stationed at the Complex Headquarters. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-2 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

The Thousand Creek Bunkhouse is located near Highway 140 and east of the Dufurrena 

Headquarters. This facility consists of two buildings, which provide seasonal quarters and office 

space for one Fire Station Supervisor, one Engine Crew member, Biological Technicians, and other 

various staff members associated with seasonal and short-term refuge research and management 

projects and programs. 

The Little Sheldon Headquarters/Work Station located on Highway 34A near the western boundary 

of Sheldon Refuge consists of a bunkhouse/office building and a storage shed. These facilities 

provide seasonal and short-term quarters and office space in support of refuge research and 

management projects and programs. 

The Badger Mountain Work Cabin consists of a small dual-purpose building, which serves as 

bunkhouse and office space. This building is used as a field camp to support refuge research and 

management projects on a seasonal or short-term basis. 

5.1.2 Management Infrastructure 

5.1.2.1 Water Control Structures 

A variety of water control structures have been constructed within Sheldon Refuge (see Figure 5.1). 

Most structures were constructed on private lands prior being included in Sheldon Refuge, or were 

constructed to support the commercial livestock grazing operations that were permitted by Sheldon 

Refuge prior to 1994. A discussion of these various water control structures can be found in Chapter 

3. Since commercial livestock grazing no longer occurs within Sheldon Refuge, many of these 

structures have not been maintained and no longer function. Other facilities function but are not 

currently maintained for refuge management purposes. The water control structures discussed here 

are those now actively maintained and managed to support administration of Sheldon Refuge. 

Swan Lake Reservoir was constructed in 1929 to provide stockwater and irrigation for IXL Ranch. It 

is now maintained by Sheldon Refuge to provide late summer pronghorn forage. Early spring 

snowmelt and runoff water is stored and allowed to slowly evaporate—resulting in green palatable 

forage late in the year after other plants have dried. Excess water flows to the IXL wetlands. A 2002 

inspection determined the condition of the Swan Lake Reservoir dam was fair (URS 2002). 

The IXL wetlands are a portion of a former ranch. The historic ranch buildings are not used for 

administrative purposes, but the water diversion dam, canals, headgates, and ponds are maintained to 

provide seasonal waterfowl habitat. 

NDOW maintains 18 water guzzlers for the enhancement of small-game and bighorn sheep 

populations within Sheldon Refuge. These facilities are authorized to support refuge wildlife 

management objectives. The remaining facilities and infrastructure within Sheldon Refuge were 

constructed and historically used to support commercial livestock grazing. This use no longer exists, 

and the need for these facilities and infrastructure is being evaluated as part of this CCP. 

Catnip Reservoir constructed in 1910 to supply irrigation water to IXL Ranch and has a capacity of 

243 acre-feet. Today this reservoir is maintained to provide habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout and 

secondarily to provide recreational fishing opportunities. Current condition of the dam is considered 

poor due to seepage (Fox and Clayton 1988). To remain functional, the Catnip Reservoir dam will 

require substantial repair or replacement at some point in the future. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-3 

Water wells are located at the Thousand Creek Work Station, Sheldon Refuge Headquarters at 

Dufurrena, Virgin Valley Campground, and the Little Sheldon Headquarters/Work Station. A natural 

spring supplies water to the Badger Mountain Work Cabin. 

5.1.2.2 Fencing 

Fences and fence exclosures within Sheldon Refuge include a permanent perimeter boundary fence 

designed to inhibit the movements of horses and cattle while allowing passage of wildlife. A number 

of small semi-permanent and temporary fence exclosures are maintained within Sheldon Refuge to 

protect key habitats from overgrazing by feral horses or as part of various habitat research studies 

and management treatments. 

5.1.2.3 Administrative Roads 

Roads within Sheldon Refuge used for administrative purposes include roads designated open to 

general public use, and roads, routes, and trails open only to administrative use by Service employees 

or by refuge Special Use Permit. 

5.1.2.4 Maintained Public Roads 

The primary access roads within Sheldon Refuge include Nevada State Highway 140 and County 

Roads 34A and 8A and the Summit Lake/Badger Road (see Figure 5.1). The 34-mile portion of 

Highway 140 within Sheldon Refuge is a paved two-lane highway maintained by the State of Nevada 

Highway Department. The remaining 100 miles of maintained primary routes are gravel roads 

suitable for two-wheel drive passenger vehicles. County Roads 34, 34A, and 8A include 59 miles of 

roads, which are cooperatively maintained by Sheldon Refuge and the respective road maintenance 

crews from Washoe and Humboldt counties. The remaining 41 miles of gravel road are maintained 

solely by Sheldon Refuge. 

The unimproved roads within Sheldon Refuge are not regularly maintained (Photo 5.2), but are 

repaired on a site-by-site basis to keep them in usable condition or to prevent undue resource damage 

(i.e., excessive erosion). Administrative routes within the proposed wilderness areas were 

historically created through vehicle access to range developments, mining claims, habitat 

rehabilitation projects or fenced exclosures, but are now used almost exclusively to support fire 

suppression activities and are not maintained or improved. A number of other vehicle routes exist 

within Sheldon Refuge, but these routes were created by illegal vehicle use and continue to be 

signed, closed, and rehabilitated as staff time and funding allows. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-4 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

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). 

5.1.2.5 Directional and Informational Signage 

Because Sheldon Refuge is so large and remote, directional and information signs provide critical 

information to visitors. These signs are considered part of the Sheldon Refuge infrastructure and do 

not provide educational information or an interpretive message. These include several refuge 

entrance signs, refuge road direction signs, refuge boundary signs (posted primarily on the perimeter 

refuge boundary fence), designated vehicle route signs, designated campground signs, and closed 

area/road signs. While the exact numbers are not tracked, it is estimated several hundred signs are 

located throughout Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-5 

5.1.3 Operations and Administration 

Approximately $1.68 million annually is required to manage Sheldon Refuge. This includes funds 

for employee salaries, fire suppression, feral horse and burro management activities, vehicle and 

facilities operations and maintenance, equipment, supplies, utilities, and a variety of contracts. 

Sheldon Refuge is managed by a combination of on-site and off-site staff. The Sheldon Refuge 

Manager, two maintenance staff members, a fire station supervisor, and a fire engine crew are 

stationed on Sheldon Refuge at the Dufurrena Headquarters and the Thousand Creek Work Station 

near Denio, Nevada. The Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex Project Leader, Deputy Project 

Leader, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Fire Management Officer, Assistant Fire Management 

Officer, Prescribed Fire Specialist, Natural Resource Planner, Budget Officer, and two additional 

administrative staff members are stationed in Lakeview, Oregon, at the Complex Headquarters. 

Unlike on-refuge staff, these Complex staff members split their time between the two refuges. 

Salaries and benefits for work conducted on Sheldon Refuge in 2008 was estimated to be $847,000. 

Surveys, monitoring, research studies, and other biological projects and programs related to wildlife, 

fish, and their habitats within Sheldon Refuge require additional funds to pay for aerial survey 

contracts, equipment, vehicles, and travel. Annual maintenance of roads, administrative buildings, 

water control structures, boundary fences, campgrounds, signs, and information kiosks also requires 

additional funds. The combined costs for these activities are $100,000 per year. In addition, 

volunteers, partners, and cooperating agencies annually contribute labor, transportation, and other 

assistance. 

In addition to employee salaries, approximately $47,000 is spent annually to conduct wildfire 

suppression operations and for the equipment, maintenance, planning, inventory, operations, and 

monitoring required to conduct prescribed burning and other habitat treatment projects within 

Sheldon Refuge. 

Management of feral horses and burros is the most expensive program at Sheldon Refuge. 

Implementation of the current management plan requires the removal of between 160 and 200 

animals each year to maintain population levels. Excluding employee salary costs, management of 

feral horses and burros requires $684,000 annually (Industrial Economics 2010). The majority of 

these funds pay for the gathering, feeding, transporting, and adoption of the animals. If employee 

costs for this program are included, the feral horse and burro program consumes well over half the 

entire annual budget for Sheldon Refuge. 

5.1.3.1 Public Access 

A range of opportunities for a particular recreation activity can be achieved by combining varying 

degrees of management presence, interaction with other visitors, the degree of development, and 

types of access. Access—defined in terms the types of use, modes of transportation, and the level of 

development and maintenance—can be used to describe recreation settings. Access settings have 

been broadly categorized for planning purposes as follows: Primitive (areas without developed trails, 

roads, and vehicles); Semi-primitive non-motorized (areas with developed trails or routes, but 

without roads or motorized vehicles); Semi-primitive motorized (areas with roads and routes for 

motorized vehicles, but generally suitable only for ATVs, snowmobiles, or high-clearance fourwheel drive vehicles); Roaded Natural (roads are maintained, may be either native material, gravel or 

asphalt, and are suitable for most types of vehicles); Rural; and Urban. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-6 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

Generally, the remoteness of the physical setting within Sheldon Refuge falls into the Semi-primitive 

Nonmotorized and Semi-primitive Motorized categories. Only two small areas on Big Spring Table 

and Gooch Table, which are more than 3 miles from a road or motorized route, meet the criteria for a 

Primitive recreation opportunity setting. A relatively small percentage of Sheldon Refuge, which 

includes the corridors along Summit Lake/Badger Road, County Roads 34A, 8A, and State Highway 

140, would be categorized as Roaded Natural, and the Dufurrena/Virgin Valley area would be 

considered a Rural recreation opportunity setting where land use and development are readily 

noticeable and numerous facilities and buildings are evident. The majority of public use occurs 

within these Roaded Natural and Rural settings. With the exception of a few administrative areas, all 

public lands within Sheldon Refuge are open to public use and fall into one of these three access 

settings. There are no areas of Sheldon Refuge within the Urban settings. 

As with much of northwest Nevada, public use and recreation activities typically involve a variety of 

motorized vehicles, especially OHVs. Over the past several decades, more than 400 miles of 

unimproved motorized routes and trails within Sheldon Refuge have been pioneered by ranchers, 

mining prospectors, fire suppression crews, staff, and visitors. While many of these primitive routes 

continue to be used today by visitors, the Service has not evaluated the adverse impacts from these 

routes to the natural, aesthetic, or scenic values of Sheldon Refuge and has not determined if their 

location minimizes damage to soils; harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife 

habitats, or other existing recreational uses as required by Executive Order 11644. Furthermore, the 

Service has never officially designated any of these routes open to use by OHVs as required by 

Executive Order 11644 and 50 CFR 27.31. 

Currently visitors can drive to within 4.5 miles of any point on Sheldon Refuge using a variety of 

roads, routes, and trails (see Figure 2.1). With the exception of 34A, 8A, Dufurrena, and the Summit 

Lake/Badger Road, Sheldon Refuge conducts the minimum maintenance necessary to keep routes in 

useable condition and to prevent undue resource degradation. As a result, most routes within 

Sheldon Refuge require a high-clearance and/or four-wheel drive vehicle and are impassible after 

heavy rain or snowfall. 

The boundaries of the proposed wilderness areas within Sheldon Refuge are primarily defined by 

adjacent roads and routes. Visitors typically access the proposed wilderness areas along these 

adjacent boundary roads and routes before taking day trips or short overnight trips into Sheldon 

Refuge backcountry for hunting and other recreation activities. There are no maintained routes or 

trails within the proposed wilderness areas, but existing user created trails do provide limited access. 

The Primitive setting characterizes access within each of the proposed wilderness areas. 

5.1.3.2 Public Use Overview 

Recreation activities within Sheldon Refuge include hunting for birds and large game, fishing for 

both cold- and warm-water fish, wildlife observation and photography, and rock collecting. Hunting 

is the most common of these activities. In addition to the system of roads, routes, and trails within 

Sheldon Refuge, 12 semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds, one developed campground, a horse 

corral, reservoirs, a fishing dock, and a number of information signs and kiosks are maintained to 

support these recreation activities. 

Sheldon Refuge provides outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation 

characterized by solitude, remoteness, and a variety of terrain and scenery. These opportunities are 

recognized by the fact nearly 60% of Sheldon Refuge has been proposed for wilderness 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-7 

designation—in part due to these outstanding opportunities. Aside from a number of undeveloped 

primitive roads and semi-primitive campgrounds, Sheldon Refuge is undeveloped and can be 

experienced in its natural state with little or no evidence of human presence, habitation, or alteration. 

When compared with other large, primitive, undeveloped areas in the region, it is the almost 

complete absence of modern human use (primarily ongoing commercial livestock grazing operations) 

that sets Sheldon Refuge apart. 

Annual recreation visits 

Sheldon Refuge received approximately 17,000 visitors in 2008, mostly enjoying hunting, fishing, 

wildlife viewing, camping, and rock collecting. Generally, the majority of visitors in the spring are 

rock collecting, camping, and wildlife viewing, and the majority of visitors in the fall are hunting. In 

2008 there were 4,198 visitors to Sheldon Refuge for the purpose of hunting. An estimated 488 

anglers fished at Catnip Reservoir and Dufurrena Ponds in 2007 (which represents nearly all sport 

fishing within Sheldon Refuge). There are no visitation numbers for the other visitor activities. 

Outdoor recreation rates and trends 

Overall, recreation visits to Sheldon Refuge have increased in recent decades. It was estimated that 

in 1974 there were 12,000 visitors to Sheldon Refuge (USFWS 1974). In 2008 it was estimated there 

were 17,000 visitors. 

More recently, the rate of use in Virgin Valley Campground was increasing, until higher gas prices in 

2008; hence, due to the remoteness of Sheldon Refuge, visitation decreased notably from 2007 to 

2008. Refuge staff also noted a decrease in hunter scouting trips in 2008 prior to the hunting season. 

Recreation opportunities in the surrounding area 

Commercial operators provide fee-based recreation rock collecting and mining opportunities for 

precious opal on private lands and patented mining claims in the Virgin Valley area within Sheldon 

Refuge. Private commercial developed campgrounds are provided in conjunction with these rock 

collecting opportunities. However, the majority of use at refuge public use facilities in the Virgin 

Valley area are visitors to these private rock collecting and mining areas. 

Sheldon Refuge is surrounded by public lands managed by the BLM, which include WSAs, a 

national conservation area, and a variety of primitive and semi-primitive facilities which provide a 

wide range of recreation opportunities including hunting, fishing, camping, rock collecting, 

horseback riding, hang gliding, bicycle riding, photography, OHV use, and wildlife viewing. 

5.2 Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Public Uses 

5.2.1 Waterfowl Hunting 

Waterfowl hunting is permissible in accordance with NDOW regulations. All of Sheldon Refuge is 

open to waterfowl hunting except Virgin Valley, the Little Sheldon area, and Big Spring and Catnip 

reservoirs. There are no official data on the number of hunters. It is estimated that waterfowl 

hunting draws less than 100 visitors to Sheldon Refuge a year. Harvest statistics are not available for 

waterfowl hunting. The water control structures near the historic IXL Ranch support waterfowl 

hunting on Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-8 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

5.2.2 Upland Bird/Small-game Hunting 

All of Sheldon Refuge is open to upland game bird hunting except Virgin Valley and the Little 

Sheldon area. Upland game birds open to hunting include Greater sage-grouse, chukar, and 

California quail. There were 40 California quail and chukar hunters in 2007. 

Hunting of Greater sage-grouse within Sheldon Refuge is allowed with permits issued from NDOW. 

Hunting of Greater sage-grouse provides recreation opportunity for up to 150 hunters drawn by 

lottery from a pool of roughly 400 applicants each year. Sage-grouse hunting within Sheldon Refuge 

is restricted to two separate two-day seasons in September. Seasons and harvest limits are 

coordinated by NDOW and Sheldon Refuge to maintain healthy populations and adequate data 

collection. Harvest levels are currently lower than in past years because harvest limits were reduced 

from three birds to two, and possession limits were reduced from six birds to four. From 2002 

through 2010, a minimum of 1,296 Greater sage-grouse were harvested within Sheldon Refuge 

(based on the number of wings hunters provided). Harvest ranged from 75 birds in 2007 to 230 in 

2004 and averaged 144 birds per year (Collins 2010). Every hunter is required to deposit one wing 

from each grouse into a collection barrel before leaving Sheldon Refuge. Wings are then examined 

each year during the annual NDOW wing bee to estimate population productivity and nesting 

success. 

Small-game hunting is not allowed on Sheldon Refuge. 

Other than wing collection barrels, there are no facilities specifically in support of these activities. 

5.2.3 Big-game Hunting 

Big-game hunting is a very popular activity and a priority public use on Sheldon Refuge. There is 

considerable public support for hunting on Sheldon Refuge. All of Sheldon Refuge is open to biggame hunting except for two large sanctuary areas. The sanctuary areas are Virgin Valley on the east 

end of Sheldon Refuge and the Little Sheldon area on the western end. Big-game species open to 

hunting are mule deer, pronghorn, and California bighorn sheep in accordance with NDOW 

regulations. Sheldon Refuge staff works closely with NDOW to set big-game tag numbers and 

season dates for the upcoming year. NDOW administers the hunt including tag issuance, data 

collection, and the preparation of summary reports, which provide excellent hunt participation 

information for Sheldon Refuge. Because hunting activities are managed cooperatively, ongoing 

coordination is required to ensure that hunter numbers and restrictions are consistent with refuge 

purposes, Service policies, and refuge biological goals and objectives. In 2008 there were five 

California bighorn sheep, 87 pronghorn, and 185 mule deer tags issued. Sheldon Refuge 

encompasses State hunt management unit number 033. 

Sheldon Refuge is managed to provide a quality big-game hunting experience. A lottery system 

limits the number of harvest tags, which is set to provide a high-quality recreational experience. This 

system is used in conjunction with phased season openings to reduce overcrowding and disperse 

hunter activities. Sheldon Refuge is renowned for its big-game hunting and hunters come from 

throughout Nevada as well as 10 or more additional states each year. Hunt quality is considered 

high, as measured by the number of animals seen, the quality and health of the animals, the lack of 

interference from other hunters or refuge users, and the scenic quality and biological integrity of the 

areas visited while hunting. Sheldon Refuge has a reputation for producing exceptional trophies, and 

tags are highly sought after. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-9 

Demand for commercial guides and outfitters is growing in popularity for non-Nevada resident 

hunters. Guiding and outfitting within Sheldon Refuge is discussed further under Section 5.3. 

There are limited developed camping opportunities on Sheldon Refuge, forcing hunters to camp in 

close quarters with others. NDOW splits the hunting seasons on Sheldon Refuge to ease the 

crowding in the campgrounds. This cuts the number of hunters in the field by half for each season. 

Several of the campgrounds have meat hanging poles, providing the only facilities maintained 

expressly for this program. 

5.2.4 Fishing 

Fishing opportunities on Sheldon Refuge are managed in cooperation with NDOW and are 

characterized by ease of access to remote quiet settings with semi-primitive facilities. Stocking nonnative fish has occurred on Sheldon Refuge, although it is not preferred under Service policy. 

Restocking of fish to Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs continues to occur periodically. Fishing is 

allowed in the Dufurrena Ponds and Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs (Photo 5.3). The fisheries at 

these locations are typically described as either cold-water fisheries (i.e., trout) or warm-water 

fisheries (e.g., bass). There are no current data available for the number of visitors fishing on 

Sheldon Refuge. In 2007 NDOW estimated that 312 anglers fished Catnip Reservoir and that 176 

anglers fished the Dufurrena Ponds (NDOW 2010). The most recent estimate for Big Spring 

Reservoir was in 1998 when NDOW estimated 1,906 anglers fished this reservoir (NDOW 2010). 

Fishing is regulated by NDOW in consultation with the Service. 

Photo 5.3 Big Spring Reservoir is popular for sport fishing but only has water during 

certain years. 

Big Spring and Catnip reservoirs have facilities in support of fishing; Big Spring Reservoir has a 

campground and a boat launch, and Catnip Reservoir has a campground. The Virgin Valley 

Campground is located 11⁄2 miles from Dufurrena Ponds 19 and 20. Dufurrena Pond 20 and McGee 

Pond have fishing docks that are accessible to people with physical disabilities. The Alvord cutthroat 

trout, an undescribed subspecies, is considered to be extinct and the population found in Virgin Creek 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-10 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

likely no longer exists in its pure form; however, individuals described as Alvord cutthroat troutrainbow trout hybrids have been documented within the watershed. Native Sheldon tui and Alvord 

chubs are not impacted by management of sport fisheries in Big Spring and Catnip reservoirs. 

The popularity of fishing on Sheldon Refuge results in visitation which approaches or exceeds 

campground capacity at some sites during short periods of the summer and fall. Additionally, the 

stocking of non-native fish to waters within Sheldon Refuge is in conflict with Service Policy 7 RM 

10 and 601 FW 3. Fish stocking in conjunction with maintenance and management of existing 

reservoirs, other water control structures, and campgrounds continues to affect the natural hydrologic 

systems of various watersheds, associated riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats, and various aquatic 

native species. 

All opportunities are provided by previous NDOW stocking or periodic restocking of non-native fish 

species to constructed reservoirs. Catnip Reservoir is located within a closed basin that has no native 

or indigenous species of trout. Big Spring Reservoir is located within the Alvord Basin, which at one 

time supported a native subspecies of cutthroat trout. However, due to hybridization with rainbow 

trout, which were stocked in the 1930s, the pure form of this subspecies has been extirpated. Two 

species of trout considered indigenous to the region are the Lahontan cutthroat trout, which occurs in 

the Quinn River Basin (Lahontan Basin drainage) east and south of Sheldon Refuge, and the redband 

trout which occurs in Columbia River Basin north of Sheldon Refuge. Both Catnip and Big Spring 

reservoirs are constructed impoundments with limited to no spawning or rearing habitat that would 

facilitate self-sustaining trout populations large enough to support a recreational fishery (NDOW 

2011). Therefore, to maintain recreation trout fishing opportunities and a quality fishing experience 

for the public within Sheldon Refuge, periodic restocking of hatchery fish would need to continue. 

Adjacent or nearby campgrounds accessible by unimproved roads are maintained by Sheldon Refuge. 

The quality of these opportunities makes fishing on Sheldon Refuge a popular recreational activity in 

northern Nevada, part of the Great Basin. Fishing opportunities can be further subdivided into warmwater and cold-water fishing opportunities. 

5.2.4.1 Warm-water Fishery 

Dufurrena Ponds 19 and 20 and McGee are non-native warm-water fisheries that are extremely 

popular with anglers from northern Nevada. These ponds provide opportunities to fish for largemouth bass, crappie, sunfish, and yellow perch. The fish populations in these ponds are considered 

self-sustaining, do not require continual restocking by NDOW, and do not pose a risk to native 

species. Considering these factors, Sheldon Refuge has made a commitment to maintain the existing 

fishery. 

McGee Pond provides fishing opportunity only for individuals who are age 12 or under, age 65 or 

older, or disabled. It was most recently stocked with fish in 2006 at the request of refuge staff after it 

was drained for maintenance. The Biological Integrity Diversity and Environmental Health Policy 

(601 FW 3) addresses the management of non-native species in Section 3.16 which states: “We 

require no action to reduce or eradicate self-sustaining populations of non-native, noninvasive 

species (e.g., pheasants) unless those species interfere with accomplishing refuge purpose(s). We do 

not, however, manage habitats to increase populations of these species unless such habitat 

management supports accomplishing refuge purpose(s).” Because these ponds have self-sustaining 

populations and are popular with fishing residents in northern Nevada, these populations can 

continue to exist. Currently, these fish cannot enter into the Thousand Creek/Virgin Creek system 

and establish additional non-native populations. They are separated by meadow complexes that did 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-11 

not allow passage of fish during a recent 500-year flood event into the Thousand Creek/Virgin Creek 

system. There is some risk that fish may be transferred to other water bodies on Sheldon Refuge. 

5.2.4.2 Cold-water Fishery 

Management of cold-water fish on Sheldon Refuge has been conducted by NDOW with minimal 

involvement by refuge staff. Two popular sport fisheries (e.g., Big Spring and Catnip reservoirs) are 

supported by NDOW on Sheldon Refuge. 

Catnip Reservoir 

Catnip Reservoir has been historically used by NDOW as brood stock for the Walker Lake strain of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout and was opened in 1998 to fishing with a limit of one trout. Although the 

Lahontan cutthroat trout is a threatened species, the population on Sheldon Refuge is designated as 

experimental non-essential under an ESA 4D ruling (Sheldon Refuge is outside of this species’ 

historical distribution), and NDOW is allowed to permit harvest in accordance with state laws. 

Inspections, done by the Service (in 2002) and by the State of Nevada (in 2006) classified Catnip 

Reservoir dam as being in an unsafe, non-emergency condition due to heavy seepage. The dam was 

classified as non-emergency due to the low chance of loss of life in the event of dam failure. The 

reservoir will eventually need to be drained in order for the dam to be repaired. The reservoir is very 

shallow due to siltation brought in from its tributaries. Draining the reservoir to repair the dam 

would allow for some dredging to deepen the reservoir and to restock with Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

Big Spring Reservoir 

Big Spring Reservoir has been stocked with trout, and the fishing limit is five fish. Big Spring 

Reservoir is subject to periodic drying and filling depending on precipitation amounts. When the 

reservoir holds water for several years, the fishing is very good and becomes very popular. However, 

when the reservoir becomes dry, it is necessary to restock to re-establish the fishery. The current putand-take program is not consistent with the following Service policies: 7 RM 1.1 (Population 

Management), 7 RM 10 (Fisheries Resource Management), 7 RM 12 (Propagation and Stocking), or 

601 FW 3 (Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health). These policies indicate that 

only stocking of native and indigenous species is acceptable in refuge waters. In addition, the 7 RM 

10 policy states that only fingerling/juvenile fish can be stocked as opposed to catchable-size fish. 

Stocking Big Spring Reservoir with Lahontan cutthroat, Alvord cutthroat, or redband trout, which are 

considered indigenous to the region, would be more consistent with Service policy in Big Spring 

Reservoir. 

5.2.5 Wildlife Viewing and Photography 

Wildlife viewers and photographers are free to roam Sheldon Refuge and use personally provided 

temporary blinds. Professional photographers currently use Sheldon Refuge and are required to 

obtain a Special Use Permit. There are not any available data to estimate the number of visitors 

participating in wildlife viewing and photography (Photo 5.4). 

Parts of Sheldon Refuge are very remote and access is limited by the terrain and adverse seasonal 

conditions. The wilderness character is an important part of the Sheldon’s attractiveness. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-12 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

Sheldon has no facilities managed and maintained specifically for this activity other than a few 

unimproved areas posted as a place to view wildlife. There are several places on Sheldon Refuge 

where photography blinds could be placed. The Dufurrena Ponds are one such area and would 

provide opportunities to photograph many species of wildlife. Another possibility is Swan Lake 

Reservoir, where many pronghorn congregate during the summer. 

Photo 5.4 Although no estimates are available, most people likely participate in 

wildlife viewing or photography while visiting Sheldon Refuge. 

5.2.6 Environmental Education 

The remoteness of Sheldon Refuge does not lend itself to many opportunities for environmental 

education in a traditional format where school children are presented programs on-site. The nearest 

population centers are Denio to the east and Adel to the west of Sheldon Refuge. Both areas have 

elementary schools but older children are bused to other areas with larger populations. Both Denio 

and Adel have populations of less than 200. In the past few years the visitor numbers have ranged 

from zero to 12. 

The current refuge office, a single-wide trailer, does not have the space for an adequate visitor 

contact station and is not set up to serve as a visitor contact facility. There are no facilities managed 

or maintained for environmental education. 

5.2.7 Interpretation 

Sheldon Refuge provides brochures and signs at key visitor contact locations. Sheldon Refuge 

Complex also maintains a website (http://www.fws.gov/sheldonhartmtn) where current information 

can be obtained at any time. 

Sheldon hosts wildlife viewing tours twice a year: in the spring and fall to volunteer groups. Tours 

are available on request to the staff; however, refuge staffing is extremely limited. There is no visitor 

contact station or regular staffing at the Sheldon Refuge Office (Dufurrena). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-13 

5.3 Supporting Uses and Facilities 

5.3.1 Camping 

Camping itself is not a priority public use on Service lands, but because of the size, remoteness, and 

quality of roads on Sheldon Refuge, it is important in supporting priority uses including fishing, 

hunting, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. Camping on Sheldon Refuge is allowed in 

designated campgrounds or under special backcountry permit with a 14-day camping limit at any one 

location. There are four types of camping opportunities currently provided on Sheldon Refuge: 

developed, semi-primitive, primitive, and backcountry/wilderness. 

Campgrounds at Sheldon Refuge can be classified as either developed, semi-primitive, or primitive 

depending upon types of facilities and development and levels of use. Currently, there are 13 

campgrounds available to visitors on Sheldon Refuge (see Figure 5.1). 

5.3.1.1 Developed Camping 

Developed camping opportunities are provided in the Virgin Valley Campground, which is easily 

accessible year-round for all vehicles, including recreational vehicles (RVs). The campground, 

located at Dufurrena, offers shade trees, potable water, two vault toilets, 16 picnic tables, 24 fire 

rings, a bath-house, meat hanging pole, and a hot spring developed for swimming. The campground 

can hold approximately 100 camping parties on a first-come, first-served basis without designated 

sites. From 2005 through 2007 an average of 18 campsites were occupied per day during the days 

surveyed for a seasonal average of 6,573 visitor use days (USFWS Undated Report). 

Between mid-May and early September the Virgin Valley Campground is extensively used by 

individuals collecting rocks and/or mining for opals at nearby commercial mining sites, with 

visitation highest during June; camping in support of these activities is not an identified priority 

public use. From mid-August through mid-November, the Virgin Valley Campground is heavily 

used by hunters. Others stay at the campground to participate in nearby fishing and birding 

opportunities; however, the number of individuals using the campground to enjoy fishing and birding 

activities is not known. The proportion of camping to support these uses may be incidental in 

comparison to mining and hunting activities. At the Virgin Valley Campground individual campsites 

are not delineated nor is there a reservation or fee system. During peak seasons, overcrowding and 

user conflicts have been a concern as well as overflow into the surrounding uplands, which may 

result in further environmental damage. There is also a private developed campground at the Royal 

Peacock Mine located in the Virgin Valley Mining District, which has RV hookups. 

Virgin Valley Campground is situated at the site of a former CCC work camp. The campground has 

few vegetated areas and is mostly gravel roadway or bare volcanic soil, which naturally has little or 

no organic matter. The campground is includes Virgin Valley Hot Springs and is immediately 

adjacent to McGee Pond, both of which are extensively developed and altered habitats. 

5.3.1.2 Semi-primitive Camping 

The second type of camping opportunity is semi-primitive. Five of the 13 designated campgrounds 

(Catnip Reservoir, West Rock Spring, Fish Spring, Badger, and Big Spring Reservoir) within 

Sheldon Refuge are considered semi-primitive and include outhouses, fire rings, meat-hanging poles, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-14 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

and in the case of Fish Spring and Badger campgrounds, horse corrals. These semi-primitive 

campgrounds are accessible from primary roads or improved secondary roads suitable for most types 

of vehicles. The semi-primitive sites are primarily used by hunters, and campsite capacity, in part, 

limits the number of tag holders that can be accommodated during big-game seasons. Individuals 

seeking fishing opportunities use campgrounds at Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs. 

Catnip Reservoir and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds are located immediately adjacent to 

artificial reservoirs. The remaining three semi-primitive campgrounds are all located immediately 

adjacent to or include wet meadows, spring, or springbrook habitats. Catnip Reservoir and Big 

Spring Reservoir campgrounds receive the greatest amounts of use and exhibit the greatest amount of 

impact. The core areas of use at these campgrounds no longer support vegetation, water infiltration 

is considered low due to soil compaction, and gravel has been placed in some areas to reduce erosion. 

Most of the remaining semi-primitive campgrounds have moderate amounts of vegetation loss and 

soil compaction, which is limited to areas adjacent to fire rings and outhouses, but these impacts are 

generally not continuous throughout the campground. 

5.3.1.3 Primitive Camping 

Seven campgrounds (Little Catnip Spring, Gooch Spring, North Hell Creek, Wheeler Spring, 

Bateman Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Spring) are considered primitive campgrounds and have 

only fire rings or no improvements, are remote, and accessible to four-wheel drive or high-clearance 

vehicles when road conditions are passable. These primitive campgrounds receive intermittent and 

low amounts of use, occurring mostly during the hunting seasons (early August through October). 

All of these campgrounds are located immediately adjacent to or include wet meadows, spring, or 

springbrook habitats. Three primitive campgrounds (Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock 

Spring) also include aspen woodland habitats. 

Primitive campgrounds generally exhibit few impacts to vegetation or soils due to low amounts of 

intermittent use, which occurs during late summer and fall after when most annual and biannual 

plants have finished growing for the season and when soils are typically drier and more resistant to 

impact. Some primitive campgrounds have no visible bare ground, and because they are located in 

meadow habitats, vegetation is generally able to recover from the low amounts of use. Other 

primitive campgrounds exhibit small areas of bare ground, generally lack forbs that are not resistant 

to trampling, and in the case of Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Springs, exhibit some 

impacts to aspen trees from soil compaction, root exposure, and cutting. 

5.3.1.4 Backcountry/Wilderness Camping 

The fourth type of camping opportunity on Sheldon Refuge is considered backcountry or wilderness 

camping, and use is relatively low at present. This activity requires a backcountry camping permit 

issued by the Sheldon Refuge Manager. There are currently no limits on the number of permit 

holders. To date, the majority of visitors utilizing this opportunity are hunters pursuing game on the 

tablelands, which are generally within the designated WSAs. There is also moderate dispersed use 

by campers and bathers at Bog Hot Springs. The spring itself is privately owned, but campers on that 

inholding spill over onto refuge lands. 

Restrictions on backcountry camping are few, but currently include no camping within 100 yards of a 

water source, or within 0.5 mile of a road or vehicle. All trash must be packed out and the permit 

must be carried by the user as well as a tear-off sheet displayed in his or her vehicle. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-15 

Most campgrounds on the Sheldon Refuge are located at or near springs and riparian areas and are 

primarily used during the hunting season. The proximity of these campgrounds to water could 

potentially contaminate water sources, and disturb and displace wildlife from critical habitats. Other 

direct impacts include soil compaction, erosion, and trampling and removal of vegetation. Campfires 

are a seasonal concern during dry periods when campfires are not allowed, resulting in numerous 

violations being observed each year. Data regarding camping demographics are generally lacking 

across the landscape and need to include where, when, how many, duration, and purpose for visiting 

Sheldon Refuge. 

5.3.2 Horseback Riding 

Horseback riding has been allowed as a recreational activity on Sheldon for many years. However, 

there have been less than 10 horseback visitors a year, and as a result, horseback riding is considered 

a very low impact activity on Sheldon Refuge. Horseback riding gives the public an opportunity to 

visit remote parts of Sheldon Refuge, and to enjoy the wildlife viewing, solitude, and expansive 

views that Sheldon Refuge is known for. In addition, visiting Sheldon Refuge via horseback can 

give the user a sense of history. Pack trips are allowed with a backcountry permit. 

Currently, horseback riding is allowed refuge wide except in small areas that are closed to all public 

entry. The areas closed to horseback riding are the administrative facilities at the Dufurrena 

subheadquarters, which include the shop area and the horse corrals. 

There are very few facilities designed for horseback use; only two of the 12 semi-primitive and 

primitive campgrounds, Badger and Fish Spring campgrounds, provide facilities for domestic horses. 

There is a concern that the number of visitors engaging in horseback riding may increase, particularly 

with hunting guides and their clients. There is also a potential for an increase in horseback riding use 

with the designation of wilderness. 

5.3.3 Bicycling 

On Sheldon Refuge, bicycle use occurs but is light. Bicycling is allowed only on roads open to 

motor vehicles. 

5.3.4 Outfitting and Guiding 

Several professional guides have permits to guide on Sheldon Refuge. The use of hunting guides is 

growing in popularity for non-resident hunters; however, the total number of guides is currently 

limited to 10 annually. On average, between nine and 10 guided hunt permits were issued from 2005 

through 2009, each for outfitting and guiding big-game hunters. Guiding is viewed as a commercial 

use and requires a Special Use Permit from Sheldon Refuge. Hunting guides can provide a valuable 

service by offering a quality hunting experience for non-resident hunters who are unfamiliar with 

Sheldon Refuge and high desert hunting conditions. However, Sheldon Refuge has received a 

number of complaints about guides and associated subguides interfering with other hunters. There is 

also the perception that spotter aircraft are being used increasingly by guides, in turn disrupting 

wildlife and the quality of other hunters’ experience. 

Professional guides are occasionally permitted to provide services in support of other recreational 

uses such as photography or upland bird hunting. However, the demand and number of requests for 

these permits are rare and typically issued on a case-by-case basis. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-16 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

5.4 Other Refuge Uses 

5.4.1 Rock Collecting 

Collecting rocks and minerals on Sheldon Refuge has long been a popular pastime, and it is currently 

open to the public. Collection of 7 pounds of rocks a day is allowed anywhere on Sheldon Refuge 

except on mining claims. Mining on established claims within the Virgin Valley Mining District is 

not considered rock collecting. 

Rock collecting is not allowed under Refuge System regulations or policies, and may be in direct 

conflict with Refuge System regulations (e.g., 50 CFR 27.61). However, under current refuge policy, 

the public can collect up to 7 pounds of surface rock per day including petrified wood, opal, and 

agate. No digging or excavation is allowed outside of the mining district. 

5.5 Law Enforcement and Illegal Activities 

Illegal uses that occur on Sheldon Refuge include illegal OHV use, camping outside of designated 

areas, poaching, hunting and fishing violations, archaeological theft, vandalism, and theft of refuge 

signs. The President’s proposal for eight wilderness areas within Sheldon Refuge in 1974 included 

closing all permanent roads and motorized trails within the proposed areas. However, recurring 

illegal vehicle use has been a persistent problem throughout Sheldon Refuge. The remoteness, size, 

existing staffing, and existing funding have made public education and enforcement of these existing 

closures difficult. 

There is also concern that certain segments of the public, intentionally or inadvertently, may be 

collecting archaeological artifacts that are prohibited from collection by the Archaeological 

Resources Preservation Act of 1979. 

Illegal uses persist partly because of the lack of public support, insufficient public education, and 

limited law enforcement capability. There is one dual-function officer assigned to Sheldon Refuge 

and a full-time officer assigned to the Sheldon-Hart Mountain Complex. Due to travel distances, 

remoteness, and the vast area to patrol, additional law enforcement personnel are necessary. 

In 2008, there were three citations issued on Sheldon Refuge: two citations for reckless driving and 

one citation for operating an ATV on a closed road. There were two cases of abandoned property: a 

car and a horse. 

5.6 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties 

Cultural resources are the physical remains, sites, objects, records, oral testimony, and traditions that 

connect people to our nation’s past. They include archaeological and historical artifacts, traditional 

ecological knowledge, sites, landscapes, sacred locations, and traditional cultural properties. Cultural 

resources are integral components of the landscape. They tell us how people have used the land and 

its wildlife. At Sheldon Refuge, cultural resources remind us that human beings had already been 

part of the web of life for thousands of years before the arrival of Euro-Americans in the mid-1800s. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-17 

5.6.1 Native American Cultural History 

Archaeological evidence indicates that humans have lived in northern Nevada for at least 12,000 

years. Some of the earliest radiocarbon dates of human occupation (nearly 9,000 years ago) have 

come from Last Supper Cave. However, most of the prehistory of the area is represented by open-air 

lithic scatters. The Native American cultural history at Sheldon Refuge is based on interpretation of 

the archaeological record on and near Sheldon Refuge. Several scholars have presented the history 

and archaeology of the region in detail (e.g., Elston and Earl 1979; Layton 1970; Leach 1988; Smith 

et al. 1983). 

5.6.2 Native American Ethnography and Recent History 

Sheldon Refuge occurs in the homeland the Aga’I’paninadokada (“fish lake eaters”) and 

Moado’kado (“wild onion eaters”) Northern Paiute (Raymond 2000). They were a semi-nomadic 

people who made their living by hunting (pronghorn, bighorn, rabbits, ground squirrels, waterfowl), 

gathering (roots, berries, seeds), and fishing (trout, suckers, chub). The nuclear family was the 

principal socio-economic unit (Steward 1938). 

Prior to Euro-American incursion into northern Nevada, Northern Paiute families congregated for the 

winter at lower elevation village sites near dependable water, fuel, and food. The people at the 

winter villages lived on stored food, supplemented by hunting game, and fishing. With the arrival of 

spring the Indians harvested wild roots (camas, ipos, bitterroot, biscuitroot) by the bushel. Some 

were roasted and eaten on the spot while many were dried and stored for the following winter. In 

summer, the families dispersed to higher elevations following game and the seasonal ripening of 

plants. In autumn, the families would gather again for communal rabbit and pronghorn hunts. They 

often held fandangos, a sort of harvest celebration where far-flung families met to exchange food and 

other resources, share information, make acquaintances, form alliances, and find mates. With the 

first snow of the season, Northern Paiute families reconvened at their winter village locations. 

(Fowler 1989; Fowler and Liljeblad 1986; Steward 1938; Stewart 1939). 

As Euro-American immigrants settled northwestern Nevada, the Northern Paiute began raiding 

ranches for their livestock while trying to avoid directly fighting with the new arrivals (Layton 

1977:244, 1978). Many of the raids appear to have been perpetrated by the same band led by 

Captain Tom, or Black Rock Tom as he was also known, who was easily identified by his white 

horse. Black Rock Tom based his operations in the High Rock region, including the Black Rock 

Range and probably parts of the Sheldon Refuge. 

In response to raids and associated casualties, the U.S. Army established several forts in northwest 

Nevada between 1860 and 1865 to protect the area from Indians and Confederate sympathizers. 

After a series of deadly skirmishes and retributions eventually ended and the Northern Paiute were 

removed to nearby reservations and began to assimilate with the new order by working on ranches as 

cowhands, laborers, and domestic help. Today the Northern Paiute live at Summit Lake Indian 

Reservation, Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Fort Bidwell Indian Reservation, Cedarville Indian 

Rancheria, and in the towns and ranches that surround Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-18 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

5.6.3 Euro-American History 

5.6.3.1 Early Exploration 

The earliest Euro-American exploration of the Sheldon area was led by Colonel C.S. Drew in 1864 in 

search of a wagon route from Fort Klamath, Oregon, to the Owyhee Mining District in Idaho. 

Drew’s report contains topographic information and information about the Indians, flora, and water 

sources. In July 1866, Major Robert S. Williamson of the U.S. Army led an exploratory party from 

Fort McDermitt to Lassen’s Meadow in California but found the area to be too sandy and too arid for 

a decent wagon route (Elston and Earl 1979:35). Under the direction of Andrew J. Hatch, the Office 

of the U.S. Surveyor General began systematic surveys in the vicinity of Sheldon Refuge in 1872. 

The maps created from these surveys record old roads between Denio and Virgin Valley, Denio and 

Cedarville, Virgin Ranch to Denio, and Thousand Creek Canyon to Rock Spring Valley. 

5.6.3.2 Nineteenth Century Ranching 

Euro-Americans began settling the Sheldon Refuge area in the 1860s. They were attracted to the 

numerous springs and the grassy meadows for grazing livestock. But the warm season verdure was 

offset by the long and occasionally harsh winters. Particularly difficult winters in the 1880s 

decimated livestock herds and many ranches failed. Ranchers sold their properties to the stock 

raising companies such as Miller and Lux. Between 1886 and 1888, Miller and Lux purchased huge 

tracts of land and many of the early ranches in northwestern Humboldt County. By 1905, Miller and 

Lux owned much of northwestern Nevada. 

Although cattle ranching remained the primary economic activity of the region in the late nineteenth 

and early twentieth centuries (Elston and Earl 1979), some ranchers also raised European horse 

breeds as saddle and working stock for the U.S. Cavalry and the burgeoning population of nearby 

California (USFWS 1985). George B. Hapgood built ranches at Calcutta Lake and Last Chance 

Ranch in 1880. Both ranches were geared to diversified livestock production, although for many 

years a focus of summer activities at Last Chance Ranch was horses (Hapgood 1984 in USFWS 

1985:26; Speulda 2002). Starting in 1890, William K. Ebeling built the ranches now known as 

Dufurrena, Thousand Creek, and Kinney Camp. Buzz Miller, Ebeling’s “vaquero boss” in the 1910s, 

reported that Ebeling ran a mixed outfit including cattle, a few sheep, and predominately horses 

(Miller 1984 in USFWS 1985:40). Inevitably, horses escaped from these ranches and formed herds 

that roamed the landscape (Raymond et al. 2007). 

Some ranchers capitalized on the growing population of feral horses at Sheldon Refuge by gathering 

and selling them. In 1891, Eugene Gooch established a livestock operation that was strategically 

located to gather, trap, and ship feral horses. “Gooch Camp” is located in a narrow canyon between 

Gooch Table and Catnip Mountain historically known to harbor herds of feral horses. 

In 1905, newspaper reporter Allen Bragg visited ranches in Virgin Valley and described the James 

McGhee ranch as “140 acres of meadow land...a bunch of cattle and horses...the cellar is walled up 

by flat stone of various colors and products of the valley” (Bragg 1976:44). Another ranch owned by 

William Ebeling about 2 miles from the McGhee place also had cattle and horses, and a milk house 

made of the flat rock (Bragg 1976:44). Further up the valley, Miller and Lux owned the ranch at 

Virgin Valley, along with “nine other ranches in this part of the county along with numerous camps” 

(Bragg 1976:39-40). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-19 

Basque sheep-herder Thomas Dufurrena moved to the Sheldon area from California in 1905. His 

herd of 40,000 sheep was among the largest operations in the area. He had diversified into cattle 

ranching by 1911. Dufurrena bought several other ranches in the 1920s and 1930s as drought and the 

Depression forced many ranchers to sell. By the mid-1930s, most of the ranchers including 

Dufurrena sold their property to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for inclusion in the Sheldon 

Refuge. 

5.6.3.3 Mining 

Prospectors began exploring the Sheldon Refuge area in the 1860s and 1870s. Opals were 

discovered in Virgin Valley in 1908, and the Virgin Valley Mining District was established in 1909. 

Private individuals and enterprise have worked the deposits since. The Rainbow Ridge Mining 

Company, incorporated in 1918, is the only opal mining company that has a significant record. In 

1919, the mine produced the largest opal ever found in the United States. It weighed 16.95 troy 

ounces and was valued at $250,000 (Elston and Earl 1979:39). The gem joined the famed Roebling 

Collection and was later donated to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., where it is on 

display in the Hall of Gems and Minerals at the National Museum of Natural History. Opal mining 

continues on Sheldon Refuge to this day. 

A large formation of pink and buff sandstone occurs in the Virgin Valley at the confluence of Virgin 

Creek and Thousand Creek. The stone has been quarried, knapped, and cut for use as a building 

material since the late nineteenth century. Known today as the Dufurrena Sandstone, blocks from the 

quarry were used to construct many of the early ranch structures on Sheldon Refuge. From 1935 to 

1942 the CCC quarried the sandstone to construct a pool, bridge, pathways, loading dock, and other 

buildings at their Virgin Valley Camp. In the 1950s, a commercial operation worked the quarry and 

marketed the stone under the name “Owyheeite.” 

A cinnabar mine was located 4 miles southeast of the headquarters, on the south slope of Bald 

Mountain and was developed in the late 1920s. 

With the exception of the area in and around Virgin Valley, the majority of Sheldon Refuge has been 

formally withdrawn from mineral entry. 

5.6.3.4 Creation of the Sheldon Refuge 

In the early twentieth century, pronghorn populations in Nevada had plummeted as a result of several 

years of cold dry weather, unchecked livestock grazing, degraded rangelands, and unregulated 

hunting. By 1920, conservationists including members of the Audubon Society, the Boone and 

Crockett Club of New York City, employees of the U.S. Biological Survey (later renamed the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service), and the State of Nevada raised concerns about the plight of the 

pronghorn. E.R. Sans, an employee of the U.S. Biological Survey, mobilized prominent members of 

the conservation movement including Dr. Gilbert Pearson, president of the National Association of 

Audubon Societies, and Charles Sheldon of the Boone and Crockett Club, to address Nevada’s 

pronghorn problem (Elston and Earl 1979:39-45). 

The Nevada pronghorn conservationists recognized that forage and habitat were essential for the 

survival of pronghorn populations and observed that non-native animals including sheep, cattle, and 

feral horses competed for the same forage and habitat as pronghorn. E.R. Sans convinced the group 

that Hapgood’s Last Chance Ranch would make an ideal pronghorn sanctuary. For 10 years the 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-20 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

conservationists organized, raised money, and lobbied county, state, and Federal governments. Their 

efforts paid off in 1931 when President Herbert Hoover signed Executive Order No. 7511 purchasing 

Hapgood’s Ranch and establishing the Charles Sheldon National Antelope Range for the 

conservation of pronghorn antelope and other native wildlife species. Franklin Roosevelt followed 

with Executive Order No. 7522, enlarging Sheldon Refuge to over 539,000 acres (Elston and Earl 

1979:39-45). 

5.6.3.5 Civilian Conservation Corps 

The Works Progress Administration (WPA) began construction of a refuge office/residence on the 

west side of Sheldon Refuge, but the WPA was replaced by the CCC in 1935. The CCC efforts at 

Sheldon were directed toward “improvement and development of the present habitat for wildlife now 

inhabiting the area, plus development of water resources for migratory waterfowl and other 

migratory birds” (records of the Civilian Conservation Corps: Record Group 35, Box No. 133). 

By 1936, CCC established Camp Sheldon BF-1 on the west side of Sheldon Refuge (Speulda 1995). 

The camp, named Camp Board Corrals, was in the northern part of Long Valley. From this camp the 

CCC enrollees built boundary fences, telephone lines, and roads. Their largest effort was 

constructing the steep west side hill road and entrance sign. They also built an overnight cabin 

halfway up the grade. The road remains a primary entrance to Sheldon Refuge. 

In 1938, the CCC set up a camp in Virgin Valley on the McGee Ranch on the east side of the 

Sheldon Refuge. An advance U.S. Army crew led the construction effort with help from the CCC 

enrollees. In addition to the usual bunk, mess, and work facilities, they built a four-table pool hall 

with a fine sandstone floor, a ping-pong table, barber shop, and a shoe shine stand. They also 

constructed a 40-by-60-foot stone swimming pool within the camp area which is filled by a steady 

stream of warm (artesian) water. This historic swimming pool and campground (now called the 

Virgin Valley Campground) continue to attract visitors to Sheldon Refuge. 

The CCC operated out of the Virgin Valley camp for more than three years without a break. They 

built dikes and ponds and enhanced wildlife habitat in the Virgin Valley. They improved roads, built 

fence lines, and restored old homesteads making them suitable for refuge employees. The CCC also 

built “Badger Cabin,” a place for refuge workers to overnight in the Sheldon hinterlands. As the 

prospect of war loomed, the U.S. Army closed the CCC camp and dismantled and removed all the 

portable buildings in 1941. But the craftsmanship of the CCC endures in the roads, water 

impoundments, and stonework on cabins that are still in use by the Service. 

5.6.4 Current Knowledge of Cultural Resources Sites on Sheldon Refuge 

A systematic or comprehensive sample inventory of cultural resources has never been conducted on 

Sheldon Refuge. Archaeologists have conducted 35 relatively small archaeological surveys covering 

5,955 acres or slightly more than 1% of the 575,000-acre Sheldon Refuge. Almost all of the surveys 

have been carried out in advance of proposed development projects in compliance with Section 106 

of the NHPA. Archaeologists have done surveys for refuge maintenance and construction (e.g., 

fences, guzzlers, roads, and prescribed burns) and to address the impacts of feral horses and 

rangeland wildfires. Utility companies have stimulated archaeological surveys for pipe and fiber 

optic lines. The archaeological surveys have recorded 251 cultural resource sites on Sheldon Refuge. 

These include 211 prehistoric sites, 23 historic building sites, and 17 sites recorded as dual 

component sites, which contain both prehistoric and historic archaeological deposits. We suspect 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-21 

that several hundred, if not thousands, of archaeological sites occur on Sheldon Refuge. But vast 

stretches of Sheldon Refuge have never been examined by archaeologists and even a broad outline of 

its human prehistory remains mostly unknown. 

5.6.4.1 Prehistoric Sites 

Among the 251 recorded cultural resources sites on Sheldon Refuge, 211 (84%) are prehistoric sites. 

Many of the recorded sites occur near water. Perennial springs and streams at Sheldon Refuge were 

magnets for human occupation throughout the past. The water sources are oases compared to the 

relatively dry and monotonous landscape beyond them. Although a formal inventory has not been 

conducted, we suspect that every permanent spring and stream on Sheldon Refuge is bounded by 

archaeological sites. Springs and stream-side sites are characterized by lithic scatters, fire-affected 

rock, ground stone tools, and residential features. Few such sites are small, most exceed an acre in 

size, while several encompass a dozen or more acres around the spring or stream. Some spring and 

stream-side sites harbor buried cultural deposits in the deeper soil that often characterizes these 

environments. These archaeological sites offer the challenge and opportunity to sort out multiple 

periods of human occupation at Sheldon Refuge and describe the cultural changes that mark the 

different occupations. 

Lithic scatters make up the majority (n=188, or 89%) of the known prehistoric sites on Sheldon 

Refuge. The remaining 23 sites consist of rock art, village sites, caves, rockshelters, rock cairns, 

hunting facilities, and obsidian quarries. The following sections describe some of the common types 

of prehistoric archaeological sites on Sheldon Refuge. 

Lithic scatters 

Lithic scatter refers to a prehistoric archaeological site consisting of stone artifacts and the debris 

from the manufacture and use of stone artifacts. Flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, 

scrapers) and the waste flakes (a.k.a. debitage) generated from the manufacture of flaked stone tools 

are the most ubiquitous elements at lithic scatters. The most common toolstone at archaeological 

sites on Sheldon Refuge is obsidian, but chert, chalcedony, flint, agate, basalt, and jasper are also 

present. Lithic scatters may contain ground stone stools (e.g., manos, metates, mortors, pestles) but 

usually in small numbers. Fire-affected rock (a.k.a. fire cracked rock, hearth rocks, oven rocks) may 

also occur at lithic scatters. Lithic scatters range in size from a few square meters containing about 

10 artifacts to several acres in size with thousands of stone artifacts. Lithic scatters are often 

confined to the surface, but many lithic scatters also contain buried cultural deposits. Some lithic 

scatters occur in conjunction with other archaeological sites and features described below. 

At Sheldon Refuge, the size and complexity of the lithic scatters are governed by their proximity to 

naturally occurring toolstone and water, as well as elevation. Large and complex lithic scatters 

generally occur in places with abundant obsidian on low-elevation alluvial plains in well-watered 

valleys like Virgin Creek and Thousand Creek. Such sites tend to have many flaked stone tools, 

cultural features such as hearths, ground stone tools, abundant debitage, and good potential for buried 

archaeological deposits. Absent nearby water and toolstone, archaeological sites tend to be small, 

lack many tools, and are limited to the surface. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-22 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

Isolated finds 

An isolated find is a lithic scatter of less than 10 items. Isolated finds do not contain buried cultural 

deposits or other features such as hearths or middens. Isolated finds are common throughout Sheldon 

Refuge. 

Villages 

An archaeological village appears as a large lithic scatter with additional evidence of long-term 

residential occupation such as hearths, house foundations (stone rings, earthen pits, or depressions), 

and middens (trash dumps containing debris from food, clothing, shelter, and food preparation). 

Archaeological and ethnographic records have documented winter villages of the Northern Paiute 

and their ancestors in places surrounding Sheldon Refuge. By analogy, we suspect Native American 

villages occur at well-watered, low-elevation, sheltered areas on Sheldon Refuge. Although no 

formal archaeological investigation has been conducted, places like Bog Hot Springs, Virgin Creek 

Valley, Alkali Reservoir, and the mouth of Thousand Creek Gorge are likely areas where future 

investigations should be focused. 

Caves and rockshelters 

Caves and rockshelters are archaeological sites characterized by stone artifacts and often middens 

that occur in and around the mouths of caves and in sheltered areas among rock outcrops and canyon 

walls. Caves and rockshelters are often important sites because they preserve better than most 

archaeological sites a variety of evidence of human occupation for thousands of years. 

Last Supper Cave is a large and deeply stratified archaeological site on Hell Creek. It was 

completely excavated in the 1970s by a team of archaeologists from the American Museum of 

Natural History, Louisiana State University, and University of Nevada, Reno (Layton 1970). The 

cave contains an abundance of surface and subsurface deposits, including a large midden, stone tools 

and debitage, faunal remains, basketry, sandals and other perishable items. Samples have been 

radiocarbon dated to nearly 9,000 years ago, and the earliest cultural materials within the cave 

predate 9,000 years ago. The artifacts are from the early Holocene and are relatively abundant. The 

large artifact and sample collection from the cave has been inventoried, repackaged, and stabilized at 

the Nevada State Museum, where it is periodically studied by graduate students and other scholars 

(Lyman 1988). Other similar but smaller caves are known to occur on Sheldon Refuge, but a 

systematic inventory of them has not been conducted. 

Rock art (petroglyphs and pictographs) 

Rock art is characterized by markings, either painted (pictographs) or engraved (petroglyphs), on the 

surface of rock and by geoglyphs (large figures produced by either removing the surface of the 

ground or alignments of stone on the surface of the ground). Rock art sites are often associated with 

lithic scatters and other archaeological features and are usually found at places with smooth surfaces 

of basalt or rhyolite, often at the base of canyons and rimrock. Rock art is located at several 

locations within Sheldon Refuge, many of which can be easily seen and have little or no evidence of 

disturbance or vandalism by visitors. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-23 

Rock cairns, walls, and rings 

Archaeological features built with large cobble- and boulder-sized stones include cairns, walls, and 

rings. Cairns are stacks of stones built with one or more rocks. Prehistoric cairns can have spiritual 

connections (Chartkoff 1983; Haynal 2000) and can be distinguished from historical cairns built by 

hikers and ranchers by their location and apparent antiquity. Prehistoric cairns are often located on 

rimrock and are often associated with lithic scatters. Prehistoric cairns also often show extensive 

lichen growth. Short low rock walls in association with lithic scatters are often interpreted as hunting 

blinds. Rock circles or rings may be house foundations, especially if lithic scatters, artifacts, and/or a 

midden occur close by. Small rock rings lacking any artifacts are often interpreted as spiritual prayer 

or vision quest locations. 

Quarries 

Prehistoric quarries for toolstone are common on Sheldon Refuge. Obsidian occurs naturally on 

much of the northern half of Sheldon Refuge. Obsidian is widely available at the surface as 

secondary deposits of pebbles and cobbles, which occur as lag left by the erosion of rhyolite facies. 

In most cases the prehistoric quarrying simply involved picking up the stone. Prehistoric acquisition 

and use of obsidian at the source locations is characterized by vast lithic scatters displaying evidence 

of testing and reducing obsidian cobbles into smaller more portable packages. 

Traditional cultural properties 

A traditional cultural property (TCP) is a cultural resource whose significance is derived from the 

role it plays in the traditional and continuing lifeways of a community. TCPs include locations 

associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, cultural history, 

or the nature of the world. TCPs are often locations where a community has traditionally carried out 

religious, economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historical 

identity. According to the Summit Lake Tribe, a TCP exists in the vicinity of 10-mile Spring on 

Sheldon Refuge.

5.6.4.2 Historic Sites 

Among the 251 recorded cultural resources sites on Sheldon Refuge, 23 (16%) are Euro-American 

historic sites. Many of these occur near water and roads, particularly in and near Virgin Valley and 

Thousand Creek. There has been no formal effort to find historic-period sites beyond the largest and 

most obvious early ranches and CCC-era facilities on Sheldon Refuge. The known historic sites can 

be allocated into one or more themes. 

 The Ranching Theme includes sites with one or more of the following features: residence, 

barn, corral (stone and willow), chicken house, small out-building, bunkhouse, root cellar, 

road, pasture, fencing, machine shed, and windmill. Features that are outside the ranch 

complex but relevant to the ranching theme include sheep camps, livestock trails, branding 

camps, and line camps. 

 The Depression-Era (CCC) Theme includes sites with one or more of the following features: 

road, bridge, culvert, pond, refuge infrastructure, residence/office, overnight cabin, and spike 

camp. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-24 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

 The Mining Theme includes sites with one or more of the following features: mine, adit, 

quarry, haul road, tailing, claim, camp, and quarry equipment (Speulda 2000). 

 Miscellaneous historic-period sites small dispersed domestic dumps, dispersed campsites, 

landing strips, and crash sites. 

The principal historic-period sites on record are listed in Table 5.1 and are shown on Figure 5.1. 

Many sites are considered extremely significant cultural resources, and five have been determined to 

be eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (Speulda 

1998; USFWS 1985). 

Table 5.1 Principal Historic Period Sites at Sheldon Refuge 

Name Construction 

Date 

Historic 

Associations 

NRHP Status* 

Last Chance Ranch 1890-1910 Early ranching, 

architecture, early 

refuge management 

Eligible 

IXL Ranch 1890s Early ranching Not potentially 

eligible (USFWS 

1985) 

Gooch Camp Horsetrap (stone corral) 1890s Early ranching, 

architecture 

Potentially 

eligible 

Kinney Camp/a.k.a. McKenny Ranch 

(house, barn, chicken house, willow 

corral, cellar) 

1890s-1910s Early ranching, 

architecture 

Potentially 

eligible 

Dufurrena Ranch (barn, chicken house) 1890s-1910s Early ranching, 

architecture 

Not potentially 

eligible (USFWS 

1985) 

Virgin Valley Ranch (stone buildings 

and site) 

1890s Early ranching, 

architecture 

Eligible

(Speulda 1998) 

Alkali Ranch 1910s Early ranching Not evaluated 

Thousand Creek Ranch (house, barn, 

chicken house, corral) 

1890s-1910s Early ranching, 

architecture 

Eligible 

(NVSHPO 2001) 

Little Sheldon refuge office and 

residence 

1930s WPA, CCC, 

architecture 

Potentially 

eligible 

Little Sheldon Overnight Cabin 1930s WPA, CCC, 

architecture 

Eligible 

(USFWS 2000) 

Badger Cabin 1930s CCC Potentially 

eligible 

Virgin Valley Campground (metal 

warehouse, camp features—excluding 

bathhouse) 

1930s CCC camp Potentially 

eligible 

* NRHP Status refers to status under the National Register of Historic Places. 

National Register of Historic Places 

Established under the NHPA of 1966, the National Register has identified and documented, in 

partnership with state, Federal, and tribal preservation programs, nearly 77,000 districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-25 

engineering, and culture. The documentation on each property consists of photographs, maps, and a 

National Register registration form, which provides a physical description of the place, information 

about its history and significance, and bibliography. Last Supper Cave is the only site within 

Sheldon Refuge currently listed on the National Register. 

The NHPA also requires that any structure or historic place that is generally more than 50 years old 

be inventoried and evaluated to determine whether or not it is eligible to be included on the National 

Register of Historic Places. Sheldon Refuge contains a number of historic resources that are more 

than 50 years old (pre-1959 for the purposes of this document) and are awaiting evaluation or have 

already been evaluated and determined eligible, but not yet included on the National Register. 

Last Chance, Virgin Valley, and Thousand Creek historic ranches located within Sheldon Refuge 

have officially been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Nine other 

structures within Sheldon Refuge associated with historic ranching or the CCC have not been 

formally evaluated. 

5.6.5 Special Designation Areas 

In 1974 the President proposed that Congress designate 341,500 acres of Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge as Wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Despite the fact this proposal has never been 

acted upon, it is Service policy that all proposed wilderness areas be managed consistent with policy 

and guidance for designated wilderness until further action is taken by Congress. 

The majority of lands within the proposed wilderness areas appear essentially natural and 

undisturbed to the casual observer. Exceptions to this level of natural appearance consist of portions 

of the Big Spring Table, Catnip Mountain, and Alkali Peak proposed wilderness areas, which were 

developed with water troughs, catchment basins, and primitive vehicle routes for commercial grazing 

or disturbed by prospecting prior to mineral withdrawal. Other scattered developments to support 

past commercial livestock grazing and associated undeveloped vehicle trails are visible within the 

proposed wilderness areas, but very few permanent structures remain, which are used for 

management purposes. Feral horses and burros and fire suppression have caused more severe 

impacts to habitat condition and ecological function. 

Aggressive fire suppression, prescribed burning, weed control, and grazing both from commercial 

livestock in the past and presently from feral horses and burros continue to trammel wilderness 

character. Conditions within most of the proposed wilderness areas have progressed to the point that 

further management manipulation and intrusion is often determined necessary to prevent further 

impacts to habitats or to restore natural conditions and ecological function. Other management 

activities within the proposed wilderness areas include inventory and monitoring, research studies, 

removal of abandoned fences, and construction of temporary fences to protect springs. These 

activities are temporary and do not typically result in any long-term trammeling or alteration of 

wilderness character. 

With the exception of a few portions of the proposed wilderness areas near developed campsites and 

maintained roads opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined types of recreation are 

considered outstanding. Visitors are free to explore and travel throughout Sheldon Refuge and the 

proposed wilderness areas on foot or by horseback with few regulations or restrictions, and very little 

contact with refuge staff. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-26 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

Descriptions and maps depicting the proposed wilderness areas are included in Appendix F. 

5.6.6 Social and Economic Conditions 

Sheldon Refuge is a large, remote national wildlife refuge in northwest Nevada that also shares a 

border with and includes a small portion within Oregon and is located less than 30 miles from 

California. Therefore, the affected social and economic setting for Sheldon Refuge has been 

identified to include the five counties that include and surround Sheldon Refuge. The five counties 

are Washoe and Humboldt counties in Nevada, Lake and Harney counties in Oregon, and Modoc 

County in California. This affected region encompasses a massive land area of 38,995 square miles. 

For perspective, this region is larger than Maine, Kentucky, Indiana, or South Carolina. 

Conversely, the region is one of the most sparsely populated areas in the contiguous 48 states. Total 

population in 2009 was 459,322 people which equates to a population density of 11.8 people per 

square mile. However, excluding the 300,214 residents of Reno and Sparks, located in the 

southernmost portion of the affected region, the population density falls to 4 people per square 

mile—which is only slightly less than the population density of Wyoming (5.1 people per square 

mile). Despite the enormous size and sparse population of this region, refuge management and 

visitation affect the economies of all five counties both directly and indirectly. 

U.S. Census data collected in 2000 indicate the industry of arts, entertainment, recreation, 

accommodation, and food services employed the highest percentage of people in the region. 

However, this figure is heavily skewed by the economies of Reno and Sparks in Washoe County, 

Nevada, where casino gambling, winter skiing, and other recreation and entertainment activities 

dominate the local economy. Excluding Washoe County, the leading employment industry is 

agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining followed by educational, health and social 

services. Government employment was a significant portion of the regional economy in 2000, 

employing 14.5% of all workers over 16 years in age throughout the five-county region, and 24.8% 

of all workers in the four-county area (Washoe County excluded) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). More 

recent data indicate that government employment now accounts for a substantially larger percentage 

of the workforce following the recent economic downturn (Industrial Economics 2010). 

It is estimated the management and visitation to Sheldon Refuge contributes directly or indirectly to 

the employment of 119 people throughout the region, and the total regional economic contribution 

generated by activities on Sheldon Refuge is estimated at $8.3 million annually (in 2010 dollars) 

(Industrial Economics 2010). When considering the 575,000-acre size of Sheldon Refuge, the 

economic contribution would also be estimated at $14 per acre per year. Refuge budgetary 

expenditures make a significant contribution to the local economy, contributing approximately $5.0 

million annually to gross state product (GSP) (value added1

), or 60% of the quantified regional 

contribution to GSP. Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are the most common wildlifedependent recreational activities taking place on Sheldon Refuge, resulting in an estimated 17,900 

annual visits. As a result, expenditures associated with wildlife observation and photography are the 

largest contributor to GSP of the wildlife-dependent recreational activities assessed, contributing $2.5 

million to GSP (30%). Annual expenditures associated with 1,691 annual sport hunting days 

 

1

 Value added is considered the final value or revenue, less the value of goods or services purchased to produce the 

final product or service. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-27 

(associated with mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep hunting) have been found to comprise 5% 

of current contribution to GSP ($0.4 million), while expenditures associated with 1,122 annual sportfishing days contribute another 1% ($0.1 million).2

 Revenue payments by Sheldon Refuge to local 

governments contribute the remaining 5% to GSP ($0.3 million). Expenditures associated with 

camping have not been expressly quantified but are expected to largely overlap with other wildlife 

observation and photography expenditures (Industrial Economics 2010). 

In addition to quantified benefits associated with Sheldon Refuge management and visitation, 

Sheldon Refuge provides other nonuse and ecological benefits. In his seminal piece, Krutilla (1967) 

suggests that “when the existence of a grand scenic wonder or a unique and fragile ecosystem is 

involved, its preservation and continued availability are a significant part of the real income of many 

individuals.” For example, Freeman (1993) explains that people may gain utility from the 

knowledge that a natural area is preserved despite the fact that they do not expect to visit that area. 

Similarly, people may be willing to pay to protect endangered species even though they do not expect 

to see one of them (Freeman 1993). These values may be motivated by desires to maintain 

intergenerational equity and the option of future resource use, as well as other factors (Industrial 

Economics 1998). 

Various attempts have been made to quantify nonuse or existence values of natural resources and 

special areas such as national wildlife refuges. Economists have estimated that every U.S. household 

would be willing to pay $29 per year to preserve bighorn sheep and $15 per year to preserve Greater 

sage-grouse (Industrial Economics 2010). Sheldon Refuge is one of the only areas of public land in 

the United States set aside specifically to conserve species such as California bighorn sheep, Greater 

sage-grouse, pronghorn, and other priority sagebrush-steppe wildlife species. Even if the more than 

100 million households in the United States were only willing to pay $0.10 per year to preserve 

wildlife within Sheldon Refuge, the value would exceed the estimated $8.3 regional economic 

contribution from management and use of the Sheldon Refuge for wildlife viewing, photography, 

hunting, fishing, and other consumptive uses. Other estimates have been derived for habitat types 

and even entire ecosystems and have ranged from $156 per acre per year to as much as $2,400 per 

acre per year, but these values are questionable given the uncertainty associated with the assumptions 

made and the quality of the underlying information and data (Industrial Economics 2010). 

 

2 Big Spring Reservoir does not currently support sport fishing and is not included in estimates of current 

contribution to GSP.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-28 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

This page left blank intentionally. 
""

""

"" ""

""

"" ""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

"S

!]

"S "S "S "S

"S

"S

"S "S "S "S

!]

!]

!]

!]

e[

e[

e[

e[

e[

e[

e[

e[ e[

e[

e[

e[

!9

!9

!9

!9

!9 !9

!9

!9 !9

!9

!9

!9

!9

@"

?"

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

Thousan d Cre ek

Badg er C ree k

Craine Creek

G u a n o 

g e

UV140

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA DA

L A K E C O U N T Y

HA R N E Y C O U N T Y

C O U N T Y

C O U N T Y

Piute 

Cre ek

WA S H O E C O U N T Y

HU M B O L D T C O U N T Y

Virg in Cre ek

Catnip

Reservoir

Little Catnip

Spring

West Rock

Spring

Gooch

Spring

Fish

Spring

North Hell

Creek

Badger

Wheeler

Spring

Bateman

Spring

Devaney

East Rock

Spring

Big Spring

Reservoir

Virgin

Valley

Kinney

Camp

Virgin

Valley Ranch

Gooch

Camp

IXL

Ranch

Last Chance

Ranch Little

Sheldon

Andy's

Place

Badger

Cabin

Alkali

Ranch

Pruett

Homestead

Thousand Creek

Ranch & Bunkhouse

CCC Gate House

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

@" Refuge Headquarters

?" Proposed Visitor Contact Station

!9 Campgrounds

e[ Historic Structures

"" Wildlife Guzzler (big game)

"" Wildlife Guzzler (small game)

!] Kiosk

"S Sign

Hunting Not Allowed

Lakes

County Boundary

State Line

Public Vehicle Routes (clipped to Refuge)

Highway

Intermittent Stream

Perennial Stream

Figure 5.1

Public Use and Facilities

FINAL CCP / EIS Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

0 2 4 Mi

0 4 8 Km . Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 4/12/2012

File: 10-068-1.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

5-30 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-1 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

This chapter provides an analysis of the environmental consequences of implementing the 

alternatives described in Chapter 2 on the resources described in Chapters 3 through 5 including 

physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. Alternatives are compared against the 

goals and policy objectives for Sheldon Refuge management, not current management strategies or 

existing conditions. In many instances, continuing current management strategies would result in 

adverse impacts. Cumulative impacts associated with implementing the various alternatives are 

addressed in the final section of this chapter. 

The information used in this CCP/EIS was obtained from relevant scientific literature, existing 

databases and inventories, consultations with other professionals, and professional knowledge of 

resources based on field visits and experience. The thresholds and severity ratings defined below 

were used to analyze the scope, scale, and intensity of effects on natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources. 

 Negligible. Resources would not be affected, or the effects would be at or near the lowest 

level of detection. Resource conditions would not change or would be so slight there would 

not be any measurable or perceptible consequence to a population, wildlife, or plant 

community; recreation opportunity; visitor experience; or cultural resource. 

 Minor. Effects would be detectable but small, and of little consequence to a population, 

wildlife, or plant community; recreation opportunity; visitor experience; or cultural resource. 

Mitigation, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be easily implemented and likely to be 

successful. 

 Moderate. Effects would be readily detectable, with consequences to a population, wildlife, 

or plant community; recreation opportunity; visitor experience; or cultural resource. 

Mitigation measures would be needed to offset adverse effects and would be extensive, 

moderately complicated to implement, and probably successful. 

 Significant (major). Effects would be obvious and would result in substantial consequences 

to a population, wildlife, or plant community; recreation opportunity; visitor experience; or 

cultural resource. Extensive mitigating measures may be needed to offset adverse effects and 

would be large scale in nature and very complicated to implement, and may not have a 

guaranteed probability of success. In some instances, major effects would include the 

irretrievable loss of the resource. 

Duration of effects has been defined as follows. 

 Short-term or Temporary. Effects end when action is completed. 

 Long-term. Effects occur and/or persist at least 10 to 15 years after an action is completed 

and possibly much longer.

6.1 Effects to Habitats and Associated Wildlife 

Assessing the impacts to habitats and associated wildlife species included analysis of effects to 

various attributes of biological integrity and diversity. The biological composition of plant 

communities/habitat types for both plant and animal populations was considered. Analysis of the 

biological function of plant communities/habitat types for plant and animal populations included 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-2 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

consideration of natural plant community succession, natural fire regimes, and migration patterns. 

Habitat connectivity was assessed relative to activities that could improve or worsen levels of habitat 

fragmentation. In considering plant breeding populations, self-sustained genetic viability and 

function were taken into account. Self-sustaining capabilities of habitat types and populations were 

assessed relative to historical conditions. Finally, restoration potential was assessed in terms of 

Sheldon Refuge actions and capabilities. These effects are summarized in Table 6.1. 

Table 6.1 Summary of Effects under CCP Alternatives 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

EFFECTS TO HABITATS AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE 

Effects from Horse and 

Burro Management 

Continued major sitespecific negative 

effects from habitat 

degradation and 

species competition for 

resources. 

Major positive effects 

following removal of 

all feral horses/burros 

within 5 years. 

Major positive effects 

following removal of 

all feral horses/burros 

within 15 years. 

Effects from Other 

Invasive Animal Species 

Management 

Major negative effects to native habitat and wildlife species due to 

inadequate management strategies being available to remove or control 

nuisance species. 

Effects from Invasive 

Vegetation Management 

Continued moderate 

negative effects refugewide without strategies 

to detect threats from 

invasive vegetation. 

Minor site-specific 

positive effects where 

treatment strategies are 

implemented. 

Major positive effects 

from implementing 

detection, control, 

containment, and 

treatment strategies to 

as much as 1,000 acres 

per year. 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Effects from Fire 

Management 

Minor negative effects from trampling and 

removal of vegetation during mechanical 

treatments for fuel breaks. Localized minor 

negative effects to wildlife from prescribed fire 

implementation. Major negative effects to the 

historical fire regime, associated nutrient cycling, 

and historical natural plant community 

succession. Positive effects from post-fire 

rehabilitation strategies. 

Increased risk for large 

fires without the more 

effective and versatile 

tools and methods of 

Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Potentially major 

negative effects in the 

event of natural fires. 

Effects from Road 

Management 

Continued moderate 

negative effects from 

existing road network’s 

contribution to spread 

of invasive vegetation, 

fragmentation of 

habitat, alteration of 

plant community 

composition, and 

disturbance of soils. 

Similar to Alternative 1 

except that effects 

would be minor with 

the closure of 

duplicative roads and 

relocation of roads 

away from sensitive 

habitats. 

Continued moderate 

negative effects 

throughout habitats 

where roads are 

located. Benefits of 

relocating and closing 

some roads do not 

negate the negative 

effects. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-3 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

Effects from Hunting 

Management 

Minor negative effects to species populations as a result of individual 

mortality and to habitats as a result of hunters moving through hunting 

areas. 

Effects from 

Campground 

Management 

Continued minor 

negative impacts from 

vegetation trampling, 

soil compaction, water 

quality degradation, 

and potential for 

invasive species 

introduction in 

sensitive riparian 

habitats. 

Minor positive effects 

when campgrounds are 

relocated away from 

sensitive habitats. 

Minor negative impacts 

to other habitats to 

which campgrounds 

are relocated. 

Similar effects to 

Alternative 2. Minor 

positive effects when 

campgrounds 

impacting sensitive 

habitats are 

consolidated with other 

campgrounds. Minor 

negative impacts to 

other habitats where 

existing campgrounds 

are enlarged. 

Effects from 

Construction of PublicUse Facilities 

No changes to public 

use facilities. 

Minor negative impacts 

during construction and 

development of 

facilities. Some minor 

positive effects may be 

realized with increased 

public awareness and 

education related to 

habitats and their 

species. 

Neutral effect. 

Sagebrush Steppe and 

Associated Upland 

Habitats 

Minor positive effects 

from restoration of 400 

acres per year of plant 

communities. 

Negligible negative 

effects from 

mechanical removal of 

vegetation and 

prescribed fire 

applications. 

Moderate positive 

effects from horse and 

burro removal and 

subsequent restoration 

of 1,500 acres per year 

of plant communities 

and restoration of 

hydrologic processes 

and functions. 

Minor positive effects 

from conservation 

strategies including 10 

to 100 acres of 

restoration per year 

from natural fire. 

Semi-desert Grasslands 

and Steppes 

Similar effects to those described above for sagebrush-steppe habitats. 

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Major negative effects 

from applying 

restoration and 

conservation strategies 

while horses and 

burros are present on 

the refuge. The feral 

horses and burros will 

continue to exert 

increased negative 

impacts on these areas. 

Major beneficial 

effects from removing 

feral horses and burros 

and implementing 

restoration and 

conservation strategies 

following feral horse 

and burro removal. 

Major positive effects 

of removing feral 

horses and burros and 

minor positive effects 

from restoration 

strategies primarily 

dependent upon natural 

fire after feral horse 

and burrow removal. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-4 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

Springs, Streams, and 

Springbrooks 

Minor positive effects 

from removal of up to 

4 spring developments 

followed by natural 

habitat recovery. 

Negligible to minor 

positive effects from 

maintaining the 18 

guzzlers located on the 

refuge. 

Major positive effects 

from removing horses 

and burros and 

removing and restoring 

more than 20 spring 

developments. 

Negligible positive 

effects from 

maintaining the 18 

guzzlers located on the 

refuge. Moderate 

positive effects from 

restoring and 

rehabilitating 1 mile of 

Virgin Creek habitat. 

Major positive effects 

from feral horse and 

burro removal. 

Moderate negative 

effects from relying on 

natural recovery and/or 

restoration of at least 

20 spring development 

removals. Major 

negative effects to 

species that use the 

guzzlers in place of the 

springs; guzzlers would 

not be maintained and 

the springs may take 

more than 15 years to 

recover following 

removal of spring 

developments. 

Reservoirs Moderate positive 

effects to pronghorn 

with maintenance of 

Swan Lake Reservoir. 

Continued moderate 

negative effects from 

continuing to stock 

non-native fish species. 

Positive effects from 

use of non-motorized 

boats. 

Same as Alternative 1 

except major positive 

effects from replacing 

non-native rainbow 

trout in Virgin Creek 

with trout indigenous 

to the region. 

Moderate positive 

effects from replacing 

the non-native rainbow 

trout in Big Spring 

Reservoir with trout 

indigenous to the 

region (i.e., Lahontan 

cutthroat or redband 

trout). 

Moderate negative 

effects when 

maintenance of 

Dufurrena Ponds and 

Big Spring Reservoir 

are discontinued. 

Moderate positive 

effects from replacing 

the non-native rainbow 

trout in Big Spring 

Reservoir with fish 

indigenous to the 

region (i.e., Lahontan 

cutthroat or redband 

trout), but afterward, 

no stocking of fish to 

Big Spring Reservoir. 

Ephemeral Wetlands Major negative effects 

from the continued 

maintenance of 21 

playa dug-outs. 

Moderate positive 

effects with the 

restoration of at least 

20% of playas to 

natural conditions and 

restoring hydrologic 

function on the refuge. 

Minor positive effects 

from discontinued 

maintenance of playa 

dug-outs and 

restoration dependent 

upon natural processes. 

Cliffs, Canyons, Talus 

Slopes, and Barren 

Lands 

Continued moderate positive effects from current 

management strategies. 

Minor positive effects 

from limited 

management strategies. 

Deciduous Woodlands 

and Shrublands 

Minor positive effects 

from restoration 

Major positive effects 

from restoration 

Negligible positive 

effects from limited 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-5 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

strategies that continue 

to be affected by feral 

horse and burro 

impacts. 

strategies that include 

protection from feral 

horse and burro 

grazing until they are 

removed from the 

refuge. 

restoration and 

protection strategies. 

Mature Old-growth 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper Habitat 

Types 

Major positive effects from proactive fuel 

reduction strategies for fire prevention. 

Minor positive effects 

from limited strategies 

to protect against fire; 

strategies do not 

include proactive fuel 

reduction efforts. 

EFFECTS TO PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

Effects to Soils Continued minor to 

moderate negative 

effects from horse and 

burro, habitat, 

campground, and 

transportation 

management strategies. 

Major positive effects 

from removal of feral 

horses and burros and 

general habitat 

management strategies. 

Minor negative effects 

from vegetation 

removal for fire 

management. Minor 

positive effects from 

campground and 

transportation 

management strategies. 

Minor adverse effect 

during construction 

activities for new 

visitor facilities. 

Similar to Alternative 2 

except some positive 

effects would be 

delayed while feral 

horses and burros are 

removed from the 

refuge over a longer 

period of time and 

while natural processes 

are allowed to prevail. 

Effects to Water Quality 

and Quantity 

Continued major 

negative effects from 

feral horse and burro 

management. 

Continued moderate 

negative effects from 

habitat management 

strategies that maintain 

altered hydrology 

features. Minor 

negative effects from 

campground and 

transportation 

management. Minor 

positive effects from 

removing 4 spring 

developments and 

eventual habitat 

Major positive effects 

from feral horse and 

burro removal and 

several habitat 

management strategies. 

Moderate negative 

effects from strategies 

for maintaining 

artificial water sources. 

Minor positive effects 

from campground and 

transportation 

management strategies. 

Major positive effects 

from feral horse and 

burro removal would 

be delayed 10 

additional years from 

Alternative 2. 

Moderate positive 

effects from habitat 

management strategies. 

Minor positive effects 

from campground and 

transportation 

management strategies. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-6 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

restoration results. 

Positive effects from 

use of non-motorized 

boats. 

Effects to Air Quality Minor to moderate negative effects from use of prescribed fire. 

Effects to Climate Negligible negative effects from use of prescribed fire. 

Effects to Visual Quality Negligible negative 

effects from 

development of new 

kiosks and signs and 

use of prescribed fire. 

Minor negative effects 

from development of a 

new visitor contact 

station, new 

campground facilities, 

a new interpretive trail, 

and additional 

primitive roads. Minor 

positive effects from 

habitat management 

strategies to remove 

artificial features. 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Minor positive effects 

from fewer primitive 

unmaintained roads 

and habitat 

management strategies 

to remove artificial 

features. 

Effects from Camping Moderate negative 

effects from 

management strategies 

that do not improve 

campground facilities, 

continue to allow 

camping in sensitive 

areas, and do not 

address issues of 

overcrowding and user 

conflicts. 

Moderate positive 

effects from 

improvement of 

campground facilities, 

including the 

conversion of two 

semi-primitive 

campgrounds into 

developed 

campgrounds and 

relocation of 

campgrounds away 

from sensitive areas. 

Similar to Alternative 1 

except negative effects 

would be minor due to 

consolidating up to 

four semi-primitive 

campgrounds away 

from sensitive areas. 

Effects from Public 

Access 

Minor positive effects 

from continued 

maintenance of 

existing primary access 

vehicle-accessible 

routes and primitive 

access along existing 

user-created trails and 

routes. 

Minor negative effects 

to primitive access 

opportunities due to the 

addition of new 

motorized vehicle 

access roads. Minor 

positive effects from 

converting an existing 

road into a maintained 

hiking trail. 

Minor to moderate 

negative effects from 

eliminating 

maintenance of Virgin 

Valley roads. Negative 

effects to primitive 

access opportunities 

would be similar to 

Alternative 2. 

Effects from Recreational 

Facilities 

Major negative effects 

from maintaining the 

existing visitor contact 

space, which does not 

meet visitor 

expectations. 

Major positive effects 

from building and 

staffing a new, 

conveniently located 

visitor contact station. 

Major negative effects 

from closing and not 

replacing the existing 

visitor contact space. 

Opportunities for Quality Moderate negative Similar effects to Major positive effects 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-7 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

Hunting effects from 

maintaining current 

levels of feral horses 

and burros. Moderate 

positive effects from 

continued hunting 

management strategies, 

including coordination 

with NDOW. 

Moderate temporary 

negative effects from 

habitat management 

and fire management 

strategies and 

subsequent minor, 

long-term positive 

effects. 

Alternative 1 except 

major positive effects 

following complete 

removal of feral horses 

and burros within 5 

years. 

following complete 

removal of feral horses 

and burros within 15 

years. Moderate 

positive effects from 

continued hunting 

management strategies. 

Negligible to minor 

negative effects from 

habitat and fire 

management strategies 

that allow natural 

processes to occur. 

Opportunities for Quality 

Fishing 

Moderate positive 

effects from continued 

maintenance of 

Dufurrena Ponds, 

Catnip Reservoir, and 

Big Spring Reservoir, 

and fishing docks at 

Dufurrena Pond 20 and 

McGee Pond. 

Moderate beneficial 

effect from providing 

fishing opportunity for 

trout. 

Similar to Alternative 1 

except negligible to 

minor negative effects 

to quality fishing from 

the visitor’s standpoint 

from stocking native 

fish, which are smaller 

and considered less 

sporting to catch. 

Moderate negative 

effects from decreased 

fishing opportunities 

from discontinued 

maintenance and 

restocking at Big 

Spring Reservoir. 

Opportunities for Quality 

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography 

Moderate negative 

effects from 

maintaining current 

levels of feral horses 

and burros, which 

degrade the 

environment and 

displace native 

wildlife. 

Major positive effects 

following complete 

removal of all feral 

horses and burros 

within 5 years. 

Construction of an 

interpretive trail with 

wildlife observation 

decks would result in 

minor positive effects 

from increased 

opportunities and 

minor negative effects 

because improvements 

may be detrimental to 

some species and may 

detract from the overall 

primitive recreational 

experience. Minor 

Major positive effects 

following complete 

removal of all feral 

horses and burros 

within 15 years. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-8 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

negative effects from 

limited access due to 

seasonal area closures. 

Moderate positive 

effects from invasive 

weed management. 

Opportunities for Quality 

Interpretation and 

Environmental 

Education 

Major negative effects 

from maintaining the 

existing visitor contact 

space, which does not 

meet visitor 

expectations. 

Major positive effects 

from building and 

staffing a new visitor 

contact station that 

would meet visitor 

needs and promote 

environmental 

education and 

interpretation. Minor 

positive effects from 

increased public 

awareness, outreach, 

education, and public 

access. 

Major negative effects 

from closure of the 

existing visitor contact 

space. Some positive 

effects from increased 

public awareness, 

outreach, and 

interpretation. 

Opportunities for Rock 

Collecting 

Negligible positive effects trending toward minor from continued allowance 

of rock collecting activities. 

EFFECTS TO CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 

Effects to Cultural and 

Historic Resources 

Major negative effects 

to cultural resources, 

including irretrievable 

and irreversible loss 

from continued 

trampling by feral 

horses and burros and 

subsequent erosion. 

Minor negative effects 

to prehistoric sites 

from continued 

camping and vehicle 

traffic at semiprimitive and primitive 

campgrounds. 

Negligible to minor 

negative effects from 

habitat and fire 

management activities. 

Continued negative 

effects from rock 

collecting resulting 

from inadvertent or 

unintentional collection 

of prehistoric artifacts 

Major positive effects 

following the removal 

of feral horses and 

burros within 5 years, 

relocation of semiprimitive and primitive 

campgrounds away 

from sensitive areas, 

efforts to document 

and stabilize 20% of 

historic structures, 

increased 

interpretation, and 

collection of fees to 

fund restoration and 

maintenance. 

Major positive effects 

following the removal 

of feral horses and 

burros within 15 years. 

Minor to moderate 

negative effects to 

historic structures from 

discontinuing 

maintenance and 

allowing structures to 

naturally weather and 

decay. Benefits from 

relocation of 

campgrounds away 

from sensitive areas 

would be less than 

those described for 

Alternative 2 due to 

only relocating 

campgrounds with the 

most severe impacts. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-9 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

or fossils. 

EFFECTS TO LOCAL ECONOMY 

Effects to the Economy Moderate positive 

effect to the regional 

economy from direct 

expenditures and 

employment of 

approximately 131 

jobs; Sheldon Refuge 

budget is assumed to 

remain consistent with 

current levels. 

Largest economic 

value and contribution 

to the regional 

economy (of all 

alternatives) from 

direct expenditures and 

employment of 

approximately 142 

jobs. Overall visitation 

expected to increase 

over current levels by 

5,000 visitors over the 

15-year planning 

period. 

Economic value and 

contribution to the 

economy from direct 

expenditures and 

employment of 123 

jobs would be less than 

Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Visitation is expected 

to decrease due to 

degradation of existing 

facilities, but overall 

visitation is assumed to 

be similar to 

Alternative 1. 

EFFECTS TO SPECIAL DESIGNATED USE AREAS 

Effects to Wilderness and 

WSA Values 

Major negative effects 

to naturalness with 

continued degradation 

in large portions of the 

refuge. Major negative 

effect to untrammeled 

conditions as major 

refuge processes are 

altered for habitat 

succession and general 

condition. Major 

negative effects to 

solitude during peak 

visitation periods 

coinciding with 

management activities. 

Moderate negative 

effects to solitude at 

various locations 

throughout the refuge 

with more lasting 

evidence of 

management activities. 

Continued major 

positive effect to 

primitive and 

unconfined recreation 

opportunities 

throughout the refuge. 

Moderate positive 

effects to naturalness 

with the natural 

appearance and 

ecological conditions 

restored to the majority 

of the refuge. Similar 

impacts to 

untrammeled 

conditions as 

Alternative 1 except 

ultimately these 

management strategies 

lead to less interference 

and manipulation. 

Effects to opportunities 

for solitude are similar 

to Alternative 1 with a 

greater intensity to a 

larger number of 

visitors. Negligible to 

minor positive effect to 

opportunities for 

primitive and 

unconfined types of 

recreation due to fewer 

roads for public vehicle 

access, which would be 

retained for 

administrative use. 

Major positive effects 

to naturalness from 

removal of feral horses 

and burros and 

abandoned livestock 

developments would be 

overshadowed by 

continued negative 

effects from lack of 

natural fire and 

additional motorized 

routes. Negligible to 

moderate negative 

effects to untrammeled 

conditions from 

various management 

and maintenance 

strategies. Moderate 

positive effects to 

solitude due to fewer 

management activities 

and negligible to minor 

positive effects to 

solitude and 

opportunities for 

primitive types of 

recreation from fewer 

roads open to public 

vehicle access, which 

would be retained for 

administrative use. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-10 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.1.1 Effects Common to All Habitats and Associated Wildlife 

Under all alternatives, habitat impacts within Sheldon Refuge are expected to result in similar, 

corresponding impacts that indirectly affect fish and wildlife associated with those habitats. These 

include impacts from management strategies aimed at restoring and protecting habitats characteristic 

of the Great Basin as well as unique and rare habitats. 

6.1.1.1 Effects from Horse and Burro Management 

Feral horses and burros have a negative impact on Sheldon Refuge ecosystems. Regardless of their 

population size, their presence as a non-indigenous species contributes to the deterioration of the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Sheldon Refuge. Grazing by feral horses 

and burros is one of two primary factors preventing restoration of Sheldon Refuge habitats (Davis 

1995), and the negative effects their grazing has on native plants, wildlife, and ecosystems are 

numerous. Grazing pressure has contributed to changes in sagebrush-steppe habitats by altering the 

composition of vegetation (i.e., increased density of large shrubs and reduction in perennial grasses), 

lowering species diversity, and contributing to habitat fragmentation. Trampling and grazing by feral 

horses and burros is extremely detrimental to riparian habitats. Most springs and the adjacent 

meadows on Sheldon Refuge have been trampled by feral horses, resulting in reduced plant vigor, 

deterioration of meadows, and destruction of riparian vegetation (USFWS 2008a). Deciduous 

woodlands have also experience negative impacts as a result of grazing, including general declines in 

deciduous woodlands, particularly aspen (Dobkin et al. 1995). Studies conducted on Sheldon Refuge 

in 2002 indicated extreme differences between protected vegetation and vegetation exposed to horse 

grazing. By erecting fenced structures to protect areas from large animals, vegetation was able to 

grow two to 11.5 times taller than vegetation outside of the grazing exclosure fences (USFWS 

2008a). 

As described in Chapter 4, feral horses and burros have a direct negative impact on Sheldon Refuge 

wildlife, including sensitive and native species. Feral horses and burros contribute to the decline and 

deterioration of various habitats on Sheldon Refuge, resulting in indirect, adverse impacts on the 

wildlife species that depend on those habitats for survival (see Section 4.1.1). Feral horses, burros, 

and other livestock can impact vegetation directly through consumption and trampling of plants, or 

indirectly by soil compaction, disturbance of soil crust, soil erosion, seed dispersal of invasive 

species, soil nutrient shifts, and differential grazing (e.g., Belsky and Gelbard 2000; Douglas and 

Hurst 1993). A number of studies have characterized the specific changes in vegetative structure and 

plant communities associated with livestock grazing, with a few focused on effects of feral horses 

and burros. Beever and Herrick (2006) and Beever et al. (2007) examined the response of upland 

sagebrush communities to removal of horse grazing on 19 sites in nine mountain ranges across 3.03 

million hectares (7.49 million acres) of Nevada. The sites were either grazed by feral horses and had 

horses completely removed for 10 to 14 years previously. In the sagebrush-dominated communities 

of the Great Basin, horse-occupied sites had lower abundance and cover of native grasses, lower and 

less continuous shrub cover, lower total vegetative cover, and lower species richness. Additional 

studies noted the impact of burros on vegetation in the Sonoran Desert, especially within 2.5 km of 

water (Hanley and Brady 1977) and plant communities of the Mojave Desert (Stubbs 1998). 

One of the most serious impacts by horses on Sheldon Refuge appears to be the damage to riparian 

habitats where extensive reduction of both herbaceous and shrubby vegetation along streams and at 

springs/seeps causes deteriorated habitat conditions for wildlife (Barnett 2002; LaRouche 2007; 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-11 

Steblein 2007). These areas are known to be important for sage-grouse during brood rearing and 

late-season use when herbaceous vegetation in the upland areas has matured and declines in protein 

values (Gregg 2007). Beever and Brussard (2000) used exclosures in the Great Basin to compare 

impacts of horses and horses/cattle combined at springs and meadows. They found horse-excluded 

springs exhibited greater plant species richness along with greater percent cover and abundance of 

native grasses and shrubs. Meadows with all livestock excluded showed maximum vegetation 

heights that were 2.8 times higher than plots grazed by horses alone and 4.5 times greater than 

vegetation grazed by horses and cattle. The greatest difference in species richness was observed 

between ungrazed plots (highest) versus sites with both horses and cattle grazing (lowest). 

The reduction of both herbaceous (Barnett 2002) and shrub vegetation (Nordquist et al. In 

preparation) by feral horses in upland sagebrush habitats could also affect a variety of wildlife 

species. For example, impacts to sage-grouse include reducing vegetative cover used to protect the 

birds from predators (like coyotes and raptors), potentially affecting the quality of foraging habitat. 

Deterioration of sagebrush habitats has likely resulted in adverse impacts to other sagebrush-obligate 

species, such pronghorn. Greater sage-grouse, a candidate species under the ESA, depend upon 

sagebrush shrub habitats for nesting and forage and are adversely impacted by feral horses. 

Pronghorn, a focal species on Sheldon Refuge, use low sagebrush habitats for wintering and fawning 

and rely on this habitat type as an important year-round source of forage. In addition to the impacts 

pronghorn experience from the degraded habitat, pronghorn are also displaced from watering sites by 

horses and directly compete with horses for food during years when vegetation conditions are poor. 

Other species that are directly impacted by feral horses or burros include California bighorn sheep, 

American pika, mule deer, and pygmy rabbit. Bighorn sheep and pika, both listed on the Nevada 

Species of Conservation Priority list, are almost exclusively associated with cliffs, canyons, talus 

slopes, and barren land habitat types like those within Sheldon Refuge. California bighorn sheep 

share the same range as feral burros and compete for water; burros have been implicated as 

contributing to declining bighorn sheep numbers (Seegmiller and Ohmart 1981). American pika feed 

on grasses found near talus slopes; feral horses compete with pika for this important forage. Pika are 

also indirectly impacted by horses when the soil and vegetation are trampled while horses graze 

(Beever et al. 2003a). Mule deer are also on the Nevada Species of Conservation Priority list and 

depend on various Sheldon Refuge habitats for forage and cover during different life stages. Pygmy 

rabbit are a sagebrush habitat specialist and are currently undergoing a status review as a potential 

federally endangered species under the ESA. They depend on dense sagebrush for thermal cover and 

protection from predators, and sagebrush is the dominant food source in the pygmy rabbit diet. 

Under Alternative 1, maintaining current population levels of feral horses and burros on Sheldon 

Refuge would allow the continued decline and deterioration of habitats and prevent habitats from 

returning to natural conditions. In addition to the indirect impacts to wildlife discussed previously, 

several wildlife species would be directly impacted, including Greater sage-grouse, pronghorn, mule 

deer, pika, pygmy rabbit, and California bighorn sheep. Overall, impacts as a result of current horse 

and burro management would be long-term, because the population would continue to exert pressure 

on the various Sheldon Refuge habitats and wildlife. Individual adverse impacts would range from 

minor to major and would be both direct and indirect. For example, competition for water between 

bighorn sheep and burros would result in a major, adverse impact to bighorn sheep, as displacement 

from this vital resource threatens the viability of this small population on Sheldon Refuge. Other 

impacts, such as habitat degradation due to trampling of vegetation, would occur refuge-wide but 

would likely result in major, adverse impacts only in site-specific sensitive habitats, such as riparian 

areas, and would be minor in other habitat areas. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-12 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative 2, major, refuge-wide, beneficial impacts to habitats and wildlife would occur 

following the removal of all feral horses and burros from Sheldon Refuge within five years. 

Restoration efforts would be more likely to succeed, and habitats would be more likely to reach a 

state where natural processes could be maintained with little or no human intervention. This 

alternative is aligned with the Service’s Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Ecological Health Policy 

and Wilderness Policy and, in the long term, Sheldon Refuge would be returned to a more natural 

state. Impacts associated with removing horses and burros through gathers would likely result in 

minor, adverse impacts to Sheldon Refuge wildlife. These impacts are likely to be site-specific and 

short-term because wildlife present in the area of a gather event may be temporarily displaced during 

gathering activities. Impacts may occur as horses and burros are being directed toward the temporary 

sorting corral location as well as a result of low-flying helicopters (Efroymanson et al. 2000). 

Effects from Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for Alternative 2; however, the 

removal of feral horses and burros would occur over a 15-year period. As a result, it would take 

longer for the beneficial impacts resulting from removal to be realized, and Sheldon Refuge habitats 

and wildlife would be subjected to the adverse impacts from horses and burros for an additional 10 

years. 

6.1.1.2 Effects from Other Invasive Animal Species Management 

In addition to feral horses and burros, other non-native animal species, such as bullfrogs and guppies, 

can have a significant impact on native habitats. As discussed in Chapter 4, expanding populations 

of nuisance species may cause adverse direct and indirect impacts on habitat biodiversity, habitat 

connectivity, and vegetation community stability, and their spread may facilitate expansion of nonnative invasive species (see Section 4.1.2.2). Invasive species can also directly impact native species 

by displacement, predation, and disease transmission. 

Under all alternatives, the strategy to address non-native species that have been determined to have 

negligible impacts on native species or habitats is to take no corrective action, which is consistent 

with Service policy. Other wildlife, primarily bullfrogs, guppies, and warm-water fishes (i.e., perch, 

sunfish, crappie) within the Virgin Valley of Sheldon Refuge are causing adverse impacts or have the 

potential to cause impacts should they escape from reservoirs or ponds into Thousand Creek. 

However, these habitats have also been substantially altered and impacted by irrigation 

developments, road building, mining, homesteading, and other activities that have been ongoing for 

more than 100 years. The risk of fish escaping into Thousand Creek is considered low and would 

require an extreme flood event, which can occur every 50 to 100 years. Virgin Valley represents a 

closed watershed, which does not connect with a larger stream system, but instead flows into a dry 

basin typical of streams through the region. Because these habitats otherwise have poor ecological 

integrity, none of the alternatives include management actions that would actively address harmful 

and invasive wildlife or fish within Virgin Valley. Instead, we propose to focus efforts and resources 

toward the recovery and restoration of less substantially impacted habitats that have greater 

importance and value for pronghorn, sage-grouse, bighorn sheep, and other priority wildlife species. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 include measures to investigate mitigation techniques; however, there is no 

strategy developed to implement these techniques. As a result of inadequate management strategies 

available to control or remove nuisance species, all alternatives would result in major, long-term, 

adverse impacts to native habitats and wildlife species. These impacts would be confined to Virgin 

Valley and the Dufurrena Ponds, which have already been substantially altered and impacted by past 

development. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-13 

6.1.1.3 Effects from Invasive Vegetation Management 

Invasive plant species displace native vegetation and alter the composition and structure of plant 

communities. On Sheldon Refuge, approximately 30 introduced, non-native, and often noxious plant 

species have been documented within upland and riparian habitats (Sheldon Refuge files). Invasive 

plants typically need transportation to spread to new areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000), and on 

Sheldon Refuge several methods are possible, including highway and off-highway vehicles, people, 

wild and domestic animals, and firefighting equipment. Increased efforts are needed to detect and 

control newly introduced non-native plant species, and to control or decrease existing infestations in 

order to prevent impacts from becoming considerably worse. 

Alternative 1 emphasizes an opportunistic treatment regime that does not include adequate strategies 

to detect new infestations from invasive species and is not sufficient to control and decrease these 

threats. This alternative is not adequate to support Service policy for maintaining and restoring 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. The lack of strategies to detect the threat 

from invasive species would result in moderate, long-term, direct, adverse impacts to habitats. These 

impacts would occur throughout Sheldon Refuge over the course of the CCP implementation period 

of 15 years. However, implementation of treatment strategies (e.g., mechanical removal of 

vegetation, application of herbicides) would likely eliminate or prevent the spread of noxious weed 

populations when detected and provide some conservation of native habitats, resulting in minor, sitespecific, short-term, direct, beneficial impacts to habitat on approximately 50 to 100 acres each year. 

Under Alternative 2, various methods including systematic inventory and monitoring for invasive 

plants, mowing, use of herbicides, elimination of grading road shoulders, and reseeding and/or 

replanting areas disturbed by fire would be used to detect new infestations, control and contain 

existing infestations, and treat up to 1,000 acres per year. Roadside corridors would be emphasized 

and strategies include discontinuing roadside grading practices, which promote the spread and 

persistence of invasive species. Management strategies to combat invasive plants support the Service 

policy for biological integrity and diversity on Sheldon Refuge. With a more systematic approach 

for inventory of noxious weeds and other invasive plants, populations are more likely to be detected 

when they are small and more easily managed and controlled. Increased treatment and reduced soil 

disturbance along road corridors would reduce the spread of invasive plants already present and 

would reduce the potential for new populations. As a result, we anticipate these actions would result 

in major, long-term, direct, beneficial impacts to all habitats. Direct impacts from implementation of 

the alternative would be similar to those from Alternative 1 but would occur over approximately 

1,000 acres per year. 

Strategies under Alternative 3 are not sufficient to control and decrease the threat from invasive 

species. Alternative 3 emphasizes early detection and eradication of new and/or small infestations 

but does not include strategies to control the spread of established or large populations (e.g., Cardara

sp., Halogeton sp., Russian thistle, and other species currently well established along road corridors, 

in meadows, and other disturbed habitats). Impacts would be similar to those described above for 

Alternative 1. 

6.1.1.4 Effects from Fire Management 

Ecological diversity of shrub-steppe habitats was historically maintained by fire. For example, big 

sagebrush is seldom browsed sufficiently to stop its development, and it has few biological controls. 

Therefore, fire is the primary agent responsible for periodically reducing sagebrush density (Clark 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-14 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

and Starkey 1990). Following fire, habitats progress through various stages of plant community 

succession toward a climax plant community type. This progression will continue and eventually 

reach a stable climax condition unless another fire or other disturbance occurs. The first 

communities to appear following fire are dominated by grasses, forbs, and some shrubs, which 

resprout quickly following removal of the shrub overstory. Subclimax communities contain a 

mixture of shrubs, forbs, and grasses. For big sagebrush-steppe communities, as conditions progress 

toward climax, the density and cover of sagebrush continues to increase and juniper may begin to 

encroach, until plant communities are essentially a monoculture of shrubs and trees with few grasses 

or forbs in the understory. These climax conditions are more susceptible to soil erosion and have 

lower plant diversity but do provide important wildlife habitat. 

Through millennia, wildlife coevolved with shrub-steppe plant communities and adapted to natural 

processes, including fire. Some wildlife species specialized in early seral communities, such as 

grasslands, which follow soon after fire. Still others favored climax communities of trees and shrubs. 

These habitats reflect a complex interaction of environmental variables including soil and climate, 

but fire has been an important influence on wildlife populations in these habitats (Clark and Starkey 

1990). Therefore, fire is not just beneficial to shrub-steppe habitats; it is necessary to maintain plant 

and wildlife diversity. If fire is excluded, habitat conditions trend toward larger and larger 

continuous expanses of climax shrub- and tree-dominated vegetation, which is unable to support a 

diversity of wildlife populations. 

Habitats with sagebrush monocultures are extremely difficult to burn safely, and if burning is 

accomplished, there are few residual understory plants to take advantage of the overstory removal 

(Clark and Starkey 1990). Natural fire, under undesirable conditions, can be a threat to the present 

ecosystem and the various habitats on Sheldon Refuge. Fire management is especially important 

because the natural fire regime on Sheldon Refuge has been severely altered by human influences, 

including fire suppression, historical cattle grazing, proliferation of non-native species, and 

development. With the altered fire regime, Sheldon Refuge is more susceptible to natural fires that 

can burn more intensely and more rapidly over larger areas. 

Prescribed burning can be used to mimic habitat conditions created by natural fire and avoid the 

potential risk from natural fire burning very large areas or area where fire is undesirable or may be 

detrimental to habitats and wildlife. The mosaic pattern of a prescribed fire created by the size of 

habitat patches burned and left unburned and the overall intensity of a prescribed burn are key factors 

that influence structural diversity of habitats and benefits to wildlife. 

Management strategies under Alternative 1 include a variety of fire protection methods and options 

for post-fire rehabilitation actions. Strategies include the use of mechanical methods for developing 

fuel breaks and completion of a Minimum Requirements Analysis to determine appropriate activities 

and equipment for fire suppression within proposed wilderness and WSAs that are generally 

prohibited under the Wilderness Act. A Minimum Requirements Analysis identifies the least 

intrusive means necessary to obtain management objectives in a wilderness area. The reader is 

referred to Appendix J for more information about wilderness Minimum Requirements Analyses. 

Mechanical removal of vegetation could involve the use of mechanized hand tools or motorized 

equipment. Impacts are expected to be short-term and minor and would include trampling and 

crushing of vegetation from people or equipment and direct loss of vegetation from removal to 

construct the fire break itself. Other impacts include increased potential for invasive species 

introduction, and associated indirect impacts to wildlife species that use those habitats. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-15 

In addition to the impacts described under Alternative 1 from mechanical removal of vegetation to 

create fire fuel breaks, prescribed fire is likely to cause environmental impacts to the quality of air, 

soil, and water, which could indirectly impact wildlife species; impacts to air, soil, and water are 

discussed in Section 6.2. Prescribed fire is also more likely to directly impact wildlife species. For 

example, burrowing animal species may be displaced by fire or fire-related activities. Plants within 

the prescribed burn area are killed, and associated wildlife is affected as well. The magnitude of 

these effects is determined by the size of the prescribed burn area and the fire intensity in areas 

actually burned. Within any particular area burned, altered habitat conditions will benefit some 

plants and wildlife and not others. However, at the scale of Sheldon Refuge, the disturbance of fire 

that maintains an irregular mosaic of habitats at various stages of plant community succession is 

beneficial to both individual species and ecosystem biodiversity. Localized, adverse impacts from 

prescribed fire are expected to be of short-term, minor intensity, because each prescribed fire is 

expected to burn less than 1,500 acres, and we anticipate burned areas will recover to more natural 

conditions capable of sustaining native vegetation and wildlife species. The use of prescribed fire 

under this alternative is expected to reduce the risk of major, adverse impacts from natural fires, but 

as discussed in Chapter 4 (see Section 4.1.4), the timing, size, intensity, and return interval of 

prescribed fires within Sheldon Refuge do not mimic the natural historical fire regime and have not 

created conditions suitable for allowing natural fire to burn with minimal fire suppression activity. 

As a result, the use of prescribed fire under this alternative would continue a major departure from 

historical conditions and would have major, long-term, adverse impacts relative to the historical 

natural fire regime, associated nutrient cycling, and historical natural plant community succession. 

Based upon the average number of acres burned by prescribed fire within Sheldon Refuge in recent 

years and the strategies identified for Alternative 1, we anticipate the impacts from prescribed 

burning under this alternative would affect an average of 1,500 acres or less per year. 

Strategies for Objective 7b under Alternative 1 also allow for implementation of various post-fire 

methods (see Objective 7b in Section 2.2.7) to reduce long-term negative impacts resulting from 

wildfires and fire suppression activities, which could damage refuge resources. Post-fire 

rehabilitation actions would be predominantly beneficial and would mitigate for many of the adverse 

impacts from fire and fire suppression. In addition to native plants for emergency stabilization and 

restoration, non-indigenous plants may also be used, Alternative 1 supports management goals of 

protecting, maintaining, and restoring plant communities characteristic of the Great Basin and also 

supports policy for maintaining and restoring biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health. 

Management strategies under Alternative 2 are similar to those discussed for Alternative 1. 

Strategies in Alternative 2 include using only native seed for emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation and no non-indigenous plants. Impacts would be similar to those described above for 

Alternative 1 and under Section 6.2. 

Under Alternative 3, management actions would focus on allowing natural fire to occur. When 

permitted to burn, wildfires are expected to burn larger areas, and the intensity of natural fires would 

be greater than would otherwise occur under natural conditions (see Section 2.1.3.3), when types of 

vegetation and fuel across the landscape had not been altered. Under most situations, only aircraft 

(for dropping water or fire retardant), hand tools, and other non-motorized equipment for fire 

suppression would be allowed within wilderness areas and WSAs. Although they are less intrusive, 

these methods are rarely sufficient to protect sensitive habitats against large, fast-moving, intense 

fires. If the suppression methods under this alternative were not sufficient to prevent a fire from 

becoming a threat to private property or public safety, the fire would likely be much larger, would 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-16 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

require a greater number of people and resources, would be much more dangerous to contain, and 

would be much more expensive than if the more effective and versatile tools and methods proposed 

under Alternatives 1 and 2 had been initially used (i.e., helicopter transport of fire fighters and 

equipment, chainsaws, motorized water pumps). As a result, the suppression methods proposed 

under Alternative 3 would increase the risk for very large fires, fires with major impacts to natural 

resources, and fires that could pose a threat to public safety and private property. The post-fire 

strategy would focus on natural recovery and not restoration or rehabilitation. Because the natural 

habitat has been greatly altered, natural recovery after either natural or prescribed fire is not expected 

to result in more natural conditions and in some instances, plant communities could be replaced by an 

entirely different set of plants. Under Alternative 3, prescribed fire would only be used within 

sagebrush-steppe habitats (as compared to most habitats under Alternatives 1 and 2). Impacts to 

sagebrush habitats (approximately 133,617 acres) from prescribed burning would be similar to those 

described for all habitats under Alternatives 1 and 2, but we anticipate these impacts would affect an 

average of 300 acres or less per year. Alternative 3 strategies do not support Sheldon Refuge goals 

and policy pertaining to protection and restoration of Sheldon Refuge habitats and conditions of 

environmental health but would better accomplish other management direction and goals for 

ecological integrity, diversity, and wilderness character (see subsequent sections in this chapter 

related to habitats and wilderness). Fire management strategies would not be likely to protect 

sensitive resources against major, natural fires, and without active suppression and restoration 

actions, natural fires would be more likely to result in larger-scale disturbances that could impact 

Sheldon Refuge and the Great Basin region. 

6.1.2 Public Use Effects 

6.1.2.1 Effects from Road Management 

Although all alternatives include strategies that would minimize impacts to sensitive resources, 

adverse impacts would be expected to continue as a result of the network of developed and 

undeveloped roads throughout Sheldon Refuge and associated maintenance. Road development has 

led to habitat fragmentation and continues to adversely impact the biological integrity on Sheldon 

Refuge by contributing to the altered composition of plant communities, soil disturbance, facilitation 

of the spread of invasive vegetation, changes in the natural fire regimes, and habitat fragmentation. 

Among the most widespread forms of natural landscape modification during the past century has 

been the construction and maintenance of roads. To date, more than 550,000 miles of roads have 

been built on Federal lands to facilitate resource extraction, recreation, and transportation (Havlick 

2002). It has been estimated that over 22% of the contiguous United States is ecologically altered by 

the road network, and that roads in rural areas have the greatest total ecological effect (Forman 2000; 

Riitters and Wickham 2003). Further, the typical western watershed has more than 20% of its total 

land area within 0.2 mile of a road, and many have more than 40% (Riitters and Wickham 2003). 

OHV use has been rapidly increasing and has become highly concentrated on public lands with a 

visible influence at a landscape scale through road and trail corridors, soil compaction, increased 

wind and water erosion, and vegetation alteration (see summary by Tull and Brussard 2007). 

Although roads of all types, including OHV trails, provide important services, their construction and 

presence can influence hydrology, geomorphology, and ecosystem processes. Many direct effects 

are obvious during construction, but other effects are permanent and can extend substantially beyond 

the actual road surface (road-effect zone; Forman and Alexander 1998, Forman 2000). At the 

landscape scale, major ecological impacts of a road network include fragmentation, the disruption of 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-17 

landscape processes, and loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity declines as the road network impacts 

interior species (species cut off by roads), species with large home ranges, stream and wetland 

species, and rare native species (Forman and Alexander 1998). Physical impacts related to roads 

include increased soil compaction, reduced moisture content, dust mobilization, and increased 

sources of fine sediments, erosion, and alteration of slope hydrology (see summary by Switalski et al. 

2004). Soil compaction by vehicle tires invariably reduces infiltration capacity and renders the 

surface more susceptible to wind and water erosion; in fact, accelerated soil loss may be the most 

long-lasting and difficult to alleviate of all off-road vehicle impacts (Eckert et al. 1979; Iverson et al. 

1981). 

Further, data suggest that in arid environments, recovery may require tens of years in some areas to 

hundreds of years at severely disturbed sites (Iverson et al. 1981). In particular, altered hydrology 

can have major physical or chemical effects on associated habitats; roads accelerate water flows and 

sediment transport, which degrade aquatic ecosystems (Forman and Alexander 1998). Chemical 

environment modifications include heavy metal contamination from gasoline additives, and the 

application of de-icing agents (e.g., salt) and herbicides (Forman and Alexander 1998; Trombulak 

and Frissell 2000). For example, pollution, in the form of vehicular emissions and road runoff that 

contains toxic chemicals, petroleum, de-icing salts, and sediment, can have a negative effect on 

amphibian populations (see Carr and Fahrig 2001). Roads and trails also provide dispersal 

mechanisms for exotic species (see Section 6.1.1.3). Indeed, it has been demonstrated that habitats 

distant from roads may provide significant refuge for native grassland species, and that this effect 

may be even more pronounced in predominately intact landscapes such as those in parts of the Great 

Basin (Gelbard and Harrison 2003). Human access and disturbance effects on remote areas tend to 

increase with higher road densities, as well as human-caused fire ignitions (Forman and Alexander 

1998). 

Fragmentation of previously extensive landscapes can influence the distribution and abundance of a 

host of wildlife species through redistribution of habitat types and through the pattern of habitat 

fragmentation, including characteristics such as decreased patch area and increased habitat edge (see 

Vander Haegen et al. 2000). Fragmentation has been associated with reduced avian productivity 

through increased rates of nest predation, increased nest parasitism, and reduced pairing success of 

males (see Knick and Rotenberry 1995; Vander Haegen et al. 2000). Over half of sagebrush-steppe 

obligate bird species have recently experienced long-term population declines (Saab and Rich 1997), 

for which the abundance of some (e.g., sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow; Vander Haegen et al. 2000) 

and others (e.g., golden eagle; Marzluff et al. 1997) has been negatively correlated with habitat 

fragmentation beyond the size of individual home ranges (Knick and Rotenberry 1995). In contrast, 

other species, including some predators, can benefit from habitat modification (i.e., coyote, mountain 

lion, black bear [Ursus americanus]; see summary by Mosnier et al. 2008). Increasingly, islands of 

native vegetation embedded within otherwise disturbed environments have high potential ecological 

and conservation value (Longland and Bateman 2002). However, because fragmentation and habitat 

loss typically occur together, details of how habitats are spatially arranged are unlikely to mitigate 

the risks of absolute habitat loss (Fahrig 1997). 

As discussed previously, the construction and maintenance of roads is among the most widespread 

forms of natural landscape modification during the past century. Roads (including OHV trails) are 

commonly identified as important correlates or indicators of loss of ecological health and affect 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in several general ways: 1) increased mortality from road 

construction; 2) increased mortality from collision with vehicles; 3) modification of animal behavior; 

4) alteration of physical environment; 5) alteration of chemical environment; 6) spread of exotic 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-18 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

species; and 7) increased alteration and use of habitats by humans (Trombulak and Frissell 2000; 

Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). Roads also serve as barriers or filters to some animal movement 

(Forman and Alexander 1998). Road width and traffic density are major determinants of the barrier 

effect (Forman and Alexander 1998), but as barriers to movement, roads can create smaller patches 

and increase patch isolation. Smaller populations are at a greater risk of extinction by chance from 

demographic, genetic, and environmental events (Wilcox and Murphy 1985). If the barrier effect of 

the road continually prohibits immigration or emigration of a species, isolation will eventually affect 

fundamental population and community dynamics (Andrews and Gibbons 2005). In contrast, some 

species appear to benefit from an increase in linear features in a landscape. For example, footpaths, 

roads, rights-of-way, and similar openings into a habitat may serve as corridors for predators (e.g., 

raccoon, skunk, red fox), increasing access into an environment (see Frey and Conover 2006). Such 

corridors may also serve to attract and funnel predators into an area, thereby increasing prey 

exposure and risk. Ease of travel provided by small roads or paths can increase predator travel speed, 

thus allowing predators to cover more ground in less time (Frey and Conover 2006). 

The ecological effect of road avoidance is likely related to traffic density and speed of travel, as well 

as traffic noise levels (Forman and Alexander 1998). Road-effect zones generally result in lower 

breeding densities and reduced species richness; species demonstrated to avoid or be negatively 

impacted by roads include arthropods, reptiles, small mammals, ungulates, and forest and grassland 

birds (see Andrews and Gibbons 2005; Carr and Fahrig 2001; Forman and Alexander 1998; 

McGrann et al. 2006; Rost and Bailey 1979). For example, proximity to OHV trails (<1,000 meters 

[3,280 feet]) was found to have a direct correlation with reduced-quality habitat for nesting songbirds 

in sagebrush-steppe habitats, including nest desertion, nest predation, and abandonment (Barton and 

Holmes 2007). Behavioral disturbance from recreation, including that associated with trails and 

roads, may also have both immediate and long-term effects on wildlife (see Taylor and Knight 2003). 

In one study of pronghorn, deer, and bison, individuals exhibited a 70% probability of flushing 

within 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) on either side of a trail used by hikers and mountain bikers (Taylor 

and Knight 2003); presumably responses would be similar in the presence of vehicles such as OHVs. 

Road density can be used as an overall index to average patterns over an area. For example, road 

densities of approximately 1.0 mile per square mile have been recommended as the maximum for a 

naturally functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large predators (Forman and 

Alexander 1998). However, the effects of road density are likely sensitive to road width or type, 

traffic density, network connectivity, and the frequency of spur roads into remote areas (Forman and 

Alexander 1998). 

Under all alternatives, strategies to minimize the impacts from roads would be employed. 

Alternative 1 strategies for minimizing impacts include closing some roads on a seasonal basis to 

reduce soil erosion and protect sensitive wildlife species. Although these actions would be generally 

beneficial, they would not negate the inherent adverse impacts from the existing road network. As a 

result, moderate, long-term, direct, adverse impacts would continue throughout localized areas of 

Sheldon Refuge habitats where roads are located. 

Additional beneficial impacts resulting from Alternative 2 strategies would include closing 

duplicative roads and re-routing roads that pass through sensitive resource areas. Signage would also 

be placed to clearly identify all roads that are open for public use. These strategies would minimize 

the adverse impacts to Sheldon Refuge habitats and wildlife species. Overall impacts from 

Alternative 2 road management would be minor, direct, and adverse to habitats on a localized and 

long-term basis. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-19 

Under Alternative 3, duplicative roads would also be closed, and roads that pass through sensitive 

resource areas would also be re-routed, resulting in beneficial impacts to habitats and wildlife, 

similar to those of Alternative 2. However, like Alternative 1, beneficial effects would not negate the 

inherent adverse impacts from the overall existing road network. The adverse impacts would not 

negate the beneficial impacts. Moderate, long-term, direct, adverse impacts would continue 

throughout localized areas of Sheldon Refuge habitats where roads are located. 

6.1.2.2 Effects from Hunting Management 

Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including 

nest abandonment or change in food habits, physiological changes such as elevated heart rates due to 

flight, or even death (Knight and Cole 1995). The long-term effects are more difficult to assess, but 

may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity, or death of individuals; altered population 

abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community species composition and 

interactions. Hunting, by its nature, results in the intentional take of individual animals, as well as 

wounding and disturbance (DeLong 2002). It can also alter behavior (e.g., foraging time), population 

structure, and distribution patterns of wildlife (Bartelt 1987; Cole and Knight 1990; MacArthur et al. 

1979; Wehausen 1980). 

Under all alternatives, Sheldon Refuge staff would continue to cooperate with the State of Nevada to 

ensure protection and stability of wildlife populations. Under all alternatives hunting opportunities 

would be managed to maintain primitive and semi-primitive natural settings that are not habituated 

by people and that have few developments or facilities; hunters would encounter few other people, 

face little competition from other hunters, and have the opportunity to pursue game largely 

undisturbed. 

A number of studies suggest hunting of upland species, including sage-grouse, is compensatory to 

natural mortality and has little or no measurable effect on the population, but that some local, isolated 

populations may be vulnerable to hunting (Sage-grouse Conservation Team 2004). The validity of 

the idea that hunting is a form of compensatory mortality for upland game birds has been questioned 

in recent years (Reese and Connelly 2011:6). Connelly et al. (2005:660, 663) cite many studies 

suggesting that hunting of upland game, including the Greater sage-grouse, is often not 

compensatory. Other studies have sought to determine whether hunting mortality in sage-grouse is 

compensatory or additive (USFWS 2010a). Results of those studies have been contradictory. For 

example, Braun (1987:139) found that harvest levels of 7% to 11% had no effect on subsequent 

spring breeding populations based on lek counts in North Park, Colorado. Johnson and Braun 

(1999:83 as cited in USFWS 2010a) determined that overwinter mortality correlated with harvest 

intensity in North Park, Colorado, and hypothesized that hunting mortalities may be additive. In 

general, hunting is not considered an additive mortality factor in areas where habitat is of sufficient 

quality and quantity. However, hunting may be additive where habitat is limited or degraded, or 

where other factors are limiting the population (e.g., West Nile virus outbreak) (Stiver et al. 2006). 

In its 2010 finding (USFWS 2010a), the Service evaluated the impact of hunting on sage-grouse 

throughout their current range and has determined that although the allowable harvest of sage-grouse 

through hunting was very high in past years, substantial reductions in harvest began during the 1990s 

and have continued; since approximately 2000, total mortality due to hunting has been lower than in 

the last 50 years. The present level of hunting mortality shows no sign of being a significant threat to 

the species. However, in light of present and threatened habitat loss and other considerations (e.g., 

West Nile virus outbreaks in local populations), states and Tribes will need to continue to carefully 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-20 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

manage hunting mortality, including adjusting seasons and harvest levels, and imposing emergency 

closures if needed. The Service concluded that the Greater sage-grouse is not threatened by 

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes now or in the 

foreseeable future. WAFWA recommends that, where populations are hunted, harvest rates should 

be 10% or less than the estimated fall population to minimize negative effects on the subsequent 

years breeding population (Armentrout et al. 2004). 

In 2004 NDOW estimated the sage-grouse population within Sheldon Refuge was 2,896 to 3,475 

birds, and the minimum harvest was 230 birds (calculated from wings provided by hunters), or 7.9% 

to 6.6% of the population. In 2001, the Sheldon Refuge fall population estimate was 3,652 birds and 

harvest was 180 birds, or 5% of the fall population. Based on the number of grouse wings provided 

by hunters, the minimum number of birds harvested from Sheldon Refuge from 2002 through 2010 

was 1,296. Harvest ranged from 75 birds in 2007 to 230 in 2004 and averaged 144 birds per year 

(Collins 2010). Based upon these estimates, total harvest is likely less than 10% of the total sagegrouse population within Sheldon Refuge (which is the WAFWA guideline used by NDOW for 

Sheldon Refuge), and we anticipate that continued hunting as proposed under all alternatives would 

not pose a threat that would lead to the likely endangerment of the species in the foreseeable future. 

Sage-grouse populations within Sheldon Refuge and population productivity estimates derived from 

wing analyses would continue to be evaluated and considered in future sage-grouse population 

management decisions and recovery efforts as appropriate under all alternatives. The purpose of 

these evaluations and considerations is to ensure the overall harvest does not exceed 10% of the 

population and that wing data is appropriate and necessary for sage-grouse management within the 

refuge. 

In addition to the minor, adverse impacts to the species or population as a result of individual animal 

mortality (e.g., mule deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and Greater sage-grouse), short-term, direct, 

adverse impacts (e.g., trampling of vegetation, wildlife displacement) would be expected from 

hunters moving throughout the region while hunting. Impacts are expected to be minor and would 

likely be limited to specific areas scattered throughout Sheldon Refuge. 

Management of sport hunting supports Service policy by providing various opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined types of recreation throughout Sheldon Refuge. Hiking, horseback riding, 

and vehicle access are secondary uses that support wildlife-dependent recreational activities within 

Sheldon Refuge. Sheldon Refuge allows access on foot, by horseback, or by vehicle. However, all 

vehicle routes are open to both motorized and non-motorized vehicles, and there are no areas 

managed for non-motorized vehicle access (i.e., mountain bikes or game carts) or semi-primitive 

non-motorized recreation opportunity. In areas open to vehicle use we assume impacts to nonmotorized vehicle users are asymmetrical (Webber 1995) and occur from conflict, noise, dust, 

competition with motorized users for recreation opportunity, and displacement to non-motorized 

areas outside the refuge (Adelman et al. 1982; Gambill 1996; Manning and Valliere 2002; Moore 

1994; Stokowski and LaPointe 2000). The somewhat narrow range of vehicle access for nonmotorized users provided within the refuge represents a direct, adverse, moderate, long-term impact 

to quality recreation opportunities. 

6.1.2.3 Effects from Campground Management 

The principal impacts associated with campground and campsite use are loss of vegetation, soil 

compaction, and erosion from trampling; reduced water quality from improper disposal of food, 

dishwater, and feces; the displacement or habituation of wildlife due to the presence and activities of 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-21 

people; unintentional fire from misuse of stoves and campfires; and visual impacts that detract from 

the visitor experience. The impacts of camping on the vegetation and soil of natural areas can be 

locally severe. These impacts compromise the integrity of natural ecosystems and diminish the 

quality of recreational experiences (Hammitt and Cole 1987). Although some disturbance is 

inevitable with recreational use, the magnitude and extent of its impact at campsites are both spatially 

and temporally variable. Spatial variation is readily apparent even to the casual observer. At fine 

scales, the magnitude of disturbance is typically negatively correlated with distance from the center 

of the campsite (Stohlgren and Parsons 1986). Differences at coarse spatial scales are also apparent; 

certain campsites are more severely impacted than others and the areal extent of these changes varies 

widely across landscapes (Cole and Marion 1988). Variation in campsite impact is a function of use 

levels and characteristics and of the resistance and resilience of sites (Cole 1987). 

Trampling has at least three effects: abrasion of vegetation, abrasion of organic soil horizons, and 

compaction of soil. Plants can be damaged and even uprooted by trampling. Trampling reduces 

plant size, leaf area, and seed production, as well as in the number of plants that flower (Liddle 

1997). These changes typically result in reductions in plant vigor and reproduction. Many plants are 

killed by trampling. At moderate levels of trampling, however, some species increase in abundance, 

often as a result of decreased competition or a change in microhabitat. Generally, where trampling is 

intense, plant cover and biomass are low, most plants are short, species richness is reduced, and 

species composition has shifted (Cole 2004). In a study of 29 paired campsites and undisturbed 

control sites (Marion and Cole 1996), results showed most vegetation had been eliminated from 

campsites and the vegetation that remained primarily consisted of grasses, while forbs dominated the 

undisturbed control sites. Organic soil horizons on campsites were only about one-third as thick as 

on the control sites; mineral soil was exposed over most of the campsite. These mineral soils were 

compacted—exhibiting increased bulk density and penetration resistance. A substantial number of 

trees had been felled, and tree reproduction was dramatically reduced, suggesting that the overstory 

trees would not be replaced on these campsites. 

The greatest difference in durability between vegetation types occurs at moderately low use levels 

(Cole 1985). Sites that are used frequently are likely to be highly impacted regardless of their 

fragility. Because vegetation loss usually occurs more rapidly than loss of organic soil horizons, sites 

with either no vegetation or resistant vegetation (e.g., grasses as opposed to forbs) recover more 

quickly and are less likely to be impacted by low levels of use, while sites with thick organic soil 

horizons are less susceptible to erosion and are more likely to withstand high amounts of use. 

Experimental studies suggest that there is an important difference between a site’s resistance (its 

ability to tolerate use without being damaged) and its resilience (its ability to recover from damage). 

Cole (1995) has shown, for groundcover plants, that resistance decreases with erectness and that 

broad-leaved herbs are typically less resistant than grass-like plants and shrubs. Herbs growing in 

shade are particularly intolerant of trampling because adaptations to shading—possession of large, 

thin leaves and tall stems—make these plants vulnerable when trampled. This explains the common 

finding that trampling of forested sites generally results in more rapid loss of vegetation than 

trampling of open woodlands or meadows. Low shrubs, such as heather, are relatively resistant to 

trampling stress but their resilience is low. Once damaged, they recover slowly. Grass-like plants 

are most tolerant of trampling (Cole 1989). 

The compaction of soils from campsite use reduces water infiltration and water holding capacity 

which leads to increased runoff and erosion potential (Cole 2004; Monti and Mackintosh 1979). 

Compacted soils also can inhibit seed germination and plant growth. Alessa and Earnhart (2000) 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-22 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

have shown that plants in compacted soils may be less able to utilize available nutrients because they 

grow fewer lateral roots and root hairs and because cytoplasmic streaming within root hairs is 

reduced. Soil compaction effects are exacerbated by abrasion and loss of organic soil horizons, 

which shield underlying mineral soil horizons from excessive compaction and erosion. Loss of 

organic litter directly affects plant and animal populations, both above and below the ground, which 

can cause species composition to shift toward species that germinate most frequently on mineral soil 

and cause an adverse effect on soil microbial populations. Zabinski and Gannon (1997) report 

substantial reductions in the functional diversity of microbial populations on a backcountry campsite. 

Microbial populations contribute to ecosystem functioning by metabolizing nutrients, transforming 

soil organic matter, producing phytohormones, and adding to soil food webs. 

When evaluating the various impacts from campground use, spatial descriptors of impact and scaling 

issues are important considerations, particularly in assessing how much of a problem impacts are and 

in devising strategies for managing them. Cole (1981) noted that hiking and camping impacts on soil 

and vegetation, while severe when measured at small scales, are minimal at large spatial scales. This 

suggests that while recreation impacts can be serious for individual plants and animals and perhaps 

localized rare populations, they are generally of little significance to landscape integrity or regional 

biotic diversity. Moreover, unless much of a population is impacted by a single impacted site, the 

intensity, size, and distribution of impacts are not relevant to the significance of impacts assessed at 

large spatial scales (Cole 1989). 

Camping would continue to be allowed under all alternatives, resulting in adverse, site-specific 

impacts to Sheldon Refuge habitats as described in Section 5.3.1. Under Alternative 1, all existing 

campgrounds would remain in their current locations, which include sensitive riparian and cultural 

areas. Minor, direct habitat impacts would continue in site-specific areas from trampling of 

vegetation, soil compaction, potential for invasive species introduction, and degradation of water 

quality. Trash bins are not provided at any of the 13 campgrounds. Visitors generally follow 

campground rules, and litter is generally not a problem. Campfires are allowed at designated 

campgrounds but are occasionally prohibited during periods of high fire danger. Wildfires have been 

started by refuge visitors in the past. We expect some wildfires would occasionally start as a result 

of escaped campfires or misuse of stoves, but that fire engine crews would continue to respond 

quickly and effectively to minimize impacts. 

Under Alternative 2, up to nine semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds would be relocated away 

from sensitive riparian habitats and cultural areas. Recovery of vegetation and soils at campgrounds 

would be directly related to the kinds of impact, magnitude of impact, and environment present at 

individual campsites. Variation in the resilience of different ecosystem types is pronounced. Hartley 

(1999) reports residual effects of trampling after 30 years in alpine meadows in Glacier National 

Park, while most evidence of camping on closed riparian campsites disappeared within six years 

(Marion and Cole 1996). Cole and Monz (2002) report that an alpine grassland trampled 1,000 times 

recovered more rapidly than a neighboring forest, with an understory of low shrubs, that was 

trampled just 75 times. Given the same environmental setting, sites that receive more use and that 

are more heavily impacted will take longer to recover. We anticipate primitive campgrounds located 

in meadow habitats that receive low amounts of use would recover most quickly and would require 

little or no active restoration. Aspen stands associated with some of these primitive campgrounds are 

also expected to recover, but regeneration of the understory shrubs and younger trees would recover 

slowly and would likely require some active restoration and/or replanting to occur within the 10- to 

15-year timeframe of the CCP. Recovery of semi-primitive campgrounds with areas of bare ground, 

soil compaction, and a loss of organic horizons would require active restoration to improve water 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-23 

infiltration, seed germination, and plant growth, and we anticipate restoration to natural conditions 

would require more than 15 years. As a result, we anticipate that relocating and consolidating up to 

nine campgrounds, as proposed under Alternative 2 (preferred), with other existing campgrounds 

would have greater long-term, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts to wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats than either Alternative 1 (no action) or Alternative 3 by removing the trampling of 

vegetation, soil compaction, and wildlife disturbance, displacement, and habituation associated with 

the use and development of campsites in sensitive riparian habitats. 

However, through relocation and consolidation, new primitive campgrounds would be established 

and other existing campgrounds would need to be enlarged and additional campsites constructed (the 

most likely candidates for enlargement include Catnip Reservoir, Big Spring Reservoir, Fish Spring, 

and West Rock Spring campgrounds). Consolidation would result in additional impacts from 

increased use of existing facilities and campsites and from the designation and construction of new 

campsites. Impacts associated with use of existing campsites and facilities have already occurred, 

resulting in loss of vegetation, soil compaction, and loss of organic soil horizons. As a result, 

increased use of these existing campsites and facilities would have little or no measurable impact. 

Impacts to new primitive campgrounds and expanded portions of existing campgrounds would occur 

quickly as vegetation is trampled and soil compacted within the first two or three seasons of use, but 

would then stabilize over the long-term. For example, on newly established canoe campsites, most 

of the impact that occurred over the six years following creation of the campsite occurred during the 

first year of use (Marion and Cole 1996). Impact did increase over the first three years, but at a 

decelerating rate. This phase is followed by a more stable phase in which impacts change little 

unless there are dramatic changes in amount of use. For example, on long-established campsites in 

the Eagle Cap Wilderness, mean vegetation cover was 15% in 1979, 12% in 1984, and 19% in 1990 

(Cole and Hall 1992). We expect enlargement of existing campgrounds as proposed under 

Alternative 2 would result in minor, site-specific, long-term, direct adverse impacts to plants and 

their habitat from removal of vegetation, soil compaction, and loss of organic soil horizon at these 

sites. These impacts would not occur under Alternative 1, which does not propose relocating 

campgrounds, and would be greater than under Alternative 3, which proposes to only consolidate up 

to four campgrounds. 

Enlargement of these existing campgrounds would have little or no indirect impact to wildlife 

because most wildlife disturbance, displacement, or habituation impacts from camping and public 

use at these sites have already occurred. 

Under Alternative 3, four semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds would be relocated. Resulting 

impacts would be of lesser extent but similar to those described under Alternative 2. 

6.1.2.4 Effects from Construction of Public Use Facilities 

Construction of new visitor facilities, such as a visitor contact station, trails, kiosks, and campground 

facilities, would result in a small loss of habitat and may temporarily displace wildlife or influence 

wildlife behavior. Under Alternative 1, no new visitor facilities would be constructed; therefore, 

there would be no resulting impacts to habitats or wildlife. 

Under Alternative 2, construction of new visitor facilities would result in a small permanent loss of 

habitat in site-specific areas, which would represent a moderate to major, long-term, adverse impact 

to plant communities located within construction areas; however, the impact would be negligible at 

the refuge scale because the area of lost habitat would represent an extremely small percentage of 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-24 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Sheldon Refuge lands and would not impact sensitive or rare habitats. Site-specific adverse impacts 

to individual or small populations of wildlife species would be likely to occur during construction 

activities and continue due to visitor and staff use of the facilities in the long term; these direct 

impacts would be minor and would not be likely to affect the health or diversity of wildlife species or 

communities on Sheldon Refuge. New facilities intended for wildlife observation and photography 

may result in long-term, adverse impacts to some species by affecting wildlife behavior. These 

impacts would likely be similar to the temporary construction impacts previously described. 

Beneficial impacts may occur as well because many of the new facilities would include educational 

or interpretive components that would increase public awareness and educate visitors about Sheldon 

Refuge resources, including wildlife and their habitats. This could possibly result in minor, longterm, indirect, impacts to vegetation and wildlife as visitor appreciation of the importance of Sheldon 

Refuge habitats and wildlife increases and behaviors are subsequently adjusted to reflect this 

knowledge. Impacts from construction of camping facilities are discussed under Section 6.1.2.3. 

Under Alternative 3, new visitor facilities would be limited to those associated with consolidation of 

campgrounds. These impacts are discussed under Section 6.1.2.3. 

6.1.3 Sagebrush-steppe and Associated Upland Habitats 

Maintaining low densities of western juniper on portions of the landscape increases the abundance, 

diversity, and richness of avian and small mammal populations in the shrub steppe. However, as 

western juniper dominance increases, wildlife abundance, species richness, and diversity decline. 

This will also occur as the proportion of area dominated by western juniper at the landscape level 

increases (Miller et al. 2005). Noson (2002) concluded that although fire had an immediate negative 

impact on several shrub-nesting species, periodic burning was important in limiting western juniper 

encroachment into shrub-steppe communities. Wall et al. (2001) also concluded that fire was an 

important factor in preventing the conversion of aspen stands to western juniper woodlands. 

Maintaining small, scattered stands of dense western juniper may be desirable to provide thermal 

cover from severe winter conditions for large ungulates. However, management strategies that 

maintain a balance of grasslands, shrub-steppe, and open western juniper woodlands will provide the 

greatest abundance and diversity of wildlife populations at the landscape level. Old-growth 

woodlands that provide valuable habitat for cavity-nesting birds should be maintained. 

Cheatgrass is known to occur at various locations throughout the refuge but is not present in high 

density. Research shows that weedy annuals, cheatgrass in particular, will usually increase 

immediately after juniper trees are killed, whether it is by fire, chaining, cutting, or herbicides. Much 

of the research indicates this response will be transient or that it may not even occur (Miller et al. 

2005). The risks from cheatgrass in areas above 4,500 feet in elevation (such as areas of Sheldon 

Refuge where juniper encroachment has occurred) are lower. 

The primary factors that will influence post-burn response are plant composition and seed pools prior 

to treatment, ecological site (site potential), fire severity and extent, pre- and post-fire climate 

conditions, and post-treatment management (Miller et al. 2005). The initial response to fire of plant 

communities in relatively good condition is typically increased cover, density, and biomass of 

perennial grasses and perennial and annual forbs. However, this initial response is accompanied by a 

decrease of litter and woody plant cover, resulting in more bare ground (EOARC Unpublished Data; 

Koniak 1985; Quinsey 1984). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-25 

Alternative 1: Management of sagebrush-steppe and associated upland habitats includes 

conservation and restoration strategies such as mechanical removal of vegetation and prescribed fire. 

Under Alternative 1, moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts would indirectly result from proactive 

conservation strategies that protect these habitats against fires that would cause major, adverse 

impacts. Restoration strategies under Alternative 1 include management actions intended to mimic 

natural disturbance and restore a mosaic of plant communities and seral stages. These direct, 

beneficial impacts would be site-specific and minor because restoration would only address 400 acres 

per year of these habitat types over the course of 15-year CCP implementation period 

Site-specific, short-term, direct, adverse impacts would be expected as a result of mechanical 

removal of vegetation and prescribed fire. Impacts from mechanical removal of vegetation and 

prescribed fire would be similar to those previously described in Sections 6.1.1.3 and 6.1.1.4. 

Adverse impacts from mechanical removal of vegetation and prescribed fire would be overshadowed 

by the long-term, beneficial impacts that would consequently occur as a result of habitat protection 

and restoration. Implementing these strategies follows Service policy for restoring habitats to 

historical conditions by assisting areas in returning to natural fire regimes without the unintended 

consequences of fire suppression, combating invasive species, and promoting natural vegetation. 

Alternative 2: Impacts from conservation and restoration management strategies under Alternative 2 

would be similar to and slightly more beneficial than those previously described for Alternative 1. A 

larger area (1,500 acres) would be restored each year, with the focus of this restoration on western 

juniper encroaching upon sagebrush habitats. Prescribed burning would continue to be used as a 

management tool to achieve habitat objectives, but burning would be limited with the majority of 

acres restored through cutting and thinning to remove western juniper. In addition, restoration of 

hydrologic processes and functions would occur, which would further benefit the environmental 

health of these habitats; hydrologic restoration is addressed in further detail in Sections 6.1.5 and 

6.2.2. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, impacts from conservation management strategies would be 

similar to those described under Alternative 2; however, Alternative 3 focuses on allowing natural 

processes to transpire and as such, active restoration would not occur. It is anticipated that 

approximately 10 to 100 acres would be restored each year from natural fire; beneficial impacts are 

expected to be minor within the context of the entire refuge and moderate within the context of the 

habitat type. 

6.1.4 Semi-desert Grasslands and Steppes 

Under all alternatives, impacts to semi-desert grasslands and steppes would be similar to those 

resulting from restoration strategies discussed under Section 6.1.3. 

6.1.5 Emergent Marshes, Wet Meadows, Streams, Reservoirs, Springs, 

Springbrooks, and Ephemeral Wetlands 

6.1.5.1 Emergent Marshes and Wet Meadows 

Alternative 1: Emergent marshes and wet meadows are extremely important for the conservation of 

biodiversity on Sheldon Refuge and provide habitat for approximately 80% of all Great Basin 

species. These habitats have been extremely altered and impacted from water developments, prior 

grazing regimes, and current feral horse and burro use. Under Alternative 1, management strategies 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-26 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

include the continued use of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire to mimic natural disturbance, 

reduce litter, and increase herbaceous vigor; this would occur on a maximum average of 1,200 acres 

per year. Because these treatments would occur while horses and burros roam Sheldon Refuge, the 

negative impacts that horses and burros continue to exert on wet meadow and marsh habitats (i.e., 

trampling vegetation, compacting soil, and contributing to erosion) would potentially increase if the 

treatment methods are used while horses and burros continue to inhabit these areas. As a result, 

long-term, major, indirect, adverse impacts would be likely in areas where treatments are applied. 

Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, management strategies addressing emergent marsh and wet 

meadow habitats would include those described under Alternative 1; however, the treatments would 

only occur following the removal of horses and burros. Additional strategies include the removal of 

water control structures, diversions, or developments that alter natural hydrology and implementation 

of wetland restoration, such as plantings and bank stabilization. This suite of strategies would avoid 

adverse impacts described in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.5.1, and 6.1.5.2. By restoring natural water flow 

regimes for native riparian vegetation, fish, and wildlife, the restoration actions proposed under this 

alternative would help restore the biological integrity and function of these altered habitats by 

returning emergent marsh and wet meadow habitats back to natural conditions; long-term, major, 

direct, beneficial impacts would result. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, management strategies for emergent marsh and wet meadow 

habitats would focus on allowing natural fire to serve as the primary restoration mechanism. 

Following removal of horses and burros, approximately 10 to 100 acres of emergent marsh and wet 

meadow habitats are expected to be restored each year. Indirect, beneficial impacts from restoration 

of 100 to 1,500 acres of emergent marsh and wet meadow habitat through natural fire over the next 

10 to 15 years are likely to be minor. 

6.1.5.2 Springs, Streams, and Springbrooks 

Springs, streams, and springbrooks are rare habitats on Sheldon Refuge and serve as important 

sources of water for wildlife. The majority of water sources within Sheldon Refuge were developed 

to water livestock and include dug-out basins and ditch and pipeline diversions to troughs and 

reservoirs. These water control structures were created in several locations to create subirrigated 

pastures or hay meadows (Steblein 2007). A number of water developments such as water pipelines, 

troughs, reservoirs, and playa dug-outs throughout the refuge also influence the natural timing and 

rates of water flow. These developments degrade hydrologic processes and wildlife habitat (Sada et 

al. 2001). Sada and Vinyard (2002) concluded that approximately 50% of the aquatic taxa endemic 

to the Great Basin (78% of which occupy springs) had declined because of diversion impacts. There 

is comparatively little information that quantifies the biological impacts of spring developments. 

However, Sada and Nachlinger (1996, 1998) found that biological diversity was greater in larger and 

undisturbed springs and that non-native taxa made up a greater proportion of the riparian vegetation 

at disturbed springs. They concluded that diversions decreased biological diversity by reducing 

aquatic habitat and reducing soil moisture in riparian zones. Functional changes in spring biota also 

occur when flowing habitats are impounded. Under these circumstances, species that require lotic 

habitats are extirpated and replaced by lentic taxa (Sada et al. 2000). Hershler (1989) documented 

local extirpation of the Fish Slough springsnail (Pyrgulopsis perturbata) following impoundment of 

a spring source. Water developments also affect timing and amount of water available to wildlife. 

For example, during the summer months, sage-grouse seek out water usually associated with wet 

meadows and succulent vegetation (Call and Maser 1985). If the year has been unusually dry, sage-
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-27 

grouse will use any water source available including reservoirs but do not use livestock watering 

troughs as readily since access to the water is more difficult than from a reservoir (BLM 2006). 

Water developments negatively impact riparian habitats by collecting and concentrating snowmelt 

and runoff, which would otherwise flow into downstream habitats for use by fish, wildlife, and 

plants. Water developments within the refuge were designed to allow downstream passage of 

overflow so that water not used for livestock would be returned to the natural channel and habitat 

downstream. When fully functional, water developments most often affect water flows during 

drought conditions when overflow does not occur, and during periods of rapid snowmelt and storm 

events when overflow is reduced by the amount of water stored in the development. A number of 

studies and research articles have evaluated the effect of large water developments and resulting 

changes in water flow regimes. We expect similar impacts occur as a result of water developments 

within the refuge, but at a much smaller scale. In almost all cases, dams reduce peak flows 

associated with spring runoff and change the timing, duration, and magnitude of the natural 

hydrograph (WGFD 2010). Auble et al. (1994) noted that substantial changes in riparian vegetation 

can occur without changing the mean annual flow because riparian vegetation is especially sensitive 

to changes in minimum and maximum flows. Bovee and Scott (2002) also observed this 

phenomenon and noted that changes in peak flows can reduce seedling recruitment and lead to 

gradual decline of certain riparian woodlands. 

With the exception of the largest water developments (i.e., Dufurrena Ponds, IXL wetlands, and 

Swan Lake, Catnip, and Big Spring reservoirs), most habitats impacted by water development are 

perennial and ephemeral springs and associated intermittent streams. Because the flows from these 

streams do not reach perennial streams lower in the watershed except during storm events or years 

with high snowpack, the effects of water developments on perennial streams and wetlands is 

negligible. Of 137 water sources evaluated in 2008, 24 (18%) were classified as highly disturbed 

(Collins 2009). This classification includes a determination that the springbrook contains less than 

50% of natural discharge and that the water source has been impounded or dredged. All impounded 

springs are considered highly disturbed because flow has been interrupted and functional 

characteristics of the aquatic system have been highly altered (LaRouche 2007). Results from 2008 

show an improvement in spring condition since 2007 when 43% of the 37 springs inventoried were 

determined to be highly disturbed. These differences are likely due to the fact the region experienced 

drought conditions in 2007 and a number of water developments would have diverted or retained 

most or all water flow, which as was noted previously, is a primary way in which livestock water 

development impact riparian habitats and dependent fish, wildlife, and plants. 

Many water developments have been abandoned for years, and due to the lack of maintenance are no 

longer functional or are only partially functional. In some cases water is being diverted or 

impounded, but does not reach areas downstream. In such cases the reduced amount of water is 

likely limiting or reducing the extent of wetland and riparian habitats which in turn is limiting the 

overall wildlife diversity and abundance which would otherwise exist. Even though these impacts 

are affecting relatively small portions within the refuge, the habitat types being affected are 

considered some of the most important for the health of wildlife and overall biodiversity throughout 

Sheldon Refuge (see Section 4.2.4.1). In 2008, Service staff documented developments such as 

berms, canals, dams, dug-outs, impoundments, spring boxes, and troughs at 81 (57%) of 143 

inventoried water sources within Sheldon Refuge. Of these 81 water developments, 39 (48%) were 

determined to be no longer functional or only partially functional. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-28 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1: Removal of spring developments under Alternative 1 would likely improve the natural 

timing and flow of water to associated habitats and benefits to aquatic taxa and wildlife over the long 

term. Benefits would have a moderate to major impact for those springs where nonfunctional water 

developments are diverting water away from riparian habitats. When considering the 81 developed 

springs present across the entire refuge, including the 39 developments considered nonfunctional, the 

removal of up to four spring developments over the next 10 to 15 years represents a relatively small 

number. Although this would be a beneficial action for spring habitats, wildlife and hydrology, these 

strategies address only a small fraction of the existing water developments, and active restoration 

would not be performed. Natural recovery of these habitats may require several decades, and it is 

possible that habitats may not be restored to historical conditions without additional restoration. As a 

result, minor, indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts would be likely in areas where developments are 

removed. Removal of these developments is consistent with Sheldon Refuge goals of restoring 

natural function to aquatic habitats. In addition to removing developments, active restoration of 

these habitats may also be needed to return natural function and conditions consistent with those 

historically present before development. 

Artificial water guzzlers collect rainwater and provide it for wildlife, specifically California bighorn 

sheep and chukar (an introduced non-native game bird). Many managers and biologists have long 

assumed the availability of freestanding water to be a limiting factor for large desert mammals. 

However, this assumption has often been inferred from observational data on animal distribution and 

resource use rather than physiological studies (Krausman et al. 2006). Cain et al. (2008) conducted a 

study which demonstrated that desert bighorn sheep showed no response to removal of water 

catchments including no changes in diet, foraging area selection, home-range size, movement rates, 

mortality, productivity, or recruitment. The authors noted that an increase in precipitation resulting 

in increased forage moisture content and availability of naturally occurring sources of free water 

likely minimized the impact of removing water catchments. Similar studies have also failed to detect 

changes in habitat use by mule deer and desert bighorn sheep in response to the addition of water 

sources (see summary by Cain et al. 2008). Although it has been observed that some bighorn sheep 

populations decline during periods of extreme drought (USFWS 2007b), this is an expected natural 

ecological response to changes in habitat condition and is consistent with wildlife population 

management goals for the Refuge System and Sheldon Refuge. A number of studies have 

demonstrated pronghorn are well adapted to dry desert conditions and rarely utilize freestanding 

water but instead obtain most necessary water from forage (Monson 1968, Seton 1937, O’Connor 

1939, Phelps 1974, Nowak and Paradiso 1983, Beale and Smith 1970, and Reynolds 1984 as cited in 

USFWS 1998b). We do not dispute the fact that wildlife utilize freestanding water when available 

and gain some benefit (Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society 2004; AZFGD 2004; USFWS 2002b), 

but study results suggest providing water sources to desert ungulates during drought periods may do 

little to prevent the adverse consequences of a limited forage supply (Cain et al. 2008). The 

introduction of year-round human-made water sources has, however, been shown to contribute to 

increases in other species such as coyote and red fox (Arjo et al. 2007). Similar research to measure 

the effects of water catchments (guzzlers) on populations of California bighorn sheep has not been 

conducted, but we anticipate the effects would be similar to those found for desert bighorn sheep. 

There is no evidence to suggest the presence or maintenance of water guzzlers is having a 

measurable impact on native fish or wildlife populations within Sheldon Refuge. Under Alternative 

1, the 18 guzzlers located on Sheldon Refuge would be maintained, resulting in a direct, long-term, 

negligible or minor benefit to bighorn sheep and chukar. The impacts of guzzlers and their 

maintenance to wilderness character are discussed in Section 6.6. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-29 

Alternative 2: Management strategies to address springs, streams, and springbrooks under 

Alternative 2 include the complete removal and restoration of over 20 spring developments. 

Removal of water developments and spring restoration would improve natural water flow regimes for 

native riparian vegetation, fish, and wildlife, the restoration actions proposed under this alternative 

would help restore the biological integrity and function of these altered habitats. This is consistent 

with Sheldon Refuge goals and Service policy of restoring biological integrity and habitat function 

and would result in direct, major, long-term, beneficial impacts to areas where spring restoration 

occurs. 

Under Alternative 2, the 18 water guzzlers on Sheldon Refuge would be maintained similar to 

Alternative 1, resulting in a direct benefit to bighorn sheep and chukar. However, with the 

previously described strategies to restore natural function to springs and streams, and the elimination 

of competition for water from feral horses and burros, these structures would no longer be necessary. 

The resulting direct overall benefit to wildlife would likely be negligible and trending toward minor. 

Another management strategy under Alternative 2 includes the restoration and rehabilitation of 

approximately 1 mile of Virgin Creek habitat. This area in particular has been drastically altered 

from mining activities as well as intense historical livestock grazing. Restoring this section of Virgin 

Creek watershed to historical conditions would occur following removal of feral horses and burros 

and would improve the health and self-sustaining capacity of native plant communities, soil 

conditions, and hydrology. Direct, beneficial impacts to the watershed around the restoration area 

would be long-term and moderate. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, management strategies for springs, streams, and springbrooks are 

similar to those from Alternative 2, including the removal of at least 20 spring developments. 

However, unlike Alternative 2, active restoration would not occur and natural recovery of spring 

habitats would be expected to take over 15 years and in some instances may not occur at all. 

Therefore we expect many water sources would continue to exhibit effects from altered water flow 

regimes, reduced riparian areas, non-native plants, low biodiversityresulting in only minor, longterm, beneficial impacts to habitats in areas where spring developments are removed. Benefits at the 

refuge scale would be somewhat greater than anticipated under Alternative 1, which proposes 

removal of up to only four water developments. 

Under Alternative 3, the 18 artificial water guzzlers would not be maintained. Loss of these artificial 

water sources would be major for the chukar that rely on these developments for water, but likely 

negligible to minor for bighorn sheep which utilize, but are not dependent upon, guzzlers for their 

water supply. The direct, adverse impacts to these animals are likely to be long-term. 

6.1.5.3 Reservoirs 

Alternative 1: Several reservoirs are located on Sheldon Refuge. Under Alternative 1, strategies to 

maintain artificial reservoirs would benefit various native and non-native fish and wildlife species by 

providing habitat. Adverse impacts to riparian habitats, biodiversity, aquatic taxa, and wildlife due to 

altered water flow regimes created by reservoirs as described in Section 6.1.5.2 would continue under 

this alternative. These impacts are expected to be moderate to major for associated downstream 

habitats and dependent wildlife over the long term but are expected to be minor at the refuge scale. 

Although reservoirs are not natural and require human manipulation to maintain, these habitats are 

especially important to wildlife given the degraded condition of many water resources on Sheldon 

Refuge and are consistent with Refuge goals and Service policy. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-30 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative 1, artificial reservoirs on Sheldon Refuge would be maintained, including Swan 

Lake Reservoir. Maintenance of Swan Lake Reservoir would result in long-term, moderate, indirect, 

beneficial impacts to pronghorn by providing approximately 1,200 acres of vital high-quality summer 

forage. This is consistent with management priorities to retain water in habitats directly associated 

with Swan Lake. As an additional benefit, surplus water, when available, would be released from 

Swan Lake to provide stop-over habitat at IXL Ranch for migratory birds. 

The use of non-motorized or electric-powered boats is allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip 

Reservoir, and the Dufurrena Ponds consistent with 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 32.47. 

The majority of boating occurs in conjunction with sport fishing, and while migratory bird hunting is 

not allowed on these waters, occasional and intermittent boating does occur in conjunction with other 

hunting and wildlife-dependent activities. The amount of boating that occurs within Sheldon Refuge 

has not been quantified, but is considered low based upon angler participation and incidental 

observation by staff and volunteers. Boating generally occurs during summer months following the 

waterfowl nesting season (when the potential for bird disturbance or displacement impacts would be 

greatest) and following the beginning of trout fishing season, when there are higher water 

temperatures at Dufurrena Ponds, which provide better fishing success. Overall, the amount of 

boating associated with wildlife-dependent public uses is considered low, and adverse impacts to 

habitat are estimated to be short-term, intermittent, and negligible. 

Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, impacts would be similar to those previously discussed for 

Alternative 1. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, impacts from maintenance of Swan Lake would be similar to 

those discussed under Alternative 1. However, maintenance of Dufurrena Ponds and Big Spring 

Reservoir would be discontinued, resulting in a loss of habitat for waterfowl, other wildlife, and the 

fish species that currently depend upon these impoundments. Adverse impacts would be indirect, 

long-term, and moderate. Over the long term and beyond the 10- to 15-year life of this CCP, more 

natural water flow regimes would return as sediments gradually fill the excavated Dufurrena Ponds 

and the dams and dikes constructed to create Big Spring Reservoir and other Dufurrena Ponds would 

eventually be eroded away. More natural water flow regimes would benefit downstream habitats and 

dependent wildlife in Big Spring Creek and Thousand Creek drainages. Due to the extensive 

excavation and alterations to create the Dufurrena Ponds and Big Spring Reservoir, we anticipate 

natural conditions would return to these areas very slowly if at all. 

Effects from fishing management 

Under Alternative 2, non-native rainbow trout in Virgin Creek would be replaced trout indigenous to 

the region. While reintroduction of the native Alvord cutthroat trout would be preferable, 

hybridization with introduced rainbow trout has eliminated this as a management option. This 

strategy is consistent with Service policy for restoring biological integrity and diversity, resulting in a 

site-specific, major, long-term, direct benefit to this habitat. In addition, non-native rainbow trout in 

Big Spring Reservoir would be replaced with fish indigenous to the region, such Lahontan cutthroat 

or redband trout. The current program of restocking rainbow trout further exacerbates adverse 

impacts to natural species composition and biodiversity as a result of impoundments created by 

Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs. A number of adverse impacts to aquatic ecosystems can occur 

when fish species are introduced to waters that historically did not support such populations. These 

include adverse impacts to amphibians, invertebrates, and large zooplankton (Braña et al. 1996; 

Dunham et al. 2004). These impacts can range from reduced survival and productivity to complete 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-31 

elimination of native species. The impacts, in turn, affect populations of other predators such as 

other fish and birds and cause an overall loss of biodiversity. Introduced trout can alter nutrient 

cycles, productivity, and community structure either by acting as nutrient sinks or by removing 

nutrients from lake systems altogether. Restocking of non-native fish is not consistent with Service 

policy, which indicates only native and indigenous species should be stocked in refuge waters; 

therefore, this strategy would result in a moderate, site-specific, direct, long-term, beneficial effect. 

Alternatives 1 and 3 do not include strategies for replacing stocked non-native fish with native or 

indigenous fish species, resulting in continued site-specific, long-term, moderate, direct, adverse 

impacts to biological integrity. 

6.1.6 Ephemeral Wetlands 

Because the playa ecosystem primarily depends on resident species (e.g., plants, invertebrates, and 

amphibians) being able to persist despite harsh environmental conditions for initiation and 

maintenance of ecological functions, any alteration of the playa hydroperiod that hinders the ability 

of the species to respond to changes in the environment will have drastic effects on all species that 

depend on playas to exist (Haukos and Smith 2003). The most common disturbance to playas within 

Sheldon Refuge has been the excavation of pits and dug-outs to concentrate water for livestock use. 

The presence of pits or dug-outs decreases the water available to the entire playa, thereby influencing 

hydroperiod and thus life-cycle events for the biota (Haukos and Smith 2003). In many cases pits 

and dug-outs are sufficiently large that some playas no longer flood and do not function as playa 

habitat. 

Alternative 1: Under Alternative 1, management strategies include the restoration of one playa to 

natural conditions but also include the continued maintenance of 21 artificial playa dug-outs. Playa 

dug-outs have adversely contributed to the alteration of hydrologic processes, thus affecting physical, 

chemical, and biological conditions, as previously noted. As a result, the continued maintenance of 

21 dug-outs would overshadow the site-specific, beneficial impacts from the one playa restoration 

and would result in overall, long-term, direct, major, adverse impacts to playa habitats. 

Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, playa management strategies would include restoring at least 

20% of playas to natural conditions and determining and applying appropriate techniques to restore 

natural hydrologic function on Sheldon Refuge. These strategies should improve playa habitats and 

improve conditions for a variety of plants and wildlife resulting in greater biological diversity and 

ecological integrity for Sheldon Refuge. These restoration activities support Service policy and are 

aligned with Sheldon Refuge goals, resulting in direct, beneficial impacts to playa habitats that would 

be long-term and moderate. Indirect, beneficial impacts would result from strategies to minimize soil 

disturbing activities resulting from recreational and management activities. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, playa maintenance would be discontinued and all playas would 

be left to recover naturally. Strategies to minimize soil disturbance would be similar to Alternative 2. 

Although discontinuing playa maintenance and minimizing soil disturbance is beneficial to the 

biological and physical components of the habitat, natural restoration of these habitats is likely to be 

a very slow process and active restoration would help return playas to historical conditions in line 

with Service policy. As noted in the previous discussion, playas likely form through the dissolution 

and deposition of materials and minerals. These natural formation processes require hundreds and 

possibly thousands of years to create a playa habitat in the arid environment of the Great Basin, and 

we expect a similar length of time would be required for pits and dug-outs to naturally fill and form 

soils required for playa habitats. In the shorter term, plant species composition associated with playa 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-32 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

habitats is a function of available the seed bank, environmental conditions of the previous year, and 

environmental conditions of the current growing season (see previous discussion). Where dug-outs 

and pits have been constructed in playas, adequate conditions for seed germination and growth may 

not have occurred for several decades, and a viable seed bank to recolonize these habitats may no 

longer exist. In such cases, natural playa conditions would not return without active restoration. As 

a result, indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts from Alternative 3 would likely be minor. 

6.1.7 Cliffs, Canyons, Talus Slopes, and Barren Lands 

Alternative 1: Cliffs, canyons, talus slopes, and barren land areas on Sheldon Refuge are generally 

stable and in good condition. They provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species including many 

that are particularly sensitive to human disturbance. Under Alternative 1, management strategies are 

aligned with Sheldon Refuge goals and would focus on protecting and maintaining these habitats 

through treatments, including the use of prescribed fire and mechanical removal of vegetation, to 

control the encroachment of western juniper. Juniper naturally occurs in cliff and talus slope habitats 

where they are protected from fire. Removal of juniper would occur on only a few acres in the 

periphery of these habitats to prevent the establishment of dense closed canopy juniper stands 

susceptible to fire and encroachment into sagebrush and aspen habitats. These actions would protect 

ecological habitat integrity and maintain historical habitat types and natural plant compositions is 

consistent with Service policy and would result in long-term, direct, moderate, and beneficial 

impacts. Site-specific, short-term, direct, adverse impacts resulting from mechanical removal of 

vegetation and prescribed fire would be similar to those described under Sections 6.1.1.3 and 6.1.1.4. 

Alternative 2: Impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. 

However, baseline plant and animal surveys would also be conducted and would inform future 

management decisions, potentially resulting in additional benefits to habitats and species. 

Alternative 3: Habitat management strategies under Alternative 3 would only involve management 

of natural fires to reduce encroachment of western juniper. This strategy is less protective of cliff, 

canyon, talus slope, and barren land habitats and would likely result in indirect, minor, long-term 

benefits to habitat. 

6.1.8 Deciduous Woodlands and Shrublands 

Alternative 1: Deciduous woodland and shrubland habitats have been extensively degraded by 

overgrazing, changes in the fire regime, and encroachment by sagebrush and western juniper. Under 

Alternative 1, restoration strategies to mimic natural disturbance regimes and control encroachment 

would include prescribed fire and the mechanical removal of vegetation, resulting in long-term, 

direct, beneficial impacts to these habitats. Although these strategies are aligned with Service policy 

and Sheldon Refuge goals, natural recovery of vegetation would take many years and active 

restoration could be required to produce desired conditions. However, the continued presence of 

horses and burros on Sheldon Refuge would allow the overgrazing pressure to continue and would 

likely negate many of the beneficial impacts on these habitats resulting from restoration strategies. 

As a result, overall beneficial impacts from these strategies would likely be minor. Site-specific, 

short-term, direct, adverse impacts resulting from mechanical removal of vegetation and prescribed 

fire would be similar to those described under Sections 6.1.1.3 and 6.1.1.4. 

Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, in addition to strategies to control the encroachment of western 

juniper and sagebrush similar to Alternative 1, native species would be planted and temporary 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-33 

protective fencing would be installed to prevent severe overgrazing from feral horses and burros. 

Fencing would be removed once horse and burro management objectives are achieved. These 

additional strategies would benefit the biological integrity and diversity on Sheldon Refuge by 

restoring historical habitat conditions and creating a likely situation for self-sustaining populations to 

thrive. These changes would represent long-term, major, direct, beneficial impacts. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, natural fire would be used to restore disturbance regimes and 

maintain natural abundance and distribution of western juniper and sagebrush. Due to accumulation 

of dead woody material and the high density of trees and shrubs in the absence of fire, the likelihood 

that conditions would be favorable for allowing natural fire to safely burn in these habitats to reduce 

or remove sagebrush or juniper without escaping into adjacent areas is considered very low. As a 

result, this strategy is not likely to be sufficient in producing desired goals of restoring and protecting 

deciduous woodland and shrubland habitats on Sheldon Refuge. Impacts are likely to be indirect, 

long-term, beneficial, and negligible, trending toward minor. 

6.1.9 Mature Old-growth Mountain Mahogany and Western Juniper Habitat 

Types 

Mountain mahogany and late-successional western juniper provide unique and often irreplaceable 

biological and ecological values. Mountain mahogany is sensitive to stand-replacing fires, does not 

easily resprout after fire, and is difficult to establish from seed. Western juniper woodlands provide 

important habitat for a number of wildlife species (see Section 4.2.7). As discussed in Section 6.1.3, 

maintaining low densities of western juniper is important for the abundance, diversity, and richness 

of avian and small mammal populations, and periodic burning is important in limiting juniper 

encroachment and preventing conversion of aspen stands to juniper woodlands. 

Alternative 1: The use of proactive preventative measures (mechanical treatments and prescribed 

fire) to reduce fuel loads, protect against fires that would cause major adverse impacts and other 

large-scale disturbances, as well as active restoration measures (native seeding and planting) 

following stand-replacing fire or large-scale disturbance would result in major, long-term, direct, and 

beneficial impacts to mountain mahogany and western juniper habitats under Alternative 1. Some 

early and mid-successional western juniper stands would also be maintained for recruitment due to 

decreased seedling establishment in late-successional western juniper. Site-specific, short-term, 

direct, adverse impacts resulting from mechanical removal of vegetation and prescribed fire would be 

similar to those described under Sections 6.1.1.3 and 6.1.1.4. 

Alternative 2: Protection and restoration strategies under Alternative 2 would be like those 

previously described under Alternative 1, resulting in the same impacts to mountain mahogany and 

western juniper habitats. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, existing stands would be protected from fires that would cause 

major adverse impacts and other large-scale disturbances, resulting in indirect, beneficial impacts to 

mountain mahogany and western juniper habitats. However, proactive preventative measures to 

reduce fuel loads and active restoration measures are not included; therefore, impacts are likely to 

only be minor. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-34 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.2 Physical Environment 

6.2.1 Effects to Soils 

Alternative 1: The refuge-wide decline and deterioration of soils would continue under Alternative 1 

as a result of strategies that maintain current population levels of feral horses and burros. Impacts 

include indirect effects such as reducing plant vigor or eliminating vegetation by grazing and 

trampling. This may result in compaction or disturbance to floodplain soils, increased erosion, 

entrenchment, instability of stream banks, and lowered water tables (Barnett 2002; Belsky et al. 

1999; Herbst 1996; LaRouche 2007; Ohmart 1996; USFWS 2008a). Horses and burros trample the 

landscape and disrupt natural soil processes by causing soil compaction, increasing erosion, and 

contributing to soil instability. Erosion and high levels of turbidity are common water-related issues 

on Sheldon Refuge (Barnett 2002; Steblein 2007). Most springs and adjacent meadows have been 

trampled by previous livestock and current feral horse use, resulting in weakened vegetation, erosion, 

and headcutting. In particular, grazing on Sheldon Refuge has resulted in deterioration of springassociated meadows and destruction of riparian vegetation (including willows and aspen), which can 

reduce streamside shading, elevate stream temperatures, and contribute to stream bank erosion and 

excessive sedimentation (Earnst et al. 2001; Ohmart 1996; USFWS 1980). Without plants to slow 

water movement and associated headcutting, the water table has dropped at some sites, and 

sagebrush, primarily on the periphery, has invaded associated riparian meadows. 

Studies of livestock impacts to biological soil crusts have documented reductions in crust cover and 

species richness due to trampling (see Kaltenecker et al. 1999). Soil and nutrient loss resulting from 

damage to the crust can impact the vascular plant community and ultimately result in desertification 

(Belnap 1995). Protection from grazers and other disturbance can assist in the recovery of these 

communities, resulting in an increase in the percentage of soil surface covered with crust, and 

conversely a decrease in the percentage of bare soil (Kaltenecker et al. 1999; Rice and Westoby 

1978). 

Under Alternative 1, we anticipate the adverse impacts identified would be long-term and moderate. 

Habitat management strategies, such as mechanical vegetation removal and prescribed fire, would 

cause mostly minor, site-specific, short-term adverse impacts to soils in most instances by removing 

vegetation and increasing the rate of erosion. These management strategies would be undertaken to 

restore and protect native habitats, including soils and vegetation, and would ultimately benefit the 

soil in a long-term, moderate manner. One notable exception involves vegetation removal in wet 

meadow habitats, where vegetation removal treatments are not likely to succeed in restoring the 

ecosystem with horses and burros present. Vegetation removal treatments may be detrimental, 

resulting in moderate, long-term, adverse impacts to emergent marsh and wet meadow soils. 

Mostly minor, adverse impacts resulting from the use of mechanical vegetation removal and 

prescribed fire associated with fire management would be localized and similar in nature to those 

described from the use of these strategies for habitat management. 

Under Alternative 1, campground management strategies would result in long-term, direct, adverse 

impacts to soils. Campgrounds would remain in their existing locations, allowing the continued 

compaction of soils, especially near riparian areas. Adverse impacts would be minor and sitespecific. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-35 

Most vehicle routes within Sheldon Refuge were established as access to developments for livestock, 

homesteads, or water sources, or were established through use by hunters. The establishment of 

these routes seldom involved planning which considered the potential for erosion and impact to soils 

and typically did not include culverts, bridges, waterbars, or other erosion control structures. Over 

time the location and continued use of these routes has resulted or contributed to rill erosion, 

washouts, stream bank destabilization, and in extreme cases—headcutting or diversion of 

springbrook and stream segments into the route itself. Transportation management strategies would 

also allow these adverse impacts on soils to continue. Almost all vehicle routes within Sheldon 

Refuge would have some adverse impact from wind and rain erosion of soils from the road surface 

and from movement of soils by vehicle tires. For most routes, these impacts are minor and only 

noticeable over a period of many years. For certain routes or route segments, soil erosion impacts are 

readily apparent and are substantially noticeable from year to year. As part of the route inventory 

and assessment for the CCP, two route segments were identified as having substantial impacts to 

soils. Other routes were identified as have no impact or minor impacts to soils. Under Alternative 1, 

all existing roads would be remain at their current locations and levels of maintenance, including 

roads that pass through sensitive resource areas. In an effort to decrease erosion, some roads would 

be seasonally closed; however, overall soil erosion would continue in site-specific areas due to 

poorly routed roads. Site-specific impacts would primarily occur on unimproved primitive road 

segments located in loose friable soils where the road base has not been stabilized with gravel or 

other material to reduce erosion and on road segments which lack culverts or other structures at 

springbrooks and stream channel crossings. Direct, adverse impacts to soils would be long-term and 

minor and would occur near the existing Sheldon Refuge road network. 

Alternative 2: Alternative 2 would result in more beneficial impacts to soils than either of the other 

alternatives. Strategies to remove feral horses and burros within five years would result in refugewide, long-term, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts by eliminating the continued deterioration of 

soils from horse and burro presence and providing conditions in which habitat management strategies 

can succeed at restoring depleted soil conditions. 

Indirect, beneficial impacts to soils from habitat management strategies would be long-term and 

major, and they would result primarily from restoration efforts aimed at aquatic resources. These 

include the removal of water control structures and diversions that alter natural hydrology, 

restoration of at least 20 springs, and restoration of at least 20% of playas to natural conditions. 

Moderate, beneficial impacts would occur from conservation and restoration of sagebrush-steppe and 

associated habitats. Restoration of 1 mile of Virgin Creek watershed would decrease surface runoff, 

stream sedimentation, soil compaction, and erosion. 

Management strategies under Alternative 2 that involve the use of prescribed fire and mechanical 

removal of vegetation would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. 

Under Alternative 2, relocating up to nine semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds away from 

sensitive riparian habitats would have long-term, minor, direct, beneficial impacts to soils by 

eliminating soil compaction resulting from campground use. However, soil compaction would occur 

at the new campground locations, resulting in site-specific, long-term, direct, adverse impacts to 

soils. 

Transportation management strategies would include closing duplicative roads and re-routing roads 

that pass through sensitive resource areas. Both route segments identified by the planning team 

during the route inventory and assessment as having substantial impacts to soils would be closed to 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-36 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

public use of vehicles. Several other route segments would be realigned or erosion control structures 

installed to eliminate or minimize impacts to soils. This would result in long-term, minor, direct and 

indirect, beneficial impacts to soils by decreasing erosion in sensitive areas that are currently 

affected. 

Additional administrative and visitor facilities, kiosks, and trails would be constructed under 

Alternative 2, resulting in minor, site-specific, short-term, direct, adverse impacts to soils during 

construction. Signage would also be placed to clearly identify all roads that are open for public use, 

minimizing potential soil impacts (e.g., erosion, compaction) from travelers that inadvertently drive 

on closed roads. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, moderate, beneficial impacts to soils would be similar to those 

described under Alternative 2; however, this benefit would begin to occur many years later. An 

additional 10 years of potential damage would also be allowed to continue because complete removal 

of horses and burros would occur within 15 years of implementation of the CCP, whereas it would 

only be five years before complete removal with Alternative 2. 

Under Alternative 3, fewer short-term, adverse impacts and long-term, beneficial impacts would 

occur from habitat management strategies because Alternative 3 strategies focus on allowing natural 

processes to prevail. Mechanical removal of vegetation and prescribed fire would only rarely be 

used. Long-term, minor, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts to soils would occur from strategies 

to remove 20 spring developments and minimize soil disturbing activities. Based upon playa 

formation processes and necessary soil conditions needed (see Section 6.1.6), we estimate it would 

take more than 50 years for the playas to naturally recover. 

Under Alternative 3, transportation management strategies would include closing duplicative roads 

and re-routing roads that pass through sensitive resource areas. Beneficial impacts to soils would be 

similar to those described under Alternative 2. 

Under Alternative 3, four campgrounds would be relocated by consolidating with existing 

campgrounds. Impacts would be of lesser extent, but similar to those described under Alternative 2. 

6.2.2 Effects to Water Quality and Quantity 

The most common water-related problems on Sheldon Refuge are erosion and increased turbidity 

levels caused by feral horses (Barnett 2002; Steblein 2007); other issues include entrenchment and 

instability of stream banks, reduced vigor and loss of riparian vegetation from trampling and grazing, 

increased numbers of headcuts, lowered water tables, and degraded water quality from fecal 

contamination. Habitat implications for water resources are discussed above in Section 6.1.5. Other 

impacts to water quality occur from increased soil erosion associated with vehicle routes or are due 

to runoff and erosion from burned areas. 

Alternative 1: Trampling and fecal contamination by feral horses are the greatest contributors to 

deteriorated water quality on Sheldon Refuge. Under Alternative 1, feral horse and burro 

management strategies would maintain current population levels and allow the continued 

deterioration of water quality; this would result in major, long-term, direct, refuge-wide, adverse 

impacts to water resources. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-37 

Habitat management strategies would also result in mostly adverse impacts to water resources. 

Artificial water developments, such as playa dug-outs, guzzlers, spring developments, reservoirs, and 

stock ponds have altered the natural hydrology on Sheldon Refuge. These water catchment devices 

divert water to specific locations so that the water is no longer able to naturally infiltrate the ground, 

evaporate, or flow to naturally occurring streams or ponds. Under Alternative 1, maintenance of 

nearly all playa developments and reservoirs would result in localized, moderate, direct and indirect, 

long-term, adverse impacts to Sheldon Refuge waters from altered timing, distribution, and use of 

water. Direct, minor, beneficial impacts would result from removal of four spring developments. 

All herbicides can potentially enter streams and other water bodies through water transported by 

runoff, leaching, or percolation. Water contamination from rain events could transport chemicals to 

waterways, and convey them to aquatic species habitat. Soil type and chemical stability, solubility, 

and toxicity can determine the extent to which an herbicide will migrate and impact surface waters 

and groundwater. For example, picloram is highly soluble and readily leaches through sandy soil. It 

is also resistant to biotic and abiotic degradation processes. It can also move from target plants, 

through roots, down into the soil, and into nearby non-target plants. Other herbicides such as 

glyphosate and 2,4-D, though very soluble, bind well with organic matter in soils and are not easily 

leached (USFS 2005). 

Soils within Sheldon Refuge are generally low in organic material, poorly developed, and 

unconsolidated. Many soils are shallow with high clay content, while soils in valley and drainage 

bottoms typically are deeper with high sand and gravel content—which generally make these areas 

more conducive for transport and movement of herbicides in a relatively short amount of time, 

particularly following a rain event. As such, the potential for transport of herbicides used along 

roads, campgrounds, burned areas, and other locations where weeds typically occur is considered 

high. Some herbicides are susceptible to transport in surface runoff, especially if applications are 

followed immediately by high rainfall events. However, chemical formulations used and the 

concentrations applied (in accordance with the chemical labels) present a minor risk to the 

environment. Most studies have shown when herbicides do enter surface waters, concentrations are 

very low (BLM 2007a) and below thresholds that would adversely affect the health of fish, wildlife, 

plants, and people. 

Consistent with the Service’s integrated pest management policy 

(http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/NV/docssheldon.htm), a pesticide use proposal 

would be prepared, approved, and periodically reviewed before herbicides are used within Sheldon 

Refuge. Pesticide use proposals require site-specific analysis, evaluation of chemical profiles, and 

evaluation of likely environmental effects. Based on scientific information and analyses documented 

in chemical profiles, herbicides would be approved for use on refuge lands where the chemical 

profiles provide scientific evidence that potential impacts to Sheldon Refuge biological resources and 

its physical environment are likely to be only minor, temporary, or localized in nature and would be 

of relatively low risk to non-target organisms as a result of low toxicity or short persistence in the 

environment. Thus, potential impacts to Sheldon Refuge resources and neighboring natural 

resources from herbicide applications under all alternatives are expected to be minor, temporary, or 

localized in nature. 

Removal of vegetation through prescribed burn or mechanical vegetation removal would likely result 

in minor, localized, short-term, adverse impacts to water quality from temporary increases in 

turbidity; however, refuge-wide water quantity and quality would benefit in the long term due to 

improvement in hydrological functions and development of stable habitat conditions. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-38 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative 1, campground management strategies would maintain all campgrounds in their 

existing locations, including those that are near sensitive riparian areas. The continued proximity of 

campgrounds to streams would result in localized, long-term, indirect, minor, adverse impacts to 

water quality. 

Transportation management strategies would maintain all roads in their existing locations, including 

those that are routed near or through waterways. Vehicles transport pollutants, stir up dust and other 

sediments that may enter waterways, and contribute to erosion. As a result, Alternative 1 would 

result in long-term, refuge-wide, minor, adverse impacts to water quality. 

The use of non-motorized or electric-powered boats is allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip 

Reservoir, and the Dufurrena Ponds, consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. The amount of boating that 

occurs within Sheldon Refuge has not been quantified, but is considered low based upon angler 

participation and incidental observation by staff and volunteers. Requirements for use of nonmotorized boats or boats with electric motors would eliminate the potential for water pollution 

associated with use of outboard motors. Overall, boating associated with Alternative 1 would result 

in short-term, intermittent, and negligible adverse impacts to water quality. 

Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, removing all feral horses and burros within five years would 

eliminate the primary source of water-related problems on Sheldon Refuge, resulting in major, 

refuge-wide, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts to water quality and quantity. 

Under Alternative 2, major, long-term, refuge-wide, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts to water 

resources and water quality would result from the following habitat management strategies: 

restoration of emergent marshes and wet meadows through strategies to remove water control 

structures and relocate campgrounds away from water resources; removal of 20 spring developments, 

discontinued maintenance of playa dug-outs, and active restoration of these habitats; and restoration 

of sagebrush-steppe communities through strategies to restore hydrologic functions. All of these 

habitat management strategies would improve water quantity by removing sources of water 

degradation, restoring hydrologic function and water quality, and decreasing turbidity. 

Other strategies would result in indirect, adverse impacts on natural hydrology and water quality. 

Impacts from the continued maintenance of artificial water sources (i.e., reservoirs) and vegetation 

removal would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 1. Under Preferred Alternative 2, 

weeds would be controlled or removed from 1,000 acres per year, as compared with 50 to 100 acres 

treated per year under current management (Alternative 1). The Service has not identified what 

proportion of acres in Alternative 2 might be treated with herbicide, but presumably it would be more 

than under the no action alternative, which identifies 50 to 100 acres for treatment per year. Because 

the same pesticide use proposal review and approval process would be followed under all 

alternatives, we anticipate that impacts from use of herbicides under Alternative 2 would be minor, 

temporary, or localized in nature and similar to those described under Alternative 1. 

Under Alternative 2, campground and transportation management strategies would result in 

beneficial impacts. Campground management strategies include relocating campgrounds away from 

sensitive water resources; this would result in localized, indirect, minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts to water quality by removing sources of water quality degradation. Alternative 2 strategies 

from transportation management include re-routing roads away from sensitive resources, including 

waterways. This would result in minor, long-term, beneficial impacts to water quality refuge-wide 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-39 

by reducing transportation related soil erosion and transportation-related contaminants from entering 

water bodies. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, long-term, beneficial impacts to water resources would be 

similar to those previously described under Alternative 2. However, 10 additional years would pass 

before feral horses and burros would be eliminated from Sheldon Refuge, thus prolonging the period 

of time in which adverse impacts are able to continue. 

Habitat management strategies under Alternative 3 would result in some beneficial impacts to water 

quality and quantity that are similar to but of lesser intensity than those described under Alternative 

2. Maintenance of playa dug-outs would be discontinued and 20 spring developments would be 

removed; however, strategies for active restoration would not occur. Under Alternative 3, fewer 

artificial reservoirs would be maintained compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. This would result in 

indirect, site-specific, moderate, beneficial impacts to water quantity from removing some reservoirs, 

and conversely similar adverse impacts from maintaining others. Fewer instances of prescribed fire 

and vegetation removal would be implemented under Alternative 3. Impacts would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 1; however, they would occur less frequently and/or in fewer 

locations. 

Impacts to water quality from campground management strategies would be similar to those 

described under Alternative 2; however, only four campgrounds would be relocated away from 

sensitive water resources. Impacts from transportation management strategies would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 2. 

6.2.3 Effects to Air Quality 

Under all alternatives, minor to moderate, short-term impacts to air quality would be expected as a 

result of smoke from prescribed burn activities or natural wildfires. Planning for prescribed burns 

considers potential impacts, and burns are initiated only when ambient air quality standards can 

likely be met. As a result, prescribed burning generally has less impact on air quality than natural 

fires, which would typically burn larger areas. All alternatives allow the use of prescribed burns and 

natural fire for habitat management; however, Alternatives 1 and 2 allow more instances where 

prescribed burns could occur than Alternative 3, which focuses on natural fire. Prescribed burns 

would only occur when strict environmental conditions are met and would follow guidelines 

established by Sheldon Refuge. In addition, all state and local smoke regulations would be adhered 

to. 

6.2.4 Effects to Climate 

Under all of the alternatives, natural and prescribed fires would be allowed to various extents as 

management tools. Alternatives 1 and 2 would use prescribed fire more frequently than Alternative 

3, which allows for more natural burns than Alternatives 1 and 2. Under Alternative 1, prescribed 

fire would be one of the primary management activities used to maintain, restore, or improve habitats 

throughout Sheldon Refuge. Prescribed burns would be managed as smaller, more frequent, and less 

intense fires than those that would naturally occur within Sheldon Refuge. Under Alternative 2, the 

primary management emphasis of prescribed fire would be for the control of western juniper 

encroachment upon sagebrush habitats, mainly in the western portions of Sheldon Refuge. Under 

Alternative 3, less prescribed burning would occur compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, and the primary 

focus of prescribed burns would be to create conditions where natural fire could be allowed while 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-40 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

maintaining an acceptable level of safety and protection for people, property, and certain unique or 

critical resources. 

Burning of vegetation releases carbon dioxide and contributes to climate change. Impacts to climate 

from Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are expected to be negligible. 

6.2.5 Visual Quality 

None of the alternatives are expected to result in more than minor impacts to visual quality (i.e., 

scenery), and under all alternatives the scenic character at Sheldon Refuge would remain mostly 

undisturbed. Under Alternative 1, a few visitor facilities, such as kiosks and signs, would be 

installed, resulting in negligible impacts to visual quality. Habitat and fire management strategies 

that include the use of prescribed fire and/or mechanical removal of vegetation could result in direct, 

adverse impacts that occur during strategy implementation and in the short term. However, the longterm benefits to the visual quality of Sheldon Refuge from implementing these strategies, such as 

maintaining the varied visual quality and character of the landscape through the managed use of fire 

or habitat restoration (habitat management), would outweigh any temporary adverse impacts; 

beneficial impacts would be indirect, long-term, and refuge-wide. 

Under Alternative 2, more visitor facilities would be constructed than in Alternative 1, including a 

visitor contact center, campground facilities, and an interpretive trail. In addition, fewer primitive 

unmaintained roads would be designated for public vehicle access. Adverse impacts from additional 

visitor facilities would be long-term, direct, localized, and minor. Impacts resulting from habitat and 

fire management strategies would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. Beneficial 

impacts to visual quality would result from habitat management strategies that include the removal of 

artificial water devices, such as water guzzlers and spring developments, and designation of fewer 

roads for public vehicle access; impacts would be direct, long-term, site-specific, and minor. 

Under Alternative 3, impacts to visual quality would be similar to those described under Alternative 

1; however, there would be fewer visitor facilities, such as campgrounds and associated signage, and 

substantially less use of prescribed fire and vegetation removal due to fire and habitat management 

strategies. Impacts would likely be negligible. Fewer primitive unmaintained routes would be open 

to public vehicle access than in Alternative 2. Visual impacts from having fewer roads would be 

long-term, direct, localized, and minor. Beneficial impacts from removal of water guzzlers and 

spring developments would be similar to those described under Alternative 2. 

6.3 Social Effects 

6.3.1 Effects Common to All Public Uses 

Camping, public access, and recreational facilities are important public uses that support all or most 

wildlife-dependent public uses on Sheldon Refuge. 

6.3.1.1 Effects from Camping 

Although camping is not a priority public use, it does support priority wildlife-dependent uses, 

especially hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. On Sheldon Refuge, 

developed, semi-primitive, and primitive camping opportunities exist. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-41 

Alternative 1: Virgin Valley Campground is the only developed campground on Sheldon Refuge. It 

currently experiences issues of overcrowding and user conflict, especially during peak seasons. 

Semi-primitive and primitive camping is provided at 12 campgrounds, and currently these 

campgrounds lack boundaries, individual campsites, and barriers that limit vehicle traffic. The 

resulting effects of this lack include sprawling campsites with unsightly visible impacts that threaten 

sensitive riparian areas and cultural sites. 

Under Alternative 1, campground facilities would not be improved at Virgin Valley, Catnip 

Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds. Continuing the current management strategies at 

developed and semi-primitive campgrounds does not support Service policy for promoting safety of 

visitors, promoting resource stewardship and conservation, or providing reliable and reasonable 

opportunities for visitors to experience a quality wildlife-dependent recreational activity. Resulting 

indirect, adverse impacts to quality recreation opportunities would be moderate, long-term, and sitespecific. 

Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, various strategies are proposed to increase the quality of the 

camping experience, including construction of potable water spigots, shade structures, kiosks, and 

dedicated volunteer sites at Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds. 

Catnip Reservoir and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds would be converted into developed 

campgrounds; up to nine semi-developed campgrounds would be relocated to nearby areas to 

minimize impacts to sensitive riparian habitats and cultural resources; and campground boundaries 

would be delineated. Campsite registration, overnight fees, and the other improvements planned for 

the developed campgrounds would increase maintenance, decrease visitor confusion (by defining and 

designating campsites), and decrease site competition. Campground management strategies would 

result in moderate, indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts to the camping experience, in support of 

providing quality opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, existing issues of overcrowding and user conflicts would 

continue during peak seasons at Virgin Valley Campground, and impacts would be similar to those 

described under Alternative 1. Similar to Alternative 1, campground facilities would not be 

improved at Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir. However, up to four semiprimitive and primitive campgrounds would be consolidated with other existing campgrounds to 

reduce impacts to sensitive areas (e.g., riparian habitats and cultural sites). Although there would be 

fewer campgrounds, the public is predominantly in favor of moving campgrounds away from 

sensitive areas, so this would likely be viewed by the public as beneficial. This strategy is consistent 

with Service policy by promoting resource stewardship and conservation and minimizing conflict 

with habitat goals; therefore, impacts would be indirect, long-term, site-specific, and minor. 

6.3.1.2 Effects from Public Access 

Access for wildlife-dependent recreational activities on Sheldon Refuge include both primitive 

access, such as hiking and horseback riding, and motorized access. Some of the most popular 

recreation areas include facilities such as fishing docks and outhouses designed to be accessible to 

people with physical disabilities. Hunting and fishing are examples of activities that often rely on 

primitive and motorized types of access. Within Sheldon Refuge, visitors most commonly rely on 

motorized access. Motorized activities, along with all other vehicle activity, are limited to open 

roads; vehicles may also facilitate primitive recreation by providing access to areas from which to 

embark upon primitive recreational activities. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-42 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

All alternatives support Service policy by providing various opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined types of recreation throughout Sheldon Refuge. Hiking and horseback riding are also 

recreational activities that support wildlife-dependent recreational activities on Sheldon Refuge. 

None of the alternatives would provide opportunities specifically for non-motorized vehicle access 

(i.e., mountain bikes) or would manage for semi-primitive recreation and solitude while still 

providing opportunities for the use of game carts or other non-motorized vehicles, and therefore 

provide a limited range of recreation opportunities. The somewhat narrow range of access 

opportunities represents a direct, adverse, moderate, long-term impact to quality recreation 

opportunities within Sheldon Refuge. 

Alternative 1: Under Alternative 1, approximately 365 miles of vehicle-accessible routes would 

remain open to the public and all primary access routes would continue to be maintained. Currently, 

visitors can drive to within 4.5 miles of any point on Sheldon Refuge. Primitive access would 

continue to be allowed along existing user created trails and routes and within undeveloped portions 

of Sheldon Refuge, primarily within the 341,500 acres of proposed wilderness. Management 

strategies under Alternative 1 are consistent with Service policy by providing reasonable 

opportunities to experience wildlife and promoting availability to a broad spectrum of visitors; direct 

and indirect, beneficial impacts would be long-term, minor, and refuge-wide. 

Feral horse and burro management on Sheldon Refuge would not be likely to impact public access 

because there are very few vehicle collisions involving horses or burros; impacts would be 

negligible. Similarly, occasional site-specific road closures for horse gathering activities would have 

a negligible effect on public access. 

Under Alternative 1, the use of non-motorized or electric-powered boats would be allowed only in 

Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip Reservoir, and the Dufurrena Ponds, consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. 

The majority of boating occurs in conjunction with sport fishing, and occasional and intermittent 

boating also occurs in conjunction with other wildlife-dependent public uses. The amount of boating 

that occurs within Sheldon Refuge has not been quantified, but is considered low based upon angler 

participation and incidental observation by staff and volunteers. Overall, the amount of boating 

associated with wildlife-dependent public uses is considered low, and adverse impacts are estimated 

to be short-term, intermittent, and negligible. 

Alternative 2: Impacts for semi-primitive motorized access under Alternative 2 would be similar and 

slightly more beneficial than those described under Alternative 1. If the recommendation for 

wilderness designation as part of this alternative is approved, approximately 462 miles of vehicleaccessible routes would be open to the public. Duplicative roads would be closed, sections through 

sensitive ecological or cultural areas would be re-routed, frequency of road maintenance would 

increase, and signs would be installed to identify all open routes. The additional miles of roads for 

motorized access proposed under this alternative would eliminate primitive access opportunities 

within corresponding portions of the proposed wilderness. As a result, Alternative 2 would have a 

direct, adverse, minor, long-term impact on visitors seeking primitive access and recreation settings. 

Alternative 2 would convert an existing road for use as a short interpretive hiking trail easily 

accessible from Highway 140. This trail would be the only maintained route for hiking within 

Sheldon Refuge and represents a minor, but beneficial long-term impact to public access quality 

recreation opportunities. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-43 

Impacts from feral horse and burro management under Alternative 2 would be similar to those 

described under Alternative 1. 

Alternative 3: Alternative 3 provides the most miles of vehicle-accessible routes, approximately 486, 

and sensitive or duplicative roads would be re-routed, similar to Alternative 2. However, fewer 

routes would be maintained than under the other alternatives. Road maintenance would only occur 

on state, county, and improved roads with current agreements, thus the roads in Virgin Valley would 

no longer be maintained. Over time, unmaintained routes would increasingly deteriorate and likely 

become impassible to highway vehicles, resulting in potentially hazardous conditions to Sheldon 

Refuge visitors who are unaware of road conditions. Access would eventually be reduced in an 

entire portion of the eastern side of Sheldon Refuge. 

Access for rock collectors would be especially affected. Although rock collecting is not a wildlifedependent recreational activity, it is a compatible activity on Sheldon Refuge in which many visitors 

participate. Other visitors participating in hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and, 

to a lesser extent, environmental education and interpretation could be adversely impacted from 

decreased access for highway vehicles. Opportunities for visitors with highway vehicles to 

participate in wildlife-dependent uses are limited to only a few routes that provide access to a 

relatively small percentage of the refuge. Such opportunities are even more limited when considered 

in the context of the surrounding region. As a result of reducing accessibility, reliable opportunities 

to experience wildlife, and safety of visitors and facilities, Alternative 3 would result in localized, 

long-term, indirect, adverse impacts to opportunities for quality recreation. Impacts to opportunities 

for quality hunting and wildlife observation and photography would be minor to moderate; impacts 

to opportunities for quality environmental education and interpretation would be negligible to minor; 

impacts to opportunities for rock collecting would be moderate. Opportunities for quality fishing 

would not be impacted, as all routes that access fishing areas would remain open and maintained. 

If the recommendation for wilderness designation as part of this alternative is approved, the 

additional areas for motorized access proposed under this alternative would eliminate primitive 

access opportunities within those portions of the existing proposed wilderness areas. As a result, 

Alternative 3 would have a direct, adverse, long-term impact on visitors seeking primitive access and 

recreation settings. This impact would be greater than anticipated under Alternative 2, which 

proposes fewer miles of roads for semi-primitive motorized access than this alternative. 

Impacts from feral horse and burro management would be similar to those described under 

Alternative 1. 

6.3.1.3 Effects from Recreational Facilities Other than Camping 

Recreational facilities support various wildlife-dependent public uses; examples of the type of 

recreational facilities that may be found at Sheldon Refuge include kiosks and trails. Some 

recreational facilities are intended to support specific wildlife-dependent recreational activities and 

are addressed in the section that is specific to that activity (e.g., maintenance of fishing docks is 

addressed in Section 6.3.3). 

Alternative 1: The current visitor contact space is located within the Sheldon Refuge Office 

(Dufurrena). It is a very small space (approximately 100 square feet), is not regularly staffed, and 

like the other visitor facilities on Sheldon Refuge, does not meet the quality expected by the visiting 

public. Under Alternative 1, a new visitor contact station would not be built; instead the existing 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-44 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

visitor contact space would be maintained, which would result in a continuation of the current poor 

quality facilities and major, long-term, adverse impact to opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation at this location. 

Alternative 2: Alternative 2 includes multiple strategies to improve or maintain visitor facilities on 

Sheldon Refuge that support wildlife-dependent public uses. A new, larger visitor contact station 

would be conveniently located along Highway 140 and would be regularly staffed with volunteers 

and employees. This facility would meet the needs of the visiting public, while also promoting 

conservation, resource stewardship, and public understanding of natural resources and the purposes 

for Sheldon Refuge. The visitor contact station would also provide information on various wildlifedependent recreation opportunities on Sheldon Refuge, including safety and compliance with the 

law; major, direct and indirect, long-term benefits would result. 

Alternative 3: Mostly adverse impacts would result under Alternative 3. A new visitor contact 

station would not be built, and the existing visitor contact space would be closed. This would result 

in major, long-term, adverse impacts to opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreation. 

The effects on camping under the three alternatives are addressed in Section 6.3.1.1. 

6.3.2 Opportunities for Quality Hunting 

Alternative 1: Sheldon Refuge coordinates with NDOW to set season dates, bag limits, and harvest 

tag numbers for pronghorn, California bighorn sheep, mule deer, and Greater sage-grouse. These 

strategies promote resource stewardship and conservation and provide reliable hunting opportunities. 

Under Alternative 1, continuing these management strategies would result in moderate, long-term, 

refuge-wide, beneficial impacts to opportunities for quality hunting. 

Feral horses and burros physically degrade the environment, reduce the quantity and quality of forage 

for wildlife, and displace native wildlife species. As a result, maintaining current levels of feral 

horses and burros under Alternative 1 conflicts with Service policy and would adversely impact 

opportunities for quality hunting. Indirect, adverse impacts would be moderate, long-term, and 

refuge-wide. 

Habitat management strategies, such as the use of prescribed fire and mechanical vegetation removal, 

could temporarily impact opportunities for quality hunting. Management would focus on controlling 

encroachment of juniper and protecting mountain mahogany and certain areas could be closed to 

hunting during and/or following implementation of management actions. Wildlife species could also 

be temporarily displaced. These strategies could temporarily minimize opportunities for hunting 

resulting in localized, moderate, direct, adverse impacts. In the long term, however, implementing 

management strategies that restore or preserve game habitats would benefit wildlife species, thus 

indirectly resulting in minor, beneficial impacts to opportunities for quality hunting. 

In a manner similar to habitat management impacts, fire management activities have the potential to 

impact opportunities for quality hunting. Under Alternative 1, fire protection activities, including 

mechanical treatments and prescribed fire, could produce localized, short-term, adverse impacts to 

opportunities for quality hunting. Other fire management activities, including post-fire emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation efforts, would result in minor, long-term, beneficial impacts to 

opportunities for quality hunting, by protecting game habitats from fire. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-45 

Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, impacts to opportunities for quality wildlife hunting would be 

similar to those from Alternative 1; however the complete removal of feral horses and burros under 

Alternative 2 would result in major, refuge-wide, long-term, indirect, beneficial impacts to 

opportunities for quality hunting and habitat management would focus on restoring a variety of sites 

and small areas throughout Sheldon Refuge. A greater range of habitat types could be impacted but 

those areas would likely be smaller in size. 

Alternative 3: Impacts from hunting management strategies, including coordination with NDOW, 

would be similar to those previously described under Alternative 1. 

Removal of feral horses and burros under Alternative 3 would result in similar beneficial impacts as 

those described under Alternative 2. However, an additional 10 years of adverse impacts would be 

allowed to continue because complete removal of horses and burros would occur within 15 years of 

implementation of the CCP, whereas it would only be five years before complete removal with 

Alternative 2. 

Under Alternative 3, habitat and fire management strategies would focus on allowing natural 

processes to occur. As a result, management actions, such as prescribed fire and vegetation removal, 

would occur in much fewer instances than those described in Alternative 1; short-term and 

subsequent long-term impacts to opportunities for quality hunting would be negligible to minor. 

6.3.2.1 Effects from Outfitters and Guides 

Under all alternatives, up to 10 big-game hunting guides would be issued five-year Special Use 

Permits allowing commercial guiding activities on Sheldon Refuge lands. Historically, an average of 

10 guides has been issued Special Use Permits, and this action is not anticipated to affect the demand 

for or availability of outfitters or guides to visitors. Through specialized knowledge, equipment, and 

skills, commercial operations provide hunting opportunities for visitors who would otherwise be 

unable to participate, and these operations promote opportunities for a quality hunting experiences on 

Sheldon Refuge. Indirect, long-term impacts are expected to be negligible and trending toward 

beneficial. 

6.3.2.2 Effects from Horseback Riding 

Horseback riding is a very low impact and underutilized recreational activity on Sheldon Refuge. 

Although it is not a priority wildlife-dependent public use, it does support hunting and wildlife 

observation by providing access to areas in the Sheldon Refuge backcountry that are otherwise only 

accessible on foot. Under all alternatives, horseback riding would continue to be allowed, including 

overnight stays in areas outside of established campgrounds. It is possible that horseback riding may 

increase in conjunction with guided hunting trips; however, with only 10 horseback visitors per year 

currently, dramatic increases are not likely. Under all alternatives, and with specific stipulations to 

maintain compatibility (see Appendix D), the additional impacts associated with recreational 

horseback riding impacts are expected to be indirect, long-term, and negligible on refuge habitats and 

wildlife. Continuing to allow horseback riding perpetuates an existing use in support of compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunity, resulting in a neutral effect. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-46 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.3.3 Opportunities for Quality Fishing 

Both warm- and cold-water fishing opportunities exist on Sheldon Refuge. These opportunities are 

located in remote quiet settings that are easy to access and contain semi-primitive facilities. The 

Dufurrena Ponds are extremely popular with anglers and provide a quality opportunity for warmwater (i.e., bass) fishing on Sheldon Refuge. The warm-water fish populations in the Dufurrena 

Ponds are self-sustaining; however, active maintenance is necessary to prevent the ponds from filling 

with vegetation and silt and becoming incapable of supporting fish. Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs 

provide quality opportunities for cold-water (i.e., trout) fishing. They require active maintenance and 

periodic trout restocking to maintain conditions suitable for fishing. 

Alternative 1: Under Alternative 1, opportunities for quality fishing experiences would be continued 

as a result of maintaining Dufurrena Ponds, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir. Fishing 

docks at Dufurrena Pond 20 and McGee Pond would also continue to be maintained. Both of these 

locations provide fishing access to people with disabilities, and McGee Pond is further set aside for 

use by children and seniors. These strategies support Service policy by providing reliable 

opportunities for fishing in a rural setting that is accessible to a broad spectrum of visitors; direct and 

indirect, beneficial impacts would be long-term and moderate. 

Alternative 2: Management strategies under Alternative 2 would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative 1; however, at Big Spring Reservoir non-native trout species would be replaced with fish 

species that are indigenous to the region (e.g., Lahontan cutthroat trout, redband trout, or Alvord 

cutthroat trout). Although this is aligned with Service policy and therefore preferable to Alternative 

1, replacing rainbow trout with indigenous trout species may result in somewhat smaller fish and fish 

that some people consider less sporting to catch. As a result, this alternative would have a direct, 

adverse, minor to negligible, long-term impact on the quality of fishing opportunities. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, maintenance and restocking would continue at Catnip Reservoir 

but would be discontinued at Big Spring Reservoir. Because Big Spring Reservoir periodically dries 

up, it is expected that at some time in the future, Big Spring Reservoir would no longer support a 

trout population or recreational fishing. This would decrease fishing opportunities on Sheldon 

Refuge and result in a moderate, long-term, indirect, adverse impact on opportunities for quality 

cold-water fishing. 

6.3.4 Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Under all alternatives, impacts from habitat and fire management strategies would be similar to those 

described in Section 6.3.2. 

Alternative 1: Feral horses and burros physically degrade the environment, noticeably impact the 

visual quality of the landscape, and displace native wildlife species. As a result, maintaining current 

levels of feral horses and burros under Alternative 1 conflicts with Service policy and would 

adversely impact opportunities for quality wildlife observation and photography. Indirect, adverse 

impacts would be moderate, long-term, and refuge-wide. Some people likely visit Sheldon Refuge to 

view and photograph feral horses and burros. Such activities cause competition with wildlifedependent public uses for facilities and resources, do not contribute to the public’s understanding or 

appreciation for the refuge, and are not considered an appropriate public use within Sheldon Refuge. 

Because horses are located within 42 BLM Herd Management Areas (HMAs) and Herd Areas across 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-47 

hundreds of thousands of acres of public land in the surrounding region, impacts to opportunities to 

view these animals within Sheldon Refuge are considered minor to negligible. 

Alternative 2: The complete removal of feral horses and burros under Alternative 2 would result in 

major, refuge-wide, long-term, indirect, beneficial impacts to opportunities for quality wildlife 

observation and photography. Some visitors may perceive removal of feral horses and burros as an 

undesirable impact that would diminish opportunities for observation and photography of these 

animals. However, maintaining feral horses and burros on Sheldon Refuge displaces native wildlife 

species and is inconsistent with the Service’s mission, goals, and policy and the purposes for Sheldon 

Refuge. 

In addition to the previously described effects resulting from recreational facilities (Section 6.3.1.3), 

at least one interpretive trail would be constructed that includes wildlife observation decks in specific 

locations to enhance opportunities to view key representative species on Sheldon Refuge. This 

would result in minor, long-term, site-specific, direct, beneficial impacts by promoting accessibility 

to visitors. However, some visitors may view these physical improvements as adverse, detracting 

from the overall primitive recreational experience, and the improvements may be detrimental to some 

species. Site-specific, indirect, adverse impacts would likely be long-term and minor. 

Seasonal area closures designed to protect sensitive species and habitats could be viewed by visitors 

as adverse if the closures are seen as limiting opportunities to view or photograph wildlife. However, 

this strategy is consistent with Service policy by minimizing or eliminating conflict with wildlife 

population goals or objectives and therefore would be beneficial. Impacts would be indirect, minor, 

site-specific, and long-term. 

Under Alternative 2, strategies to detect and control invasive weeds would directly benefit habitat, 

indirectly benefit wildlife species, and result in higher quality wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities. Beneficial impacts would be moderate, long-term, indirect, and localized. 

Alternative 3: Removal of feral horses and burros under Alternative 3 would result in similar 

beneficial impacts as those described under Alternative 2. However, an additional 10 years of 

adverse impacts would be allowed to continue because complete removal of horses and burros would 

occur within 15 years of implementation of the CCP, whereas it would only be five years before 

complete removal with Alternative 2. 

6.3.4.1 Effects from Horseback Riding 

Under all alternatives, beneficial impacts resulting from management strategies that allow horseback 

riding on Sheldon Refuge would be similar to those previously described in Section 6.3.2.2. 

6.3.5 Opportunities for Quality Interpretation and Environmental Education 

Alternative 1: The existing interpretation and environmental education programs on Sheldon Refuge 

are limited. The current visitor contact space within the Sheldon Refuge Office (Dufurrena) is very 

small, is not regularly staffed, and does not meet the quality expected by the visiting public. 

Maintaining the existing visitor contact space under Alternative 1 would result in continuing to 

provide poor quality facilities and opportunities for interpretation and environmental education 

adverse impacts; these areas are discussed in Section 6.3.1.3. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-48 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, several beneficial strategies would be employed to increase 

opportunities for quality environmental education and interpretation experiences. Construction of a 

larger visitor contact station would meet the needs of the visiting public and promote environmental 

education and interpretation opportunities throughout Sheldon Refuge; beneficial impacts are 

discussed in Section 6.3.1.3. 

Other strategies under Alternative 2 would result in moderate, long-term, direct and indirect benefits. 

These benefits include developing an environmental interpretation pedestrian trail, developing and 

promoting an outdoor education program supported by volunteers and partnerships, and using onand off-site programs to educate visitors and remote schools. Minor benefits would be realized from 

increased public awareness, outreach, and education, and increased public access from the creation of 

an interpretive walking trail. 

Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, a new visitor contact station would not be built, and the existing 

visitor contact space would be closed. This would result in major, adverse impacts to opportunities 

for quality interpretation and environmental education. 

Strategies to increase public awareness, outreach, and/or education relating to native fishes, 

invertebrates, and wildlife; noxious weeds and invasive species; and rocks and rock collecting would 

indirectly result in long-term, beneficial impacts to opportunities for quality environmental education 

and interpretation. 

6.3.6 Opportunities for Rock Collecting 

Although rock collecting is not a priority, wildlife-dependent public use, it is a popular activity and 

in the past has been found compatible with the purposes of Sheldon Refuge. Under all alternatives, 

beneficial impacts to rock collecting would be negligible and trending toward minor due to the 

continued allowance of this activity on Sheldon Refuge and management actions, such as camping 

and public vehicle access, which support it. Visitation associated with rock collecting occurs 

primarily within Virgin Valley. These visitors use various refuge public use facilities such as the 

Virgin Valley Campground, restrooms, and roads. Because most rock collecting occurs during late 

spring and early summer, there is little competition with visitors engaged in wildlife-dependent uses 

that either occur at other locations or later in the year. Rock collecting can cause impacts through 

removal of interesting or unique specimens, which could otherwise be enjoyed by future visitors. We 

expect these impacts are minor due to the likelihood that most valuable or unique specimens within 

the Virgin Valley have been or would be collected through mining activities and the common nature 

of most rocks collected outside the Virgin Valley area. Of the three alternatives, Alternative 2 does 

the most to support Service policy by developing outreach materials to educate the public. Materials 

would include information on acceptable collection methods, appropriate rocks to collect, and 

Federal regulations, including the illegal collection of cultural resources (e.g., arrowheads). In 

addition, under Alternative 2, increased law enforcement would track violations and under 

Alternative 3, Special Use Permits would be required. Indirect, beneficial impacts associated with 

visitors learning about geology and gaining appreciation for the geologic processes that shaped the 

landscape of the refuge are likely to be negligible and trending toward minor. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-49 

6.4 Effects on Cultural and Historic Resources 

6.4.1 Alternative 1 

Management of Sheldon Refuge under Alternative 1 would continue to affect prehistoric sites 

associated with early habitation and hunting, primarily near springs and riparian areas, due to 

continued trampling by feral horses and burros and subsequent erosion. Sites affected include areas 

identified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (USFWS 2008a). We 

anticipate prolonged long-term exposure to such impacts would eventually destroy the integrity of 

these sites to the point they may no longer be considered eligible for listing. Once lost, the 

information and value of these prehistoric sites cannot be restored and as a result these impacts 

represent an irretrievable and irreversible, long-term, major adverse impact to cultural resources. 

Similar impacts would also continue to occur at prehistoric sites associated with primitive 

campgrounds due to vehicle traffic and expansion of camping activities into areas not currently being 

used. 

Impacts to historic and prehistoric sites from prescribed burning, mechanical thinning, mowing, 

watershed restoration, or emergency stabilization and rehabilitation would be mitigated or avoided as 

a result of site-specific inventories conducted prior to each individual project in accordance with 

Service policy. Prior to implementing all ground-disturbing projects, the applicable cultural resource 

compliance investigation would be undertaken. If cultural resources are found, appropriate 

procedures and protocols would be followed to protect the cultural resources. Whenever possible, 

resources would be avoided or mitigated. Mitigation options, in addition to site avoidance by 

relocating or redesigning facilities, would include data recovery, using either collection techniques or 

in situ site stabilization protection. As a result, we anticipate adverse impacts would be minor or 

negligible. 

Maintenance or reservoirs, guzzlers, and other structures and the removal of abandoned spring 

developments would have little or no effect on cultural resources because any cultural resources at 

these sites have either been significantly disturbed or destroyed during construction and now have 

little or no historic value. 

Continued management of rock collecting would do little to educate the public in an effort to prevent 

the inadvertent or unintentional collection of prehistoric artifacts or fossils. As a result collection and 

removal of these cultural resources would continue. Due to the lack of information, it is uncertain 

what the magnitude of these impacts are currently, or would be in the future. 

6.4.2 Alternative 2 

Impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be substantially less than under Alternative 

1. Impacts from trampling and erosion caused by feral horses and burros would end following 

removal, and impacts associated with semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds would be mitigated 

by relocating these facilities to upland areas where impacts to both biological and cultural resources 

would be less. As a result, the integrity of sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

would be protected. 

Efforts to document and stabilize 20% of historic structures would improve the condition of these 

resources and prevent further deterioration over the long term, which could otherwise diminish their 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-50 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

value and eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Documentation, 

stabilization, and interpretation of Kinney Camp or the Virgin Valley Ranch along with limited fee 

use of the Little Sheldon Guard Station or Badger Cabin would increase public appreciation for 

historic resources and understanding for their protection and preservation. In addition, the use of 

these sites and the collection of fees would provide justification and funding for restoration work and 

continued maintenance. Therefore, we anticipate Alternative 2 would have a major, long-term, 

beneficial impact on cultural resources. 

6.4.3 Alternative 3 

Following removal of feral horses and burros, this alternative would have similar long-term, major, 

beneficial impacts to cultural resources associated with springs and riparian areas as described for 

Alternative 2. Consolidation of up to four semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds with other 

campgrounds would reduce impacts where resource impacts are most severe, but not to the extent of 

relocation under Alternative 2. As a result, we expect impacts from the management of campgrounds 

under this alternative would be between those described for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Under this alternative the collection of information and inventory of historic structures would not be 

a priority and the structures would be allowed to naturally weather, decay, and fall apart. As a result 

any remaining historic value for these structures would be lost over the long term. Because 

inventories have been conducted and information gathered for roughly 75% of the remaining historic 

structures on Sheldon Refuge (including those considered eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places), under the NHPA the effects of neglect from this alternative would be adverse and 

require mitigation and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and interested parties. 

Long-term adverse impacts from this alternative would be minor to moderate. 

6.5 Economic Effects 

6.5.1 Alternative 1 

In general, Alternative 1 would maintain current values from economic use of Sheldon Refuge. One 

exception is at Big Spring Reservoir, which is currently dry, and therefore does not allow for fishing 

opportunities. This analysis assumes that after four years of the plan, or 10 years after the previous 

attempt at stocking occurred, enough water will be in the reservoir that stocking will resume. Under 

this scenario, attempts would be made to stabilize the horse and burro populations at 800 horses and 

90 burros, and significant refuge resources would continue to be put toward management of these 

animals. The annual refuge budget is assumed to remain consistent at current levels. As a result, this 

alternative would continue to have a moderate beneficial impact through contributions of 

approximately $8.8 million in value added to the regional economy from direct expenditures for 

management of Sheldon Refuge, visitation expenditures, and associated direct and indirect 

employment of approximately 131 people. However, the continued presence and habitat degradation 

caused by feral horses and burros would have a long-term, moderate to major, adverse impact on 

nonuse and existence values associated with water quality, soil conservation, wildlife conservation, 

ecological integrity, biological diversity, and environmental health. Visitation is expected to increase 

steadily at a rate of about 1% annually, consistent with the rate of increase estimated over the past 

several decades 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-51 

6.5.2 Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, fishing efforts by recreational anglers would be assumed to follow the same 

pattern as under Alternative 1. However, due to the change in stocking from rainbow trout to a 

regionally indigenous species such as Lahontan cutthroat trout or redband trout in Big Spring 

Reservoir, the quality of the fishing experience for anglers is expected shift slightly. Some anglers 

prefer the larger size and more aggressive nature of rainbow trout opposed to Lahontan cutthroat 

trout, and for these anglers, the value from fishing within Sheldon Refuge would decrease. Other 

anglers prefer to catch cutthroat trout species considered indigenous to the region, and for these 

anglers the value of fishing would increase. These changes to the quality of the fishing experience 

are not expressly quantified, but overall we expect these changes would result in a negligible to 

minor adverse impact to the economic benefits from fishing within Sheldon Refuge due to the fact 

fishing opportunities for Lahontan cutthroat trout are currently provided at Catnip Reservoir, and 

while intermittent and somewhat unpredictable, the fishing opportunities for rainbow trout at Big 

Spring Reservoir would be lost. Visitation related to wildlife viewing and overall visitation to 

Sheldon Refuge would be assumed to increase under this alternative. This increase in visitation is an 

assumed result primarily of the construction of the new visitor contact station but is also expected to 

result from numerous other planned improvements to refuge facilities. Specifically, visitation is 

assumed to increase by 5,000 visitors over the course of the 15-year planning period. 

Under Alternative 2, horse and burros would be removed from Sheldon Refuge within five years of 

initiation of the CCP. This analysis assumes that removal will occur in the fifth year of the plan’s 

implementation, and that no additional horse and burro management costs will be incurred in later 

years of the plan. It is likely that stray animals may need to be removed periodically, even after the 

initial population removal. As such, this assumption may somewhat overstate the reduced forage 

consumed by these animals, as well as the reduced costs of collisions associated with these animals. 

Because regional economic impacts are not easily summed across years, the impacts of the 

alternatives are presented for the tenth year of the plan’s implementation. As shown in Table 6.2, 

Alternative 2 would provide the greatest contribution across all measurement categories (labor 

income, value added, output, and employment). Expenditures on Sheldon Refuge under Alternative 

2 would contribute 142 jobs to the local economy, as compared to 131 under Alternative 1 and 123 

under Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would provide $9.4 million in GSP, which is $0.6 million more 

than under Alternative 1 (7% more), and $1.1 million greater than under Alternative 3 (13% more). 

If the increase to values of soil conservation, wildlife conservation, ecological integrity, biological 

diversity, and environmental health from the removal of feral horses and burros are also added, 

Alternative 2 would have even greater short- and long-term beneficial impacts on the economic value 

and contribution of Sheldon Refuge to the regional economy when compared with Alternative 1 or 3. 
6-52 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences Table 6.2 Comparison of Regional Economic Contribution of Management Alternatives (Industrial Econo

Activity Alternative Direct Expenditures Regional Economic Contribution Employment (Persons) Employee Compensation Value Ad

Fishing 1 $768,000 14 $377,277 $62

2 $768,000 14 $377,000 $623 $531,000 10 $261,000 $43

Hunting 1 $494,000 10 $253,000 $40

2 $494,000 10 $253,000 $403 $494,000 10 $253,000 $40

Wildlife Viewing 1 $3,030,000 55 $1,480,000 $2,47

2 $3,590,000 65 $1,750,000 $2,933 $3,030,000 55 $1,480,000 $2,47

Revenue Payments 1 $303,000 4 $199,000 $26

2 $309,000 4 $203,000 $273 $285,000 4 $187,000 $25

Budget expenditures 1 $3,800,000 48 $3,940,000 $5,01

2 $3,880,000 49 $4,020,000 $5,123 $3,570,000 45 $3,700,000 $4,71

Total 1 $8,390,000 131 $6,240,000 $8,78

2 $9,040,000 142 $6,610,000 $9,363 $7,910,000 123 $5,880,000 $8,27

Descriptions of alternatives are provided in the CCP. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-53 

6.5.3 Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3, fishing at Big Spring Reservoir is assumed to increase in the fourth year of the 

plan’s implementation as in the other alternatives, but fade out at a steady rate until the fifteenth year 

of the plan’s implementation, because no active management of the reservoir is planned and fish 

would not be restocked in the future. Visitation is expected to somewhat decrease due to degradation 

of existing facilities, particularly at primitive sites, which are likely to become overgrown. However, 

some increase in camping or other wilderness activities could occur in other areas as a result of the 

expected increase in quality of wildlife habitat, and thus an increase in opportunities for wildlife 

viewing. For the purposes of monetization of these changes, visitation is assumed to be the same as 

in Alternative 1. Horses and burros are removed over the course of the 15-year period under this 

alternative, and thus this analysis assumes that the forage consumed by these animals and the number 

of collisions expected decreases steadily over time to zero by the fifteenth year of the plan’s 

implementation. Therefore, we anticipate the impacts to the regional economy from sport fishing 

would be somewhat less than under Alternative 1 or 2. Long-term contributions from refuge 

management expenditures and employment would also be less than under Alternatives 1 and 2 with 

no costs for feral horses and burros management after 15 years, and fewer costs for habitat 

management activities, and also less employment contribution from 123 jobs. 

Figure 6.1 presents the regional economic contribution of Sheldon Refuge under each management 

alternative. In terms of net economic value, the analysis finds that Sheldon Refuge would provide 

$11.4 million in net economic value, which is $7.6 million more under Alternative 2 than Alternative 

1, and $6.0 million more than Alternative 3. This total is estimated by subtracting the costs 

associated with the use of forage by horses and burros, as well as the annual costs of collisions with 

those animals from the consumer surplus values received from recreational activities from Sheldon 

Refuge. 

($12.0)

($7.0)

($2.0)

$3.0

$8.0

Fishing Hunting Wildlife

viewing

Camping Horse and

Burro

Millions of dollars

Management 

Alternative 1

Alternative 2 

Alternative 3

Figure 6.1 Comparison of net economic value of management alternatives, total present value 

over 15 years, discounted at 7% (Industrial Economics 2010). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-54 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.6 Effects to Wilderness Character 

Wilderness character has been described and defined in a variety of ways. The various definitions 

arise because much of wilderness quality is determined by personal perceptions and experiences. 

However, through the Wilderness Act of 1964 and national policy, the Service has defined four 

critical aspects of wilderness character: naturalness, untrammeled condition, solitude, and 

opportunities for primitive or unconfined recreation. These directives from the Wilderness Act, as 

well as Service Manual Sections 610 FW 1 through 4 and 6 RM 1.4, are summarized below. 

Naturalness: Naturalness is a condition which either occurs, or appears to have occurred without 

human influence or interference. Recognizing that almost no lands exist without some alteration 

from human use or development, the Service manages wilderness to ensure natural conditions are not 

further degraded over time. Management activities or public uses which would cause these areas to 

appear less natural are therefore considered an adverse impact. For the purposes of this CCP, 

naturalness and impacts to naturalness are discussed throughout Chapters 3 through 6 for habitat 

types and associated fish and wildlife within Sheldon Refuge. 

Untrammeled condition: This term is a key concept of wilderness management and is a term 

deliberately used in the Wilderness Act to defined wilderness character. Untrammeled condition 

refers to a lack of human intervention, alteration, control, or manipulation of natural conditions or 

processes. While management activities may be able to create conditions that appear more natural 

and that may in fact benefit the wilderness ecosystem, the very act of doing so is a trammeling of 

wilderness character. Therefore, any human activity that attempts to control or manipulate 

conditions or processes within wilderness represents an adverse impact to wilderness character. 

Solitude: Solitude is a rather subjective condition based on an individual person’s state of mind. The 

most effective way in which to manage for solitude is to ensure people have the opportunity to 

experience freedom from modern society, its inventions, and conventions. To create these 

opportunities we manage wilderness to provide privacy, isolation, and an absence of distractions or 

reminders of human activities. Therefore, any management action or public use that involves the use 

of mechanized or motorized equipment, unnatural noise or light, signs, structures, interaction with 

other groups of people, or that leaves evidence of human activities represents and adverse impact to 

opportunity for wilderness solitude. For the purposes of this CCP, opportunities for solitude and 

impacts to those opportunities are described and discussed along with opportunities for primitive 

undeveloped recreation and public uses. 

Primitive or unconfined types of recreation: The opportunity for people to recreate and enjoy natural 

settings is one of the primary purposes for wilderness. To ensure these types of opportunities are 

provided for future generations and to protect other wilderness values, only primitive types of 

recreation are provided in these areas. Primitive recreation opportunities require few or no facilities 

and when facilities are provided their purpose is for public safety or resource protection rather than 

visitor convenience or comfort. Opportunities for unconfined recreation are provided by allowing 

visitors the freedom to explore and discover wilderness for themselves without being unnecessarily 

restricted by rules or regulations or confined to certain areas or destinations. As with visitor 

facilities, restrictions or limits on where, when, or how people can recreate within a wilderness area 

are developed to protect natural resources or to maintain certain opportunities for solitude. As with 

opportunities for solitude, opportunities for primitive or unconfined recreation and impacts to those 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-55 

opportunities are described and discussed along with opportunities for primitive undeveloped 

recreation and public uses. 

6.6.1 Alternative 1 

6.6.1.1 Naturalness 

Under this alternative a number of management activities would continue within Sheldon Refuge and 

the proposed wilderness areas. Management of water developments, wildlife guzzlers, historic 

structures, roads, trails, and routes, would maintain current conditions. Continued removal of 

abandoned fences within Sheldon Refuge and increased use of signs and law enforcement to 

discourage illegal OHV use are expected to somewhat improve natural appearance of Sheldon 

Refuge, with some adverse, minor, long-term impacts to the natural appearance along road corridors 

from additional signs. 

Management of feral horse and burros populations would continue to have major adverse impacts on 

natural conditions both by the presence of these non-indigenous animals, the direct effects of 

trampling and grazing, and the indirect effects of competition and displacement of native wildlife. 

Over the long term, we anticipate these effects would increase as populations of horses and burros 

remain at approximately 800 and 90 animals respectively and cause further erosion, soil compaction, 

reduced vegetation cover and diversity, and competition with native wildlife in areas that have 

already been adversely impacted. These impacts would occur throughout Sheldon Refuge but would 

be particularly noticeable at springs and within riparian areas. In turn, the natural trends and 

dynamics of wildlife populations would be indirectly impacted as well. The continued presence of 

non-native fish would also adversely impact naturalness, but the presence of these populations in 

constructed reservoirs is expected to have a minor to negligible adverse impact on native aquatic 

plants and invertebrates. 

Management direction under this alternative would include the use of mechanized equipment to mow 

vegetation as a means of connecting natural barriers, recently burned areas, roads, and other features 

to establish fire fuel breaks around priority areas for fire disturbance—from either natural fire or 

prescribed fire. The ultimate goal of these fuel breaks would be to reduce the level of suppression for 

natural fires when appropriate, and to prepare areas for planned prescribed burning. Mowing would 

adversely impact the natural appearance of these areas in the short term, but if successful, would 

improve natural conditions by requiring less than full suppression for some natural fires and restoring 

a more natural fire regime and mosaic of habitat types. The intensity of these benefits would 

increase over time as an increasing number of burned areas serve as additional fuel break further 

increasing the likelihood for natural fire and for restoring a more natural fire regime to Sheldon 

Refuge. 

Prescribed burning would continue to repeatedly burn smaller areas with lower intensity than would 

otherwise occur as a result of natural fires. As a result, prescribed burning would indirectly lead to 

unnatural vegetation communities. Mechanical thinning of sagebrush and juniper would also affect 

natural character from the presence of sawn juniper stumps and burned piles of trees and limbs. 

However, in the long term, we expect the thinning of trees and shrubs from these habitats where they 

did not historically occur would restore a more natural vegetation composition and appearance to 

these portions of Sheldon Refuge. In a similar fashion, weed treatments would adversely affect 

natural character from the presence of dead vegetation and vehicle tracks, but in the long term, we 

anticipate these treatments would slow or possibly reverse the trend of weed invasion and spread, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-56 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

which would restore a more natural vegetation composition and appearance to as many as 1,500 

acres. 

Suppression of most natural fires would continue under Alternative 1. The purpose of most fire 

suppression is to minimize the amount of area that would likely be invaded by non-native plants 

following such fires and to avoid the potential for large fires spreading across Sheldon Refuge and 

into adjacent lands. Invasion of cheatgrass is of particular concern, and where it has invaded 

following wildfire, the results have been lower plant diversity, increased soil erosion, reduced forage 

for native wildlife resulting lower wildlife diversity, and a much shorter return interval of lower 

intensity fires. 

Overall, management activities would further degrade naturalness within large portions of Sheldon 

Refuge including all eight proposed wilderness areas. These widespread effects would result in a 

major, long-term adverse impact to wilderness character. It is uncertain if these actions would cause 

impacts beyond which natural conditions could be restored. 

6.6.1.2 Untrammeled Conditions 

Alternative 1 would continue to allow natural population dynamics to occur within Sheldon Refuge. 

The continued fishing for Lahontan cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and various fish species in the 

Dufurrena Ponds and hunting of pronghorn, bighorn sheep, mule deer, and Greater sage-grouse 

would adversely impact individual animals, but based upon population monitoring results conducted 

cooperatively with the State of Nevada, we do not anticipate the level of fishing or hunting would be 

sufficient to alter natural population trends, fluctuations, or migrations. Sheldon Refuge would 

continue to capture, monitor, track, and study a variety of wildlife in pursuit of refuge purposes and 

the Refuge System mission. These activities interfere with the movement and activities of individual 

animals and often small groups of animals, but are not believed to alter longer-term movements, 

migration patterns, or population dynamics. As a result, study and monitoring of wildlife would 

continue to cause short-term, minor, but repeated, adverse impacts to untrammeled conditions. 

Allowing water developments such as troughs, catchments, canals, and reservoirs to remain 

throughout Sheldon Refuge would continue to alter the natural timing, distribution, and flow of water 

and would continue to indirectly affect the location, distribution, and extent of associated riparian 

plant communities and wildlife. Due to the number of affected areas throughout Sheldon Refuge we 

anticipate direct impact impacts would be adverse, moderate to major, site specific, and long-term. 

Indirect impacts would be somewhat less intensive, but refuge-wide. Water guzzlers intended to 

increase populations of chukar partridge and bighorn sheep impound a relatively small percentage of 

rainfall within any particular drainage and have been shown to have little long-term effect on the 

target wildlife population levels or distribution. Therefore, guzzlers would continue to have 

negligible impact on untrammeled conditions. 

The encroachment of sagebrush and western juniper into habitats where they are not thought to have 

historically or naturally occurred is the result of trammeling of wilderness character through 

aggressive fire suppression, but to the casual or uninformed observer these areas still appear natural. 

Additionally, several non-indigenous plants (weeds) are regularly detected or have already become 

well established in a variety of habitats. In an effort to restore more natural ecological condition to 

these habitats, continued trammeling of natural processes would occur through the mechanical 

removal, manipulation, and/or chemical treatment of vegetation. In addition, aggressive suppression 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-57 

of natural fire would continue to alter and manipulate the natural fire regime and habitat succession 

throughout Sheldon Refuge. 

Continued gathering and removal of feral horses and burros from Sheldon Refuge instead of allowing 

natural population control processes of starvation and disease would have a continued long-term 

impact on untrammeled wilderness character. Because gathers would continue annually under 

Alternative 1, these management actions represent a repeated, long-term moderate impact to 

untrammeled wilderness character intended to protect natural conditions and native habitats that 

remain. 

In general, actions under this alternative would alter or attempt to alter major processes affecting 

habitat conditions and habitat succession throughout Sheldon Refuge. While the effects of some 

actions may not be readily apparent to the casual observer and may actually restore natural 

conditions, these actions are intended to manipulate existing conditions and represent a substantial 

trammeling of natural process and a major, long-term, adverse impact to wilderness character. 

6.6.1.3 Solitude 

Alternative 1 would maintain existing opportunities for solitude within much of Sheldon Refuge and 

the proposed wilderness areas. Current visitation to Sheldon Refuge has remained relatively low 

(less than 20,000 visits per year) when compared with surrounding areas. Opportunities for solitude 

in the Virgin Valley area would remain rare and would be found during winter months when few 

people visit for rock collecting or mining. Opportunities along County Road 8A and State Highway 

140 would also remain rare as these routes are traveled throughout much of the year, weather 

permitting. Catnip Reservoir would remain a popular destination for anglers and hunters, but due to 

the limited number of campsites available at the reservoir, opportunities for solitude in the area 

surrounding Catnip Reservoir would continue. Additionally, requirements for the use of nonmotorized boats or boats with electric motors, which are allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, 

Catnip Reservoir, and the Dufurrena Ponds, are expected to maintain opportunities for visitor 

solitude. 

Management activities within Sheldon Refuge would continue to cause some disturbance and 

diminish opportunities for solitude. Helicopters would continue to be used below 500 feet for 

gathering of horses and burros and for the inventory, monitoring, and study of large mammal 

populations. A variety of motorized vehicles and equipment would be used to conduct weed control 

treatments, fire suppression activities, prescribed burning, and thinning of sagebrush and juniper. 

The use of equipment and vehicles would be conducted during time of low public use when possible, 

but would continue to occur during the summer and fall seasons for most activities. 

Additional long-term impacts to wilderness solitude would occur from the presence of stumps in 

areas of juniper removal and thinning, from the presence of mowed vegetation for fire suppression 

and prescribed burning containment lines, and from vehicle tracks created during most management 

activities. 

Short-term adverse impacts would occur during peak periods of visitation and while management 

activities are conducted. For those people visiting while management activities are ongoing, these 

impacts would be readily seen and heard, resulting in a major impact to opportunities for solitude. 

Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts would occur at various locations throughout Sheldon Refuge 

as a result of more lasting visible evidence of multiple management activities. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-58 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

6.6.1.4 Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 

Opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation would continue to be provided throughout 

Sheldon Refuge. With the exception of the Virgin Valley Campground, campgrounds would remain 

undeveloped but could include primitive fire rings for public safety and resource protection. The 

majority of roads would remain unmaintained, primitive vehicle routes suitable mostly for OHVs or 

high-clearance four-wheel drive use. Signs would continue to mark entrances to Sheldon Refuge, the 

refuge boundary, and trails closed to vehicle use. With the exception of the Devaney Campground, 

there would be no recreation facilities within the proposed wilderness areas. 

Nearly the entire Sheldon Refuge is open to public recreation accessible from hundreds of miles of 

semi-primitive motorized routes. Backcountry areas of Sheldon Refuge are also accessible from 

former roads with open to cross-country hiking and horseback riding. Overnight camping is allowed 

throughout the refuge backcountry through an unlimited number of backcountry camping permits. 

Seasonal restrictions on public use would continue to occur during periods of extreme fire danger and 

for safety during certain management operations. Interactions with refuge staff and law enforcement 

officers would continue to be only occasional. 

Overall, most visitors would find outstanding opportunity for primitive and unconfined recreation 

throughout most of Sheldon Refuge during all times of the year with little or no restrictions or 

interactions with refuge staff. This alternative would have a major long-term beneficial impact on 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. 

6.6.2 Alternative 2 

6.6.2.1 Naturalness 

Under Alternative 2, a number of management activities would be implemented to restore the natural 

function and condition to various habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge. In addition to the continued 

removal of abandoned interior wire fences under Alternative 1, other actions would include removal 

of feral horses and burros, removal of abandoned livestock water developments and restoration of 

associated springs and riparian habitats, and restoration of approximately 1 mile of Virgin Creek 

watershed in the vicinity of Virgin Valley Ranch. These actions would noticeably improve both the 

natural appearance and natural ecological conditions and would have major, beneficial, long-term 

impacts on naturalness throughout Sheldon Refuge. 

Prescribed burning would be substantially curtailed until feral horses and burros are removed, after 

which time the current program of prescribed burning would likely resume. As a result, habitats 

would be burned less often in the short term, but adverse, long-term, impacts from prescribed fires 

burning more frequently and at lower intensity than would naturally occur as identified under 

Alternative 1 would resume after five years. Under Alternative 2, thinning and removal of 

encroaching juniper would increase from the current average of 400 acres to 1,500 acres per year and 

would cause greater short-term, adverse impact the natural appearance of treated areas than under 

Alternative 1. However, greater long-term, beneficial impacts would occur with natural vegetation 

composition restored to approximately 16,500 more acres than under Alternative 1. These impacts 

would be most evident within the Rye Creek Proposed Wilderness Area where juniper has expanded 

into an estimated 5,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-59 

Compared with Alternative 1, weed treatments would increase from approximately 1,500 to 15,000 

acres under Alternative 2, but the focus of treatments would be road corridors. Treatments along 

road corridors may be more effective in slowing the spread of weeds into undeveloped and more 

natural areas of Sheldon Refuge, but overall this strategy is expected to have only a slightly greater 

beneficial impact on naturalness when compared with Alternative 1. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the designation of approximately 300 miles of roads 

for public vehicle access (65 fewer miles than under Alternative 1). In addition, if the wilderness 

recommendation is approved this alternative would re-open 38 miles that were officially closed as 

part of the 1974 wilderness proposal. These routes remain visible and their designation for 

motorized use would not result in any short-term impacts to naturalness. Several road segments have 

been identified for realignment and re-routing to minimize impacts to riparian areas. Approximately 

12 miles of road segments that are re-routed under this alternative would be closed, rehabilitated, and 

camouflaged to create a more natural appearance and reduce the potential for further vehicle use and 

impacts to naturalness would be minimal over the short term. Over the long term, fewer roads and 

associated signs and other developments would be visible when compared with Alternative 1, but as 

public use continues to increase, we expect the need for additional signs, road maintenance, and other 

developments to ensure compatibility. Increased visitation to these areas would also increase the 

potential for introduction and spread of weeds and for the disturbance and displacement of wildlife. 

We anticipate the actions under Alternative 2 would continue to result in some site-specific and 

localized, short- and long-term adverse impacts to naturalness, but impacts overall would be longterm and beneficial, as the natural appearance and ecological condition are restored to the majority of 

habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge. 

6.6.2.2 Untrammeled Conditions 

Under Alternative 2, hunting, fishing, monitoring and study of wildlife, prescribed burning, 

mechanical thinning of juniper, the maintenance and operation of several water developments 

(primarily the major reservoirs, Dufurrena Ponds, and guzzlers), and the gathering and removal of 

feral horses and burros would continue, similar to Alternative 1. 

Unlike Alternative 1, this alternative would result in the manipulation of several water sources and 

riparian habitats in an effort to restore natural conditions, and would utilize more frequent gathers to 

manipulate feral horse and burro populations for removal. We expect Alternative 2 would result in 

more intensive manipulation and interference with natural processes over the short term, but would 

ultimately lead to less interference and manipulation over the long term when compared with 

Alternative 1. 

6.6.2.3 Solitude 

Under Alternative 2, most activities proposed under Alternative 1 would continue to occur—at least 

in the short term—and some activities (removal and thinning of juniper) would be more intensive 

with more frequent activities occurring over larger areas. In addition, we anticipate an additional 500 

visitors per year as a result of the proposed visitor contact center located along Highway 140. Due to 

the limited number of campsites available and the implementation of fees for use at the Virgin 

Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds and the opening of an additional 

38 miles of roads for motorized use, we also anticipate increased use of primitive campgrounds, 

some increase in overnight backcountry use, and fewer opportunities for solitude near the Round, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-60 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Catnip and Devaney mountain areas, which are currently proposed for wilderness designation. 

Opportunities for solitude would continue to be available during substantial portions of the year, but 

when compared with Alternative 1, long-term and repeated short-term adverse impacts to solitude 

would be more intensive and would impact a greater number of visitors. 

6.6.2.4 Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 

The primary actions under this alternative affecting primitive and unconfined recreation would be the 

designation of 300 miles of semi-primitive motorized roads and the re-opening of 38 miles of 

additional routes for motorized use (assuming the preferred wilderness recommendation is 

approved). Most roads closed under this alternative would continue to be used intermittently for 

administrative purposes, but administrative vehicle use is expected to be less than public use and the 

effect would be a minor increase in opportunities for primitive recreation. This alternative would 

also result in greater management presence, development, and regulation at the Virgin Valley, 

Catnip, and Big Spring campgrounds. While these changes would be beneficial to visitors who 

prefer a more primitive setting, the decreased motorized access proposed under Alternative 2 would 

have only a minor, adverse, long-term impact on opportunities for motorized types of recreation due 

to the fact most roads closed to public vehicle use under this alternative are redundant with other 

nearby roads, are short dead-end roads, and are rarely used for access to wildlife-dependent public 

uses. 

6.6.3 Alternative 3 

6.6.3.1 Naturalness 

When compared with Alternative 1 and 2, this alternative proposes the least amount of management 

intervention or manipulation of natural processes. However, this approach would not lead to more 

natural conditions in most cases, and is actually likely to result in less naturalness than under 

Alternative 1 or 2. 

Feral horse and burros would be removed, but full implementation would take place over 15 years 

instead of five as proposed under Alternative 2, and current adverse impacts to soils, water quality, 

vegetation communities would diminish over the next 10 to 15 years. After 15 years beneficial 

impacts related to this action as described for Alternative 2 would occur. As a result, this alternative 

would have less intensive, short-term, adverse impacts throughout Sheldon Refuge when compared 

with Alternative 1, and would have the same major, beneficial impacts to natural appearance and 

ecological conditions as described for Alternative 2 over the long term. 

As part of this alternative, the creation of fuel breaks would rely entirely on the location of natural 

barriers, recently burned areas, existing roads, and other existing features. Because mowing would 

not be conducted to connect these features, we expect adequate fuel breaks would be established 

around a fewer number of priority areas, but the size of each area would be larger than under the 

other alternatives. Areas identified for burning would retain their natural appearance, but the fewer 

number of fuel breaks and therefore fewer number of areas identified for burning throughout Sheldon 

Refuge would result in a higher likelihood for full suppression in response to natural fires. 

Consequently, this alternative would result in more natural appearing conditions in the short term 

without evidence of mowing or cutting to create fuel breaks or remove encroaching juniper, but a less 

natural fire regime and less natural ecological conditions over the long term when compared with 

Alternative 1 or 2. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-61 

Prescribed burning would be very limited under this alternative when compared with Alternative 1 or 

2. Burning of emergent marshes and wet meadows would not resume after horses and burros are 

removed, mechanical treatments to reduce expanding juniper and sagebrush would not be used for 

habitat management, and natural fire would be the primary disturbance for most habitat types 

throughout Sheldon Refuge. However, the amount and type of vegetation that currently exists have 

resulted in a situation where natural fire has a high likelihood to burn much larger areas and with 

greater intensity than historically occurred under natural conditions. In addition to being more 

dangerous for firefighters, larger and more intense fires pose a greater risk of burning out of Sheldon 

Refuge where they would threaten life and/or property. Under Alternative 3 the higher potential for 

these risks would most likely result in continued rapid and full suppression for most fires, and 

without the benefit of more numerous fuel breaks as proposed under Alternative 1 or 2, would in turn 

increase the long-term risk for a single very large intense fire. Such a fire would not result in a 

mosaic of habitats thought to have historically occurred and could lead to large-scale establishment 

of cheatgrass and other invasive weeds causing major, long-term adverse impacts similar to those 

described under Alternative 1. These impacts would be expected to affect larger portions of Sheldon 

Refuge than under Alternative 1 or 2. 

Removal of abandoned livestock developments would occur as part of Alternative 3 as under 

Alternative 2, but instead of active restoration work, natural erosion and hydrologic processes would 

be left to re-establish springbrook and stream channels, or in the case of catchment basins, to silt in 

over time. Over the short term this alternative would quickly improve the natural appearance 

through removal of human-made structures, but would have little effect on natural conditions. 

Natural processes will restore natural conditions over time, and this alternative would have a major, 

beneficial impact on previously developed sites, but impacts would only be realized over a period of 

50 to 100 years or longer. 

Alternative 3 proposes designating 289 miles of roads for motorized use (76 fewer miles when 

compared with Alternative 1) and would re-open 33 miles of routes for vehicle use (assuming the 

wilderness recommendation is approved). Most of the roads that would be closed to public vehicle 

access under this alternative would continue to be used intermittently for administrative purposes. 

As a result, beneficial, long-term impacts from fewer roads and associated signs would be negligible 

or minor and would affect a larger area in the southwest and eastern portions of Sheldon Refuge 

when compared with Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 would have substantial, long-term, beneficial impacts on the naturalness of Sheldon 

Refuge as a result of removing feral horses and burros and many abandoned livestock developments. 

Overall, these beneficial impacts would be offset by long-term adverse impacts from the continued 

lack of natural fire as a large-scale natural ecological disturbance, and designation of additional 

motorized routes. 

6.6.3.2 Untrammeled Conditions 

Under this alternative, hunting, fishing, monitoring and study of wildlife, and the maintenance and 

operation of several water developments (primarily the major reservoirs and Dufurrena Ponds), and 

the gathering and removal of feral horses and burros are the primary management activities which 

would adversely affect untrammeled conditions. As discussed under Alternative 1, the impacts from 

hunting, fishing, and the monitoring and study of wildlife would continue to cause short-term, minor, 

but repeated, adverse impacts to untrammeled conditions. Alternative 3 proposes maintenance of 

fewer water control structures, and little or no active restoration for areas where structures are 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-62 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

removed. As a result, this alternative has less impact on untrammeled conditions related to these 

structures and associated habitats than either Alternative 1 or 2. Gathering of feral horse and burros 

would have a medium-term impact on untrammeled conditions until removal is complete, but 

because the presence of these feral animals is already represents a trammeling of wilderness 

character, these impacts are considered negligible. 

6.6.3.3 Solitude 

As a result of consolidation of four existing campgrounds, discontinued stocking of Big Spring 

Reservoir, and continued use of the existing visitor contact space, we expect the total number of 

visitors to Sheldon Refuge would decrease slightly under Alternative 3. When compared with 

Alternative 1 or 2, Alternative 3 would result in fewer management activities and projects that would 

have a moderate, long-term, beneficial impact on opportunities for solitude throughout most of 

Sheldon Refuge. The designation of 76 fewer miles of roads for public vehicle access when 

compared with Alternative 1 would improve opportunities for solitude. However, impacts to solitude 

would only be minor because most roads would continue to be used intermittently for administrative 

purposes and because of redundancy with other routes nearby, their short length, or the lack public 

use. These benefits would be further diminished if the wilderness recommendation is approved and 

33 miles of routes are re-opened for motorized vehicles in the Round, Catnip, and Devaney mountain 

portions of the refuge. 

Except for those portions of Sheldon Refuge opened to public use of motorized vehicles and at the 

nine remaining designated campgrounds, this alternative would have the least overall impact on 

opportunities for solitude. 

6.6.3.4 Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 

Even though up to four campgrounds would be consolidated (resulting in a fewer number of larger 

campgrounds), the current level of development at designated campgrounds would continue to 

maintain the primitive condition of these facilities. 

The primary actions under this alternative affecting primitive and unconfined recreation would be the 

designation of 76 fewer miles of semi-primitive motorized roads compared with Alternative 1 and 

the re-opening of 33 miles of routes (assuming the preferred wilderness recommendation is 

approved). However, routes closed under this alternative would continue to be used, but less 

frequently and only intermittently for administrative purposes. Beneficial impacts to opportunities 

for primitive recreation would be negligible or minor. Because the routes closed to public vehicle 

access under this alternative are considered redundant, are short dead-end routes, or are rarely used as 

access for wildlife-dependent uses—adverse impacts to opportunities for semi-primitive motorized 

recreation opportunities would also be considered negligible or minor. 

6.7 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects can result from the incremental effects of a project when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but cumulatively significant actions over a period of time. This analysis is 

intended to consider the interaction of activities at Sheldon Refuge and with other actions occurring 

over a larger spatial and temporal frame of reference. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-63 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the provisions of NEPA define 

several different types of effects that should be evaluated in an EIS including direct, indirect, and 

cumulative. Direct and indirect effects are addressed in the resource-specific sections of this 

CCP/EIS. This section addresses cumulative effects. 

The CEQ provides the following definition of cumulative effects (40 CFR § 1508.7): 

the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

It should be noted that the cumulative effects analysis has essentially been completed by virtue of the 

comprehensive nature by which direct and indirect effects associated with implementing the various 

alternatives was presented. The analysis in this section primarily focuses on effects of the preferred 

alternative actions associated with reasonably foreseeable future events and/or actions regardless of 

what entity undertakes that action. 

6.7.1 Non-CCP Actions Occurring within Sheldon Refuge 

6.7.1.1 Ongoing Mining Claim Access and Development within Virgin Valley 

Within the boundaries of Sheldon Refuge, Virgin Valley contains many active mining claims. 

Access to claims must be made available. Additional refuge facilities in the Virgin Valley area are 

likely to attract additional visitors to that part of Sheldon Refuge. The proposed visitor contact 

station would be located along Highway 140 at the turnoff for the Virgin Valley region of Sheldon 

Refuge. In addition, an auto tour route is proposed in the area (likely using the Virgin Valley Road 

between Highway 140 and the Virgin Valley Ranch). It is likely that some increased road congestion 

may be experienced in the areas also used for mining claims access. Developed vehicle pullouts 

should lessen potential congestion impacts. It is also likely that competition may increase for 

facilities such as campsites primarily used by rock collectors. 

A variety of activities associated with use of mining claims occurs within the Virgin Valley area of 

Sheldon Refuge. Major impacts associated with these activities are loss of habitat through mine 

development and excavation; wildlife displacement; increased soil erosion; reduced water quality in 

Virgin Creek from sedimentation, runoff, and drainage from mines and discarded rock debris; and 

introduction and spread of invasive non-native species, 

Impacts from public use within Virgin Valley are considered minor or negligible in comparison to 

those from mining activities. However, public uses and associated facilities proposed in the 

preferred alternative would have a slightly greater cumulative adverse impact on refuge resources. 

6.7.1.2 Ruby Pipeline Project 

Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby) has been issued permission through a Special Use Permit to use certain 

roads within Sheldon Refuge to access the pipeline construction route. The pipeline is being 

constructed south of Sheldon Refuge and not within any portion of Sheldon Refuge. In order to gain 

the extent of access Ruby required for pipeline construction, they have exchanged a 20-acre private 

inholding property for an easement to approximately 3.64 acres of Sheldon Refuge lands along Wall 

Canyon Road. The effects of this action were fully assessed in the Ruby Pipeline Project NEPA 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-64 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

process (FERC 2010; USFWS 2010b). The actions of the proposed CCP are not expected to have 

additional impacts to the habitats or refuge facilities associated with the Ruby Pipeline Project. The 

proposed CCP would apply management strategies consistently within Sheldon Refuge, including 

along the roads within Sheldon Refuge that are being used by Ruby for access to its construction 

zone. 

6.7.1.3 Sheldon Refuge Mineral Withdrawal Renewal 

On April 26, 2011, the mineral withdrawal for Sheldon Refuge was extended for 20 years by BLM 

Public Land Order 7761. The mineral withdrawal removes all but approximately 65,000 acres of 

Sheldon Refuge from mineral exploration. That means that approximately 446,000 acres of Sheldon 

Refuge are no longer open to staking mining claims and mineral exploration under the 1872 Mining 

Law. The strategies for management that are proposed in the CCP will be applied to the lands that 

are withdrawn from mineral location. The lands that remain open to mineral location/mining will 

need special consideration in the application of many of the CCP strategies. It will be challenging to 

apply some strategies to areas that are being actively mined. Cumulatively, the restricted ability to 

implement strategies is likely to result in continued negative impact to the resources occurring on 

those lands as described in Section 6.7.1.1. 

6.7.2 Past and Present Actions/Decisions Occurring outside Sheldon Refuge 

6.7.2.1 Pronghorn Management 

The actions proposed in the CCP/EIS support improved pronghorn habitats. As a result, it is 

expected that the regional populations of the species will also experience a positive effect when 

considered in the context of other regional management decisions. Little scientific information is 

available to substantiate the migration corridors for the regional pronghorn populations. Anecdotal 

information and incidental observations support the opinion that pronghorn migrate between Sheldon 

Refuge and Hart Mountain to the north, parts of the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant 

Trails National Conservation Area to the south, and the Long Valley and Coleman, Nevada areas to 

the west. The NDOW objective of pronghorn management is to protect, maintain, or increase the 

resource for the enjoyment and use by the people now and in the future (Tsukamoto 1983). The 

management actions in the preferred alternative support the State’s management objective and will 

aid in maintaining the migration corridors in northwestern Nevada. 

6.7.2.2 Sage-grouse Management 

Sheldon Refuge Greater sage-grouse habitat management strategies reinforce management guidelines 

developed for Nevada. The Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern 

California (Sage-grouse Conservation Team 2004) identifies several conservation strategies 

including implementation and coordination approaches. USFWS is described in the conservation 

plan as an active partner in sage-grouse conservation efforts in both planning and implementing 

conservation strategies in Nevada and California. The Sheldon Refuge CCP strategies parallel and 

support the 2004 Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California. Habitat 

management actions of the preferred alternative would focus on improving sagebrush habitats. 

Sagebrush habitat improvements would primarily occur in the western portions of Sheldon Refuge. 

CCP management strategies for juniper removal in areas of encroachment also support improving 

and increasing sage-grouse habitat. Oregon has also drafted a Greater sage-grouse strategy for 

conservation (see Section 6.7.3.3). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 6-65 

6.7.2.3 Wilderness Management 

The areas proposed for wilderness management within Sheldon Refuge will complement the adjacent 

areas proposed or actively managed for wilderness by surrounding BLM districts. There are several 

areas within Sheldon Refuge that are proposed for wilderness areas (PWA) or wilderness study areas 

(PWSA). Of these, five are bounded by the refuge boundary in one area or another. Those five are 

Round Mountain PWA, Rye Creek PWA, Sage Hen Hills PWA, Big Mountain PWA, and Big Spring 

Table PWSA. Areas outside the refuge boundaries and adjacent to these PWAs and PWSA are BLM 

lands and are either currently managed as wilderness or have the potential for designation as 

wilderness. Management of the PWAs and PWSA within Sheldon Refuge will have a positive effect 

on the greater wilderness character of the adjacent BLM areas. The management strategies proposed 

for the Sheldon Refuge units will not only complement the wilderness character of the adjacent units, 

it will have a regionally beneficial impact of greater opportunities for a wilderness experience. 

6.7.2.4 BLM Resource Management Plans 

Lakeview, Andrews, Sonoma-Gerlach, Surprise, and Black Rock Desert—High Rock Canyon 

Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area 

Grazing allotments 

The BLM lands surrounding Sheldon Refuge are managed for multiple uses including grazing 

allotments. Grazing impacts to habitat have been discussed in detail in earlier sections of this 

analysis. It is expected that the animals that migrate on and off Sheldon Refuge (pronghorn, Greater 

sage-grouse, mule deer, etc.) will be impacted by the lesser quality habitat. Continued livestock 

grazing on public lands adjacent to Sheldon Refuge will adversely affect wildlife by indirectly 

limiting population numbers via changes in habitat quality and amount (BLM 2007b). Grazing 

allotments adjacent to Sheldon Refuge are currently not meeting Proper Functional Condition due to 

a variety of factors (including livestock grazing and management) and are being managed to improve 

unsatisfactory rangeland conditions (BLM 2003, 2006). 

Herd Management Areas 

During the five-year removal period, it is likely that there will be a higher level of competition for 

adoption facility services. BLM manages several HMAs on the lands surrounding Sheldon Refuge 

and also relies on the same adoption market and facilities as does the Service. In addition, the 

current wild/feral horse and burro adoption market is relatively saturated. As a result, Sheldon 

Refuge and BLM may be in direct competition for both adoption facility services as well as the 

adoption market. 

In addition, most of the HMAs surrounding Sheldon Refuge are exceeding their appropriate 

management levels. As a result, the same habitat degradation resulting from grazing pressures 

discussed above will also be present in the HMAs. Animals that migrate on and off Sheldon Refuge 

will be subjected to competing for this degraded habitat as well. Sheldon Refuge has entered into a 

cooperative agreement with BLM offices in Nevada, California, and Oregon to improve horse 

population monitoring and maintenance of management facilities such as boundary fences. 

Coordinated efforts as part of this agreement should improve the effectiveness and efficiency for 

management of Sheldon Refuge and the surrounding HMAs. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

6-66 Chapter 6. Environmental Consequences 

Amount of habitat open/closed to vehicle use 

The preferred alternative includes opening a number of existing primitive unmaintained routes that 

are currently closed to public use. Many of the resource management plans for surrounding BLM 

areas include reducing the number of roads that are open to the public. Cumulatively, the increased 

road access areas on Sheldon Refuge may reduce pressure on BLM lands for access to remote areas. 

Amount of habitat open/closed to livestock grazing, energy development, mining, rights-of-way, 

and other developments 

As surrounding BLM districts implement their respective resource management plans, which include 

areas for livestock grazing, energy development, mining, rights-of-way development, and other 

economic use developments, habitat will be incrementally degraded. Like the impacts described 

above for grazing and HMA strategies, species migrating on and off Sheldon Refuge will face 

increased competition for degraded habitat resources. 

6.7.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Adjacent to or near Sheldon Refuge 

6.7.3.1 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan 

The BLM Winnemucca District is developing a resource management plan. The draft management 

plan EIS has been published; however, a ROD has not been signed and, thus, the selected alternative 

has not yet been published. Similar to the cumulative impacts described above regarding effects 

from the Sheldon Refuge CCP on other resource management plans, it is expected the CCP will have 

little, if any, cumulative impacts with the Winnemucca District Resource Management Plan. 

6.7.3.2 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon 

As with Nevada and eastern California sage-grouse conservation plan, the CCP’s preferred 

alternative strategies support the Oregon sage-grouse conservation plan, which was adopted in April 

2011. The management strategies outlined in the CCP’s preferred alternative are in alignment with 

action guidelines described in the draft Oregon plan. The cumulative impacts expected from the 

CCP actions in relation to the Oregon sage-grouse conservation plan are beneficial. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix A. Public Involvement A-1 

Appendix A. Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Public 

Involvement 

Public involvement for the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS involved a number of announcements, Refuge 

planning updates, and meetings, both formal and informal. In response to these efforts, Sheldon 

Refuge received thousands of letters, emails, and phone calls from interested members of the public, 

non-profit organizations, state government agencies, and other federal agencies. This appendix 

summarizes the process used to involve the public and other interested parties. 

Formal scoping for the EIS occurred between May 12, 2008, and June 30, 2008. As part of the 

formal scoping process, Sheldon Refuge issued a notice in the Federal Register and a planning 

update to notify the affected public of the opportunity to participate in the preparation of the CCP and 

encourage them to comment on preliminary refuge vision and goals; help identify potential issues, 

management actions and concerns, significant problems or impacts; and pursue opportunities or 

alternatives to resolve them (602 FW 3, 3.4(2b)). In addition, public meetings were held in area 

communities, and several additional meetings were held with the State of Nevada and key 

stakeholder groups. Following this formal scoping period, Sheldon Refuge contracted with an 

independent third party to produce a written report and summary of all scoping comments received. 

The full scoping report is available at the Sheldon Refuge planning webpage or upon written request. 

After public scoping the planning team reviewed and evaluated all potential issues, management 

concerns, and problems and the opportunities to resolve them that the planning team, other Service 

personnel, partners, and the public identified in order to determine significant issues. The Service 

defines an issue as: “Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an initiative, 

opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition (602 FW 1 1.6 K).” Significant 

issues typically are those that are within our jurisdiction, suggest different actions or alternatives, and 

will influence our decision (602 FW 3, 3.4(3b)). 

After significant planning issues were identified, a second planning update for the Sheldon Refuge 

CCP was distributed to the public in April 2009. This planning update summarized the significant 

planning issues and scoping comments submitted. A preliminary set of draft management 

alternatives was developed based on scoping comments, expert opinion, and management policy. 

These preliminary draft alternatives, including the Service’s preferred alternative, were presented to 

the public in a third planning update in June 2010, and comments from the public were solicited at 

that time. Following the release of the planning update, additional meetings were held with the State 

of Nevada and key stakeholder groups. Based upon comments received, Sheldon Refuge modified 

the preliminary draft alternatives to develop the alternatives presented in this CCP. 

Outreach Efforts 

Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare a CCP—published May 12, 2008 

The Federal Register Notice included background information on Sheldon Refuge and preliminary 

issues with request for scoping comments. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

A-2 Appendix A. Public Involvement 

Planning Update #1 

The May 2008 Planning Update #1 was made available to USFWS staff and the general public 

throughout the scoping period, with 450 of 500 hardcopies distributed to Refuge office visitors and 

partners, scoping meeting attendees, and 66 individuals and 35 organizations on the mailing list. An 

electronic copy of the Planning Update was available for visitors to the USFWS website 

(http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/NV/docssheldon.htm), and the website address was 

also included in a Dear Interested Party notification email to 2,722 interested parties and USFWS 

staff members nationwide. The planning update included background information on Sheldon 

Refuge in addition to the preliminary goals and issues to be considered in the CCP. Information 

about the CCP process, an invitation to attend four public open house meetings, and a solicitation for 

comments were also included. 

Planning Update #2 

The April 2009 Planning Update #2 was mailed to all interested parties and summarized the results 

of the formal scoping process as part of the NEPA planning process. 

Planning Update #3 

The June 2010 Planning Update #3 was mailed to all interested parties and outlined the Service’s 

preliminary alternatives for the Sheldon Refuge CCP. 

Media Outreach and Press Coverage 

A news release, entitled “Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Kicks Off Comprehensive Conservation 

Planning with Four Public Open House Meetings,” was released on May 5, 2008. The release was 

sent to a list serve of 45 media contacts and it was also posted on the Service’s Region 1 website 

(accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/2008/SheldonCCPNR.pdf). The news release and 

associated planning activities resulted in various subsequent media articles. 

Scoping Meetings 

The scoping meetings began with a PowerPoint presentation giving an overview of Sheldon Refuge 

and the importance and logistics of the CCP process. Following the presentation, there were four 

informational tables staffed by refuge employees available to receive public questions. 

The informational tables each featured different topics: wildlife and habitat management, public use 

and facilities, feral horses and burros, and the planning process. Presentations were given by the 

Project Leader with support from the Deputy Project Leader and Natural Resource Planner. Scoping 

meeting locations, dates, and times were as follows: 

 Lakeview, Oregon, May 14, 2008, 6:00-9:00 pm 

 Denio, Nevada, May 21, 2008, 6:00-9:00 pm 

 Winnemuccca, Nevada, May 22, 2008, 6:00-9:00 pm 

 Alturas, California, June 4, 2008, 6:00-9:00 pm 

 Reno, Nevada, June 11, 2008, 6:00-9:00 pm 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix A. Public Involvement A-3 

Meeting Invitations Mailed to Tribal Officials 

A letter soliciting input from representatives of five tribes was mailed on September 4, 2008. This 

letter was mailed on behalf of Paul Steblein to the Burns Paiute Tribe, Fort Bidwell Paiute Tribe, 

Cedarville Rancheria Paiute Tribe, Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, and Summit Lake 

Paiute Tribe to invite their participation throughout the process. 

An email soliciting input from the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe to conduct formal consultation was sent 

August 6, 2010. 

Meetings with Congressional Representatives and Senators or their Aides 

Nevada State Legislature, Committee on Public Lands, Lovelock, Nevada, August 22, 2008 

 USFWS Participants: Paul Steblein 

 Other Participants: Approximately 60 people including citizens and staff from state agencies, 

federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations 

Nevada Congressional Representatives, August 2010 

 USFWS Participants: Robin West, Paul Steblein 

 Other Participants: Congressman Heller’s staff representative, Senator Reid’s staff 

representative 

Meetings with State Agency Representatives 

Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), Reno, Nevada, March 19, 2008 

 USFWS Participants: Paul Steblein, Regional Refuge Chiefs, Field Supervisors, Planning 

Chief, and Project Leaders for Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex and Desert Refuge 

Complex 

 Other Participants: NDOW Director, Deputy Director, and Division Chiefs 

NDOW, Reno, Nevada, August 26, 2010 

 USFWS Participants: Paul Steblein, Regional Refuge Chiefs, Field Supervisors, Planning 

Chief, and Project Leaders for Regions 1 and 8, Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex, 

Desert Refuge Complex, Stillwater Refuge, and Ruby Lake Refuge 

 Other Participants: NDOW Director, Deputy Director, and Division Chiefs 

Meetings with County Representatives 

Modoc/Washoe Experimental Stewardship Program, Cedarville, Nevada, May 29, 2008 

 USFWS Participants: Paul Steblein 

 Other Participants: Approximately 30 people including public land managers and supporting 

staff, Natural Resource Conservation Service staff, local government officials, ranchers, and 

small business owners 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

A-4 Appendix A. Public Involvement 

Humboldt County Supervisor and Commissioners, Winnemucca, Nevada, July 21, 2008 

 USFWS Participants: Paul Steblein 

 Other Participants: Humboldt County supervisors and commissioners and approximately 20 

citizens 

Meetings with Federal Agency Representatives 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) District Managers, Lakeview, Oregon, November 7, 2007 

 USFWS Participants: Paul Steblein, Sheldon-Hart Mountain staff 

 Other Participants: BLM District Managers for Lake County District, Burns District, 

Winnemucca District, Surprise Valley Resource Area, Oregon State Horse Specialist, U.S. 

Geological Survey Project Leader for Horse and Burro Research 

Meetings with Non-government Organizations 

Nevada Bighorn Unlimited and Nevada Wildlife Coalition, Board of Directors, Reno, Nevada, June 

10, 2008 

 USFWS Participants: Paul Steblein 

 Other Participants: Approximately 35 members of both Boards of Directors 

Sierra Club, Tioyobe Chapter, Reno, Nevada, June 11, 2008 

 USFWS Participants: Paul Steblein 

 Other Participants: Three members of Board of Directors 

Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Reno, Nevada, June 12, 2008 

 USFWS Participants: Paul Steblein 

 Other Participants: President of organization 

Friends of Sheldon, Winnemucca, Nevada, August 21, 2008 

 USFWS Participants: Paul Steblein 

 Other Participants: Approximately 20 members, including wildlife sportsmen group 

members 

Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Sierra Club, Nevada Bighorn Unlimited, Nevada Wildlife Coalition, 

and Safari Club International, Reno, Nevada, August 26, 2010 

 USFWS Participants: Paul Steblein and Aaron Collins 

 Other Participants: Approximately 60 members from the attending organizations. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix A. Public Involvement A-5 

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Public 

Involvement 

Public involvement for the Final CCP/EIS included publication of a Notice of Availability in the 

Federal Register, a media press release, a Refuge planning update, and meetings with state agencies 

and local organizations interested in the Draft CCP/EIS. 

The Service released the Draft CCP/EIS on September 9, 2011, for formal public review and 

comment. This comment period closed November 8, 2011. During the formal comment period, the 

Service received 401 comment responses from 1,709 agencies, organizations, and individuals1

. Five 

comments were submitted after the closing date of the comment period. 

Key issues raised through comment were those identified in the CCP. The majority of comments 

expressed support or opposition for a particular alternative, or for particular actions in one or more 

alternatives. 

A summary of the comments received and the Service’s response to comments are included in 

Appendix N. 

Federal Register Notice of Availability for the Draft CCP/EIS 

The Federal Register notice, published September 9, 2011, included background information on 

Sheldon Refuge, the planning process, and a summary of alternatives included in the Draft CCP/EIS. 

Information was provided for public review and comment on the draft document. 

Planning Update #4 

We mailed a fourth planning update to more than 4,500 interested individuals, organizations, and 

agencies. This planning update included a description and summary table for the alternatives in the 

Draft CCP/EIS—including the Service’s preferred alternative. The planning update provided 

information for obtaining a complete copy of the Draft CCP/EIS and for submitting comments. 

Direct Mailings 

We mailed complete electronic and paper copies of the Draft CCP/EIS to state and federal agencies, 

the Summit Lake Paiute Tribal Council, congressional representatives in Nevada and Oregon, and 

local public libraries. Additional copies were mailed to individuals and organizations upon request. 

Media Outreach and Press Coverage 

We mailed local media a news release announcing availability of the Draft CCP/EIS for public 

comment and a detailed question-and-answer document related to our proposed actions to address 

significant issues included in the plan. The press release resulted in at least one article in a local 

newspaper. 

                                                           

1

 Identical copies of responses were submitted by 1,308 individuals. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

A-6 Appendix A. Public Involvement 

Meetings with State Agency Representatives 

NDOW 

 USFWS Participants: Region 1 Chief of Refuges, Refuge Supervisor, and Chief of Planning 

and Visitor Services; Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex Project 

Leader, Deputy Project Leader, and Park Ranger/Recreation Planner; Sheldon Refuge 

Manager 

 NDOW Participants: Director, Supervisory Habitat Biologist 

Meetings with County Representatives 

Humboldt County Commissioners Meeting, Winnemucca Nevada—October 17, 2011 

 USFWS Participants: Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex Project Leader and Park 

Ranger/Recreation Planner 

Meetings with Non-government Organizations 

Lions Club Regular Meeting, Winnemucca Nevada—October, 2011 

 USFWS Participants: Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex Park Ranger/Recreation 

Planner 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix B. Species List B-1 

Appendix B. Species List
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

B-2 Appendix B. Species List 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Appendix B. Species List B-3 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

A= All life history requirements; B= Breeding; C=Cover; F=Foraging; M=Migrant; N=Nesting/Rearing/Fauning/Lambing; R= Roosting; S=Seasonal; X= Benefiting Species; SCP=Species of Conservation Priority

Amphibians Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Int A A SCP Columbia Spotted frog Rana luteiventris Nat X A A Candidate SCP Great Basin spadefoot toad Scaphiopus intermontanus Nat X X SCP Pacific treefrog Hyla regilla Nat SCP Birds American avocet Recurvirostra americana Nat N N N, M, B, F N SCP American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Nat N N X N SCP American coot Fulica americana Nat SCP American goldfinch Carduelis tristis Nat X SCP American kestrel Falco sparverius Nat F F F F F SCP American robin Turdus migratorius Nat SCP American wigeon Anas americana Nat SCP Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Nat B X SCP Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Nat F F F F F X Listed Threatened SCP Bank swallow Riparia riparia Nat X SCP Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Nat SCP Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Nat SCP Black rosy finch Leucosticte atrata Nat X SCP Black swift Cypseloides niger Nat SCP 
B-4 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Black tern Chlidonias niger Nat S S S S SCP Black-billed magpie Pica pica Nat SCP Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus Nat SCP Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax Nat SM SM SM SM SCP Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Nat X X SCP Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Nat N N N N SCP Black-throated gray warbler Dendroica nigrescens Nat B SCP Black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Nat SCP Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptile caerulea Nat B X SCP Blue-winged teal Anas discors Nat N N N N SCP Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Nat X X X X SCP Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Nat X X X X SCP Brewer’s sparrow Spezella breweri Nat X X X SCP Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus Nat X B SCP Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Nat SCP Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Nat SCP California gull Larus californicus Nat SCP California quail Lophortyx californicus Int SCP Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope Nat X X X X B SCP Canada goose Branta candensis Nat N N N N SCP Canvasback Aythya valisineria Nat N N N N SCP Canyon wren Catherpes mexicaus Nat B SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-5 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Caspian tern Hydoprogne caspia Nat SCP Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii Nat B X SCP Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Nat X SCP Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Nat X SCP Chukar Alectoris graeca Nat SCP Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera Nat N N N N X SCP Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii Nat S S S S SCP Cliff swallow Petrocelidon pyrrhonota Nat B SCP Common bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Nat SCP Common crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Nat SCP Common egret Casmerodius albus Nat SCP Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Nat SCP Common loon Gavia immer Nat A SCP Common merganser Mergus merganser Nat SCP Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Nat SCP Common poorwill Phalaenoptilis nuttallii Nat SCP Common raven Corvus corax Nat B SCP Common snipe Capella galliango Nat N N N N SCP Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Nat SCP Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii Nat X N, M SCP Curve-billed thrasher Toxostoma cirvirostre Nat SCP Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Nat SCP Dipper Cinclus mexicanus Nat SCP Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Nat SM SM SM SM SCP Downy woodpecker Dendrocopos pubescens Nat X SCP 
B-6 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri Nat B B SCP Eared grebe Podiceps caspicus Nat S S S S SCP Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Nat SCP European starling Sturnus vulgaris Nat SCP Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Nat F F F F F F N X Candidate SCP Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri Nat S S S S SCP Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca Nat X X X X B SCP Gadwall Anas strepera Nat N N N N SCP Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Nat F F F F F N B SCP Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Nat X SCP Gray flycatcher Empidonax wrightii Nat S N, B SCP Great blue heron Ardea herodias Nat SCP Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Nat X N SCP Greater sage-grouse Centrocerus urophasianus Nat N N, B X N N N Candidate SCP Greater sandhill crane 

Grus canadensis Nat N,SM SM N, S, M, B, F X SCP 

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleucus Nat S S S S SCP Green-tailed towhee Chlorura chlorura Nat X X SCP Green-winged teal Anas carolinensis Nat N N N N SCP Hairy woodpecker Dendrocopos villosus Nat X SCP Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Nat X SCP Hermit thrush Cathearus guttata Nat SCP Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Nat SCP Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Nat S S S S SCP Horned lark Eremophila alpestris Nat S B SCP House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-7 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

House sparrow Passer domesticus Nat SCP House wren Troglodytes aedon Nat SCP Hungarian (gray) partridge Perdix peridix Nat SCP Juniper titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi Nat N, B SCP Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Nat N N N N SCP Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Nat S SCP Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena Nat B, N, M B SCP Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla Nat X SCP Lesser scaup Aythya affinis Nat SCP Lesser yellowlegs Trina flavipes Nat S S S S SCP Lewis’ woodpecker Asyndesmus lewis Nat B SCP Lincoln’s sparrow Melospinza lincolnii Nat SCP Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Nat S X X SCP Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Nat B, F X X X SCP Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Nat X SCP Long-billed marsh wren Telmatodyts palustris Nat SCP Long-eared owl Asio otus Nat F F F F F F X SCP MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei Nat B X SCP Mallard Anas platyrynchos Nat N N N N SCP Merlin Falco columbarius Nat SCP Mountain bluebird Sailia Currucoides Nat B X X X SCP Mountain chickadee Parus gambeli Nat B SCP Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus Nat S SCP Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Nat SCP 
B-8 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Nat X SCP Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Nat B SCP Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Nat N, R, F N Candidate SCP Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Nat F F F F F SCP Northern oriole Icterus galbula Nat B SCP Northern phalarope Lobipes lobatus Nat SCP Northern phalarope Lobipes lobatus Nat X SCP Northern pintail Anas acuta Nat N N N N SCP Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus Nat X N SCP Northern shoveler Anas clypeata Nat N N N N SCP Northern shrike Lanius excubitor Nat F X X SCP Olive-sided flycatcher Nuttallornis borealis Nat X X SCP Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata Nat B X SCP Osprey Pandion haliaetus Nat X SCP Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Nat X 

Listed 

Endangere

d 

SCP 

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Nat S S S S SCP Pine siskin Spinus spinus Nat X SCP Plain titmouse Parus inornatus Nat SCP Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Nat F X N, B SCP Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus Nat SCP Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Nat X SCP Red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber Nat X SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-9 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Redhead Aythya americana Nat N N N N SCP Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis Nat R, N, F X SCP Redtailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Nat F F X N SCP Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Nat X X X X SCP Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis Nat SCP Ring-necked duck Aythya colalris Nat SCP Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus Nat SCP Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus Nat B SCP Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus Nat F F F F F N SCP Rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Nat B SCP Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Nat B SCP Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis Nat N N N N SCP Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Nat X X X B SCP Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythophthalmus Nat SCP Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli Nat N X SCP Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes monatus Nat N X SCP Savannah sparrow Paserculus sandwichensis Nat B X X X X SCP Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Nat S B SCP Screech owl Otus asio Nat SCP Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus Nat X N SCP Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Nat F F F F F SCP Snow goose Chen caerulescens Nat SCP Snowy egret Egretta thula Nat X X SCP 
B-10 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria Nat S S S S SCP Song sparrow Melospinza melodia Nat SCP Sora rail Porzana carolina Nat N N N N SCP Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia Nat N N N N SCP Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Nat X F F F F X X SCP Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus Nat B SCP Townsend’s solitare Myaestes townsendi Nat B SCP Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi Nat X SCP Tree swallow Iridoprocne bicolor Nat B SCP Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Nat SCP Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius Nat X SCP Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Nat S B X X X X SCP Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina Nat B SCP Virginia rail Rallus limicola Nat N N N N SCP Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Nat B SCP Water pipit Anthus spinoletta Nat SCP Western bluebird Sialia mexicana Nat X X X X X N SCP Western burrowing owl Speotyto cunicalaria Nat X N, B SCP Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Nat X A SCP Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Nat S SCP Western least bittern Ixobrychus exilis hesperis Nat X X SCP Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Nat S B SCP Western sandpiper Calidris mauri Nat S S S S SCP Western screech owl Otus asio Nat F F F F X SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-11 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Western scrub jay Aphelocoma californica Nat B SCP Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus Nat S S S S SCP Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana Nat X SCP Western wood pewee Contopus sordidulus Nat SCP Whistling swan Olor columbianus Nat SCP White pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Nat SCP White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Nat SCP White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Nat Vulnerable SCP White-fronted goose Anser albifrons Nat SCP White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis Nat S B SCP Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Nat N N N N SCP Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii Nat X SCP Wilson’s phalarope Steganopus tricolor Nat N N N N SCP Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla Nat N, B SCP Wood duck Aix sponsa Nat SCP Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Nat B SCP Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Nat SCP Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens Nat N, B SCP Yellow-headed blackbird 

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Nat A SCP 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendrocia coronata Nat B SCP 
B-12 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Fishes Alvord chub Gila alvordensis Nat A SCP Alvord cutthroat trout 

Oncorhynchus clarki alvordensis Nat A A 

Extinct / 

Endangere

d 

SCP 

Brown trout Salmo trutta Int SCP Guppy Poecilia reticulata Int SCP Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Nat X A 

Reintroduc

ed 

/Threatene

d 

SCP 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Int SCP Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Int SCP Pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus Int SCP Rainbow / Alvord cutthroat trout hybrid 

Salom gairdneri xOncorhynchus clarki Hyb X SCP 

Rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri Int X SCP Sheldon tui chub Gila bicolor eurysoma Nat A A SCP White crappie Poxomis annularis Int SCP Yellow perch Perca flavescens Int SCP Invertebrates (aquatic) 

Aeschna interrupta nevadensis Nat A X SCP Agabus spp. Nat A X SCP Agapetus sp. Nat A X SCP Ametor scabrosus Nat A X SCP Amphiagrion abbreviatum Nat A X SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-13 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Apsectrotanypus sp. Nat A X SCP Argia nr. vivida Nat A X SCP Argia sp. (nr. Hyponeura lugens) Nat A X SCP Arrenurus sp. Nat A X SCP Artemia nr. franciscana Nat A X SCP Baetis sp. Nat A X SCP Belonia saturata Nat A X SCP Belostoma bakeri Nat A X SCP Berosus nr. styliferus Nat A X SCP Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. Nat A X SCP Branchinecta coloradensis Nat A X SCP Branchinecta gigas Nat A X SCP Brillia sp. Nat A X SCP Buenoa sp. Nat A X SCP Caenestheriella setosa Nat A X SCP Caenis sp. Nat A X SCP Callibaetis nr. californicus Nat A X SCP Cenocorixa wileyae Nat A X SCP Ceratopogon sp. Nat A X SCP Ceriodaphnia reticulata Nat A X SCP Chaetocladius nr. vitellinus group 

Nat A X SCP 

Chaoborus sp. Nat A X SCP Chironomus sp. Nat A X SCP Chrysops sp. Nat A X SCP Cinygmula spp. Nat A X SCP 
B-14 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Cleptelmis addenda Nat A X SCP Clinocera (Hydrodromia) sp. Nat A X SCP Coenagrion/Enallagma sp. Nat A X SCP Colymbetes nr. rugipennis Nat A X SCP Coptotomus nr. longulus Nat A X SCP Coptotomus sp. Nat A X SCP Corynoneura lobata Nat A X SCP Corynoneura nr. lacustris Nat A X SCP Corynoneura scutellata Nat A X SCP Cricotopus nr. bicintus group Nat A X SCP Cricotopus sp. Nat A X SCP Cricotopus sylvestris group Nat A X SCP Cricotopus tremulus group Nat A X SCP Cricotopus trifascia group Nat A X SCP Cryptotendipes sp. Nat A X SCP Cypridopsis nr. vidua Nat A X SCP Daphnia middendorffiana Nat A X SCP Daphnia nr. schodleri Nat A X SCP Daphnia pulex Nat A X SCP Derotanypus sp. Nat A X SCP Diamesa sp. Nat A X SCP Diaphanosoma birgei Nat A X SCP Dicranota sp. Nat A X SCP Dixa sp. Nat A X SCP Dixella sp. Nat A X SCP Dugesia nr. dorotocephala Nat A X SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-15 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Dytiscus nr. marginicollis Nat A X SCP Dytiscus sp. Nat A X SCP Enallagma boreale Nat A X SCP Enallagma civile Nat A X SCP Enallagma clausum Nat A X SCP Enochrus nr. cristatus Nat A X SCP Enochrus nr. hamiltoni Nat A X SCP Epeorus (Iron) albertae Nat A X SCP Ephemerella infrequens Nat A X SCP Ephydra (Hydropyrus) hians Nat A X SCP Erpetogomphus (nr.

designatus) Nat A X SCP 

Erpobdella punctata Nat A X SCP Eubrianax edwardsi (?) Nat A X SCP Eukiefferiella claripennis group 

Nat A X SCP 

Eukiefferiella gracei group Nat A X SCP Eukiefferiella nr. brehmi Nat A X SCP Eukiefferiella nr.

pseudomontana Nat A X SCP 

Eukiefferiella sp. undetermined Nat A X SCP Gammarus lacustris Nat A X SCP Gerris incognitus Nat A X SCP Gerris incurvatus Nat A X SCP Gerris nr. gillettei Nat A X SCP Gerris nyctalis Nat A X SCP Gerris remigis Nat A X SCP Glossiphonia complanata Nat A X SCP 
B-16 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Glyptotendipes sp. Group A (Wiederholm) Nat A X SCP Gordius sp. Nat A X SCP Graphoderus sp. Nat A X SCP Gumaga sp. Nat A X SCP Gyraulus sp. Nat A X SCP Gyrinus consobrinus Nat A X SCP Haemopis marmorata Nat A X SCP Haliplus robertsi Nat A X SCP Haliplus sp. undetermined Nat A X SCP Helisoma sp. Nat A X SCP Helobdella stagnalis Nat A X SCP Helophorus nr. lecontei Nat A X SCP Hesperocorixa laevigata Nat A X SCP Hesperodiaptomus eiseni Nat A X SCP Hesperodiaptomus franciscanus Nat A X SCP Hesperodiaptomus nevadensis Nat A X SCP Hesperophylax sp. Nat A X SCP Heterlimnius corpulentus Nat A X SCP Hyallela azteca Nat A X SCP Hydrachna sp. Nat A X SCP Hydrobius fuscipes Nat A X SCP Hydroporus sp. Nat A X SCP Hydropsyche oslari Nat A X SCP Hydroptila sp. Nat A X SCP Hygrotus masculinus Nat A X SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-17 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Hygrotus nr. collatus Nat A X SCP Hygrotus nr. tumidiventris Nat A X SCP Hygrotus sp. undetermined Nat A X SCP Ischnura cervula Nat A X SCP Ischnura sp. undetermined Nat A X SCP Isoperla nr. quinquepunctata Nat A X SCP Juga (Oreobasis) laurae Nat A X SCP Laccobius nr. agilis Nat A X SCP Laccobius nr. nevadensis Nat A X SCP Laccophilus decipiens Nat A X SCP Lamproscatella (Haloscatella)nr. nivosa Nat A X SCP Larsia sp. Nat A X SCP Lepidostoma sp. (turret case) Nat A X SCP Lepidurus lemmoni Nat A X SCP Lestes congener Nat A X SCP Libellula (nr. forensis) Nat A X SCP Limnephilus sp. Nat A X SCP Limnesia sp. Nat A X SCP Limnophora sp. Nat A X SCP Limoniinae sp. (undetermined) Nat A X SCP Listronotus sp. Nat A X SCP Lynceus brachyurus Nat A X SCP Malenka sp. Nat A X SCP Megalocypris nr. alba Nat A X SCP Meropelopia sp. Nat A X SCP Metriocnemus hygropetricus Nat A X SCP 
B-18 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

group 

Microcylloepus similis Nat A X SCP Microcylloepus thermarum Nat A X SCP Micropsectra sp. Nat A X SCP Microtendipes pedellus group Nat A X SCP Nanocladius nr. bicolor group Nat A X SCP Narpus concolor Nat A X SCP Notonecta kirbyi Nat A X SCP Notonecta sp. Nat A X SCP Notonecta undulata Nat A X SCP nr. Ergasilus sp. Nat A X SCP nr. Huitfeldtia rectipes Nat A X SCP nr. Hyperodes sp. Nat A X SCP Ochrotrichia sp. Nat A X SCP Ochthebius nr. interruptus Nat A X SCP Ochthebius sp. undetermined Nat A X SCP Odondomyia (Odontomyia) sp. Nat A X SCP Odontomyia (Catatasina) sp. Nat A X SCP Oecetis nr. sp. A (Floyd 1995) Nat A X SCP Oecetis sp. undetermined Nat A X SCP Oigochaeta - unidentified Nat A X SCP Ophiogomphus nr. morrisoni Nat A X SCP Optioservus divergens Nat A X SCP Optioservus quadrimaculatus Nat A X SCP Ormosia sp. Nat A X SCP Orthocladinae spp.(undetermined) Nat A X SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-19 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Ostracoda - unidentified Nat A X SCP Oxyethira sp. Nat A X SCP Pagastia sp. Nat A X SCP Paraleptophlebia sp. Nat A X SCP Parapsyche sp. Nat A X SCP Paratanytarsus sp. Nat A X SCP Parochlus sp. Nat A X SCP Parydra (Chaetoapnaea) nr.

pedalis Nat A X SCP 

Pelina trunculata Nat A X SCP Peltodytes callosus Nat A X SCP Pericoma sp. Nat A X SCP Phaenopsectra sp. Nat A X SCP Physa sp. Nat A X SCP Physella sp. Nat A X SCP Piona sp. Nat A X SCP Pisidium sp. Nat A X SCP Polycentropus sp. Nat A X SCP Potamocypris sp. A Nat A X SCP Potamocypris sp. B (thermal) Nat A X SCP Potamonectes griseostriatus Nat A X SCP Potamonectes striatellus Nat A X SCP Procladius (nr. Holotanypus)sp.

Nat A X SCP 

Procladius sp. Nat A X SCP Psectrocladius nr. flavus Nat A X SCP Psectrocladius nr. psilopterus 

group 

Nat A X SCP 
B-20 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Psectrocladius sordidellus group 

Nat A X SCP 

Psectrotanypus sp. Nat A X SCP Pseudodiamesa (Pseudodiamesa) sp. Nat A X SCP Pyrgulopsis sp. Nat A X SCP Rhantus binotatus Nat A X SCP Rhantus gutticollis Nat A X SCP Rheotanytarsus sp. Nat A X SCP Rhyacophila sibirica group (nr. visor) Nat A X SCP Scatella (Scatella) obsoleta group 

Nat A X SCP 

Scirtes sp. Nat A X SCP Setacera aldrichi Nat A X SCP Sialis sp. Nat A X SCP Sigara nr. nevadensis Nat A X SCP Sigara omani Nat A X SCP Simulium sp. Nat A X SCP Stagnicola sp. Nat A X SCP Sweltsa sp. Nat A X SCP Synorthocladius sp. Nat A X SCP Tanytarsus sp. Nat A X SCP Thaumalea sp. Nat A X SCP Thermacarus - sp. nova (new 

species) Nat A X SCP 

Thermacarus nevadensis Nat A X SCP Thienemannia nr. gracilis Nat A X SCP Thienemanniella nr. Nat A X SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-21 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

clavicornis 

Thienemanniella nr. similis Nat A X SCP Thienemannimyia sp. Nat A X SCP Triaenodes nr. ignitus Nat A X SCP Tricorythodes nr. minutus Nat A X SCP Tropisternus ellipticus Nat A X SCP Tropisternus lateralis Nat A X SCP Tvetenia bavarica group Nat A X SCP Unidentified sp. Nat A X SCP Wormaldia sp. Nat A X SCP Zaitzevia parvula Nat A X SCP 

Invertebrate - Butterfly Alexander’s sulpher Colias alexandra Nat SCP Alpine green hairstreak Callophrys lemberti Nat SCP Ampelo ringlet Coenonympha ampelos Nat SCP Anicia checkerspot Euphydryas anicia Nat SCP Anise Swallowtail Papilio zelicaon Nat SCP Arrowhead Blue Glaucopsyche piasus Nat SCP Becker’s White Pontia beckerii Nat SCP Behr’s hairstreak Satyrium behrii Nat SCP Blue cooper Lycaena heteronea Nat SCP Blue spp. Euphilotes spp. Nat SCP Boisduval’s blue Plebejus icarioides Nat SCP Branded skipper Hesperia comma Nat SCP 
B-22 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

California hairstreak Satyrium califonicum Nat SCP California tortoiseshell Nymphalis californica Nat SCP Callipi fritialley Speyeria callippe Nat SCP Chalcedon checkerspot Euphydryas chalcedona Nat SCP Checkered skipper Prygus communis Nat SCP Checkered White Pontia protodice Nat SCP Clouded Sulphur Colias philodice Nat SCP Colon’s checkerspot Euphydryas colon Nat SCP Coronis’ fritialley Speyeria coronis Nat SCP Edith’s checkerspot Euphydryas editha Nat SCP Edith’s cooper Lycaena editha Nat SCP Field cresent Phyciodes campestris Nat SCP Great Basin sooty skipper Pholisora libya Nat SCP Great Basin woodnymph Cercyonis sthenele Nat SCP Great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele Nat SCP Greenish blue Plebejus saepiolus Nat SCP Hoary comma Polygonia gracilis Nat SCP Juba skipper Hesperia juba Nat SCP Large heath Coenonympha tullia Nat SCP Large marble Euchloe ausonides Nat SCP Large white skipper Heliopetes ericetorum Nat SCP Large woodnymph Cercyonis pegala Nat SCP Leanira checkerspot Chlosyne leanira Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-23 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Lorguins admiral Limenitis lorguini Nat SCP Lupine blue Icaricia icarioides Nat SCP Lustrous copper Lycaeides cuprea Nat SCP Melissa blue Plebejus melissa Nat SCP Milbert’s tortoiseshell Nymphalis milberti Nat SCP Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus Nat SCP Mormon fritillary Speyeria mormonia Nat SCP Mourning cloak Nymphalis antiopa Nat SCP Mylitta crescent Phyciodes mylitta Nat SCP Nivalis copper Lycaeides nivalis Nat SCP Northern checkerspot Chlosyne palla Nat SCP Northwest ringlet Coenonympha ampelos ampelos Nat SCP Olive hairstreak Mitoura grynea Nat SCP Orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Nat SCP Painted lady Vanessa cardui Nat SCP Pearly marblewing Euchloe hyantis Nat SCP Pine butterfly Neophasia menapia Nat SCP Purplish copper Lycaena helloides Nat SCP Ridings satyr Neominois ridingsii Nat SCP Ruddy cooper Lycaena rubidus Nat SCP Sagebrush checkerspot Chlosyne acastus Nat SCP Sandhill skipper Polites sabuleti Nat SCP Sara’s orangetip Anthocharis sara Nat SCP Satyr comma Polygonia satyrus Nat SCP 
B-24 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Shasta blue Icaricia shasta Nat SCP Sheridan’s hairstreak Callophrys sheridanii Nat SCP Silvery blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus Nat SCP Small white Pieris rapae Nat SCP Small woodnymph Cercyonis oetus Nat SCP Soatz hairstreak Satyrium fuliginosum Nat SCP Spring white Pieris sisymbrii Nat SCP Tailed copper butterfly Tharsalea arota Nat SCP Two-tailed wwallowtail Papilio multicaudatus Nat SCP Uncas skipper Hesperia uncas Nat SCP West coast lady Vanessa annabella Nat SCP Western pygmyblue Brephidium exile Nat SCP Western squaredotted blue Euphilotes battoides Nat SCP Western tiger swallowtail Papilio rutulus Nat SCP Western white Pieris occidentalis Nat SCP Woodland skipper Ochlodes sylvanoides Nat SCP Zephyrus angelewing Polygonia zephyrus Nat SCP Zerene’s fritialley Speyeria zerene Nat SCP Mammals American badger Taxidea taxus Nat X SCP American pika Ochotona princeps Nat X SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-25 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Beaver Castor canadensis Nat X SCP Belding’s ground squirrel Spermophilus beldingi Nat X X X X X SCP Black-tailed jack rabbit Lepus californicus Nat X X SCP Bobcat Felis rufus Nat X X X X X SCP Bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea Nat X X SCP California bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis Nat X X X X X X C, F SCP Coyote Canis latrans Nat X X X SCP Dark kangaroo mouse Microdipodops megacephalus Nat X X SCP Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Nat SCP Desert wood rat Neotoma lepida Nat X X X SCP Domestic wild burro (Feral) Equus asinus Int SCP Domestic wild horse (Feral) Equus caballus Int SCP Ermine Mustela erminea Nat X SCP Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Nat X X SCP Golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis Nat X SCP Great Basin pocket mouse Perognathus parvus Nat X X X SCP Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Nat X X X X X X SCP Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Nat X X SCP Least chipmunk Tamias minimus Nat X X X SCP Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus Nat X X X SCP Long-legged myotis Myotis volans Nat X X X X SCP Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Nat X SCP 
B-26 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami Nat X X X X SCP Montane vole Microtus montanus Nat X X X X SCP Mountain lion Felis concolor Nat X X X X X SCP Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Nat X F, N X X X X F C, F C SCP Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Nat S SCP Northern grasshopper mouse Onychomys leucogaster Nat X X SCP Nuttall’s cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii Nat X X X SCP Ord’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii Nat X SCP Pacific Townsend’s big-eared bat 

Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii Nat X SCP 

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat 

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Nat X SCP 

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Nat X SCP Pinyon mouse Peromyscus truei Nat SCP Pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides Nat SCP Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Nat X X X X X X X SCP Preble’s shrew Sorex preblei Nat X X X X X X X SCP Pronghorn antelope Antilocapra americana Nat N X X X X X C C SCP Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis Nat A SCP River otter Lontra canadensis Nat S SCP Sagebrush vole Lagurus curtatus Nat X X X SCP Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Nat X X X X X SCP Stripped skunk Mephitis mephitis Nat X X X X SCP Townsend’s ground squirrel Spermophilus townsendii Nat SCP Vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans Nat X X X X X SCP Water shrew Sorex palustris Nat X X X X X SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-27 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Western smallfooted myotis Myotis ciliolabrum Nat X SCP White-tailed antelope ground squirrel 

Ammospermophilus leucurus Nat X X X X SCP 

White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii Nat X SCP Yellow pine chipmunk Tamias amoenus Nat X X SCP Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris Nat X X SCP Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis Nat SCP Plants 

Abronia turbinata Nat SCP Acer negundo californicum Nat SCP Achillea millefolium var.occidentalis Nat SCP Achnatherum lettermanii Nat SCP Achnatherum nelsonii ssp.dorei Nat SCP Achnatherum nevadense Nat SCP Achnatherum webberi Nat SCP Aesculus californica Nat SCP Agastache urticifolia Nat SCP Ageratina occidentalis Nat SCP Agoseris glauca glauca Nat SCP Agoseris heterophylla Nat SCP Agropyron elongatum Nat SCP Agropyron smithii smithii Nat SCP 
B-28 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Agrostis exarata exarata Nat SCP Agrostis idahoensis Nat SCP Agrostis scabra Nat SCP Aliciella leptomeria Nat SCP Aliciella micromeria Nat SCP Aliciella triodon Nat SCP Allium acuminatum Nat SCP Allium anceps Nat SCP Allium bisceptrum Nat SCP Allium nevadense Nat SCP Allium parvum Nat SCP Allium platycaule Nat SCP Allium punctum Nat SCP Allium tolmiei var. tolmiei Nat SCP Alopecurus aequalis Nat SCP Alopecurus geniculatus Nat SCP Alopecurus pratensis Nat SCP Alyssum simplex Nat SCP Amelanchier utahensis Nat SCP Amsinckia tessellata Nat SCP Antennaria dimorpha Nat SCP Antennaria microphylla Nat SCP Antennaria rosea Nat SCP Antennaria stenophylla Nat SCP Aquilegia formosa var.formosa Nat SCP Arabis cobrensis Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-29 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Arabis divaricarpa Nat SCP Arabis holboellii Nat SCP Arabis puberula Nat SCP Arabis sparsiflora var.sparsiflora Nat SCP Arenaria aculeata Nat SCP Arenaria congesta var.simulans Nat SCP Arenaria franklinii var.franklinii Nat SCP Argentina anserina Nat SCP Arnica chamissonis Nat SCP Arnica chamissonis foliosa Nat SCP Arnica longifolia Nat SCP Arnica sororia Nat SCP Asclepias speciosa Nat SCP Astragalus agrestis Nat SCP Astragalus alvordensis Nat SCP Astragalus curvicarpus var.curvicarpus Nat SCP Astragalus filipes Nat SCP Astragalus iodanthus var.diaphanoides Nat SCP Astragalus iodanthus var.iodanthus Nat SCP Astragalus lentiginosus var.chartaceus Nat SCP Astragalus malacus Nat SCP Astragalus newberryi var.castoreus 

Nat SCP 
B-30 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Astragalus newberryi var.newberryi Nat SCP Astragalus obscurus Nat SCP Astragalus purshii var. lectulus Nat SCP Astragalus purshii var. purshii Nat SCP Astragalus salmonis Nat SCP Astragalus tetrapterus Nat SCP Balsamorhiza hookeri Nat SCP Balsamorhiza sagittata Nat SCP Balsamorhiza serrata Nat SCP Bassia americana Nat SCP Beckmannia syzigachne Nat SCP Berula erecta Nat SCP Blepharidachne kingii Nat SCP Blepharipappus scaber scaber Nat SCP Brickellia microphylla Nat SCP Bromus carinatus Nat SCP Bromus commutatus Nat SCP Bromus hordeaceus ssp.hordeaceus Nat SCP Callitriche hermaphroditica Nat SCP Callitriche verna Nat SCP Calochortus bruneaunis Nat SCP Calyptridium roseum Nat SCP Calyptridium umbellatum Nat SCP Camassia quamash ssp.breviflora Nat SCP Camissonia andina Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-31 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Camissonia boothii alyssoides Nat SCP Camissonia claviformis ssp.integrior Nat SCP Camissonia pterosperma Nat SCP Camissonia pusilla Nat SCP Camissonia subacaulis Nat SCP Camissonia tanacetifolia ssp.

tanacetifolia Nat SCP 

Canbya aurea Nat SCP Carex athrostachya Nat SCP Carex douglasii Nat SCP Carex microptera Nat SCP Carex nebrascensis Nat SCP Carex pellita Nat SCP Carex petasata Nat SCP Carex rossii Nat SCP Carex simulata Nat SCP Carex vesicaria var. vesicaria Nat SCP Castilleja applegatei Nat SCP Castilleja chromosa Nat SCP Castilleja exilis Nat SCP Castilleja linariifolia Nat SCP Castilleja pilosa var.longispica Nat SCP Castilleja pilosa var. pilosa Nat SCP Castilleja tenuis Nat SCP Caulanthus crassicaulis Nat SCP Cerastium glomeratum Nat SCP 
B-32 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Ceratophyllum demersum Nat SCP Cercocarpus ledifolius ledifolius Nat SCP Cercocarpus ledifolius var.intercedens Nat SCP Chaenactis douglasii var.douglasii Nat SCP Chaenactis macrantha Nat SCP Chaenactis stevioides Nat SCP Chaetadelpha wheeleri Nat SCP Chamaebatiaria millefolium Nat SCP Chenopodium desiccatum Nat SCP Chenopodium nevadense Nat SCP Chenopodium salinum Nat SCP Chorispora tenella Nat SCP Chorizanthe watsonii Nat SCP Claytonia rubra ssp. depressa Nat SCP Cleome platycarpa Nat SCP Cleomella hillmanii Nat SCP Cleomella parviflora Nat SCP Collinsia parviflora Nat SCP Collomia grandiflora Nat SCP Collomia linearis Nat SCP Collomia tinctoria Nat SCP Cordylanthus maritimus ssp.canescens 

Nat SCP 

Cordylanthus ramosus Nat SCP Crassula aquatica Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-33 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Crepis acuminata Nat SCP Crepis atribarba Nat SCP Crepis modocensis ssp.modocensis Nat SCP Crepis occidentalis Nat SCP Crepis runcinata ssp.imbricata Nat SCP Cryptantha ambigua Nat SCP Cryptantha circumscissa var.circumscissa Nat SCP Cryptantha gracilis Nat SCP Cryptantha humilis Nat SCP Cryptantha intermedia Nat SCP Cryptantha micrantha Nat SCP Cryptantha pterocarya var.pterocarya Nat SCP Cryptantha watsonii Nat SCP Cuscuta californica var.breviflora Nat SCP Cymopterus corrugatus Nat SCP Cymopterus purpurascens Nat SCP Cystopteris fragilis Nat SCP Damasonium californicum Nat SCP Danthonia californica Nat SCP Danthonia unispicata Nat SCP Delphinium andersonii Nat SCP Delphinium nuttallianum Nat SCP Deschampsia danthonioides Nat SCP Deschampsia elongata Nat SCP 
B-34 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Descurainia incana ssp.procera 

Nat SCP 

Descurainia paradisa ssp.paradisa Nat SCP Descurainia pinnata ssp.filipes Nat SCP Descurainia pinnata ssp.nelsonii Nat SCP Dimeresia howellii Nat SCP Dodecatheon conjugens ssp.conjugens Nat SCP Downingia bacigalupii Nat SCP Downingia bicornuta Nat SCP Downingia laeta Nat SCP Draba verna Nat SCP Eatonella nivea Nat SCP Elatine brachysperma Nat SCP Ephedra nevadensis Nat SCP Epilobium brachycarpum Nat SCP Epilobium ciliatum ssp.ciliatum Nat SCP Epilobium pygmaeum Nat SCP Epilobium torreyi Nat SCP Equisetum arvense Nat SCP Equisetum hyemale var. affine Nat SCP Equisetum laevigatum Nat SCP Eragrostis orcuttiana Nat SCP Eriastrum wilcoxii Nat SCP Ericameria bloomeri Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-35 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Erigeron aphanactis Nat SCP Erigeron austiniae Nat SCP Erigeron bloomeri var.bloomeri Nat SCP Erigeron compositus Nat SCP Erigeron divergens Nat SCP Erigeron filifolius var. filifolius Nat SCP Erigeron linearis Nat SCP Erigeron lonchophyllus Nat SCP Eriogonum baileyi var. baileyi Nat SCP Eriogonum brachyanthum Nat SCP Eriogonum caespitosum Nat SCP Eriogonum collinum Nat SCP Eriogonum esmeraldense var.

esmeraldense Nat SCP 

Eriogonum heracleoides var.heracleoides Nat SCP Eriogonum hookeri Nat SCP Eriogonum maculatum Nat SCP Eriogonum microthecum var.ambiguum Nat SCP Eriogonum microthecum var.laxiflorum Nat SCP Eriogonum nidularium Nat SCP Eriogonum nudum var.publiflorum Nat SCP Eriogonum nutans var. nutans Nat SCP Eriogonum ochrocephalum var. alexandrae Nat SCP 
B-36 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Eriogonum ovalifolium var.ovalifolium Nat SCP Eriogonum ovalifolium var.purpureum 

Nat SCP 

Eriogonum palmerianum Nat SCP Eriogonum rubricaule Nat SCP Eriogonum sphaerocephalum Nat SCP Eriogonum strictum Nat SCP Eriogonum umbellatum var.nevadense Nat SCP Eriogonum vimineum Nat SCP Eriophyllum lanatum var.integrifolium Nat SCP Erysimum asperum Nat SCP Erysimum capitatum Nat SCP Euphorbia glyptosperma Nat SCP Floerkea proserpinacoides Nat SCP Frasera albicaulis var.albicaulis Nat SCP Fritillaria atropurpurea Nat SCP Fritillaria pudica Nat SCP Galium aparine Nat SCP Galium bifolium Nat SCP Galium multiflorum Nat SCP Gayophytum diffusum Nat SCP Gayophytum racemosum Nat SCP Gayophytum ramosissimum Nat SCP Gentianopsis simplex Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-37 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Geranium viscosissimum var.viscosissimum Nat SCP Geum macrophyllum Nat SCP Geum triflorum Nat SCP Gilia brecciarum ssp.brecciarum Nat SCP Gilia inconspicua Nat SCP Gilia salticola Nat SCP Gilia sinuata Nat SCP Glyptopleura marginata Nat SCP Gnaphalium palustre Nat SCP Gymnosteris parvula Nat SCP Hackelia micrantha Nat SCP Helianthus annuus Nat SCP Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum Nat SCP Hesperochiron californicus Nat SCP Heterocodon rariflorum Nat SCP Heuchera rubescens var.alpicola Nat SCP Hieracium scouleri var.nudicaule Nat SCP Hieracium scouleri var.scouleri Nat SCP Hippuris vulgaris Nat SCP Hordeum brachyantherum Nat SCP Hordeum jubatum Nat SCP Horkelia fusca ssp. capitata Nat SCP Hutchinsia procumbens Nat SCP 
B-38 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Hydrophyllum capitatum var.alpinum Nat SCP Hymenopappus filifolius var.filifolis Nat SCP Hypericum scouleri ssp.scouleri Nat SCP Ionactis alpina Nat SCP Ipomopsis congesta ssp.congesta Nat SCP Ivesia baileyi var. baileyi Nat SCP Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis Nat SCP Juncus longistylis Nat SCP Juncus nevadensis Nat SCP Juncus orthophyllus Nat SCP Juncus saximontanus Nat SCP Lactuca tatarica var. pulchella Nat SCP Lappula occidentalis var.occidentalis Nat SCP Lathrocasis tenerrima Nat SCP Layia glandulosa Nat SCP Lemna minor Nat SCP Leptochloa fusca ssp.

fascicularis Nat SCP 

Leptosiphon septentrionalis Nat SCP Lesquerella kingii ssp. kingii Nat SCP Lesquerella kingii ssp. kingii var. cobrensis Nat SCP Leucocrinum montanum Nat SCP Leucophysalis nana Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-39 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Lewisia rediviva Nat SCP Leymus triticoides Nat SCP Lilaea scilloides Nat SCP Limosella aquatica Nat SCP Linanthus pungens Nat SCP Linum lewisii var. lewisii Nat SCP Lithophragma glabrum Nat SCP Lithophragma parviflorum Nat SCP Lithophragma tenellum Nat SCP Lithospermum ruderale Nat SCP Lolium perenne Nat SCP Lomatium austiniae Nat SCP Lomatium bicolor Nat SCP Lomatium canbyi Nat SCP Lomatium cous Nat SCP Lomatium dissectum Nat SCP Lomatium donnellii Nat SCP Lomatium foeniculaceum Nat SCP Lomatium macrocarpum Nat SCP Lomatium nevadense Nat SCP Lomatium nevadense var.parishii Nat SCP Lomatium triternatum var.macrocarpum 

Nat SCP 

Lomatium vaginatum Nat SCP Lotus unifoliolatus var.unifoliolatus Nat SCP Lupinus argenteus ssp. Nat SCP 
B-40 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

argenteus 

Lupinus argenteus ssp.argenteus var. laxiflorus Nat SCP Lupinus aridus ssp. aridus Nat SCP Lupinus brevicaulis Nat SCP Lupinus caudatus Nat SCP Lupinus nevadensis Nat SCP Lupinus polyphyllus Nat SCP Lupinus pusillus ssp.intermontanus Nat SCP Lupinus saxosus Nat SCP Lupinus uncialis Nat SCP Lygodesmia spinosa Nat SCP Machaeranthera canescens Nat SCP Madia glomerata Nat SCP Madia gracilis Nat SCP Maianthemum stellatum Nat SCP Malacothrix glabrata Nat SCP Malacothrix sonchoides Nat SCP Malacothrix torreyi Nat SCP Marsilea vestita Nat SCP Melica bulbosa Nat SCP Melica fugax Nat SCP Melica stricta Nat SCP Mentzelia albicaulis Nat SCP Mentzelia congesta Nat SCP Mentzelia laevicaulis Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-41 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Mentzelia veatchiana Nat SCP Mertensia ciliata var. ciliata Nat SCP Mertensia longiflora Nat SCP Mertensia oblongifolia Nat SCP Microseris nutans Nat SCP Microseris troximoides Nat SCP Microsteris gracilis var.humilior Nat SCP Mimulus floribundus Nat SCP Mimulus guttatus Nat SCP Mimulus nanus Nat SCP Mimulus pilosus Nat SCP Mimulus suksdorfii Nat SCP Monardella glauca Nat SCP Monolepis nuttalliana Nat SCP Monolepis pusilla Nat SCP Montia chamissoi Nat SCP Montia fontana Nat SCP Montia linearis Nat SCP Muhlenbergia asperifolia Nat SCP Muhlenbergia richardsonis Nat SCP Myosurus apetalus var.borealis Nat SCP Myosurus minimus Nat SCP Nama aretioides var.aretioides Nat SCP Nama densum Nat SCP Navarretia breweri Nat SCP 
B-42 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Navarretia capillaris Nat SCP Navarretia intertexta ssp.propinqua Nat SCP Nemacladus rigidus Nat SCP Nemophila breviflora Nat SCP Nemophila pedunculata Nat SCP Nestotus stenophyllus Nat SCP Nothocalais troximoides Nat SCP Oenothera deltoides Nat SCP Orobanche fasciculata Nat SCP Orobanche uniflora Nat SCP Orthocarpus cuspidatus ssp.copelandii Nat SCP Osmorhiza occidentalis Nat SCP Oxytheca dendroidea Nat SCP Packera cana Nat SCP Paeonia brownii Nat SCP Parietaria pensylvanica Nat SCP Pectocarya setosa Nat SCP Pediocactus simpsonii Nat Protected SCP Penstemon deustus var.pedicellatus Nat SCP Penstemon gracilentus Nat SCP Penstemon humilis Nat SCP Penstemon laetus Nat SCP Penstemon rydbergii var.oreocharis Nat SCP Penstemon rydbergii var.rydbergii Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-43 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Penstemon speciosus Nat SCP Perideridia bolanderi Nat SCP Perideridia lemmonii Nat SCP Phacelia adenophora Nat SCP Phacelia glandulifera Nat SCP Phacelia gymnoclada Nat SCP Phacelia hastata var. hastata Nat SCP Phacelia humilis Nat SCP Phacelia inundata Nat SCP Phacelia linearis Nat SCP Phacelia lutea var. calva Nat SCP Phacelia lutea var. lutea Nat SCP Phacelia mutabilis Nat SCP Phacelia ramosissima Nat SCP Phacelia rattanii Nat SCP Phlox austromontana Nat SCP Phlox diffusa ssp. longistylis Nat SCP Phlox hoodii Nat SCP Phlox longifolia ssp. longifolia Nat SCP Phoenicaulis cheiranthoides Nat SCP Pinus ponderosa Nat Protected SCP Plagiobothrys kingii var.harknessii Nat SCP Plagiobothrys leptocladus Nat SCP Plagiobothrys scouleri var.hispidulus Nat SCP Plectritis macrocera Nat SCP 
B-44 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Poa ampla Nat SCP Poa cusickii Nat SCP Poa fendleriana Nat SCP Poa juncifolia Nat SCP Poa nevadensis Nat SCP Poa pratensis Nat SCP Poa sandbergii Nat SCP Poa scabrella Nat SCP Polemonium micranthum Nat SCP Polyctenium fremontii Nat SCP Polygala subspinosa Nat SCP Polygonum amphibium var. stipulaceum Nat SCP Polygonum bistortoides Nat SCP Polygonum douglasii ssp.douglasii Nat SCP Polygonum heterosepalum Nat SCP Polygonum lapathifolium Nat SCP Polygonum polygaloides ssp.kelloggii Nat SCP Polygonum watsonii Nat SCP Porterella carnosula Nat SCP Potamogeton diversifolius Nat SCP Potamogeton foliosus ssp.foliosus Nat SCP Potamogeton pusillus Nat SCP Potentilla glandulosa ssp.nevadensis Nat SCP Potentilla glandulosa ssp. Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-45 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

pseudorupestri 

Potentilla gracilis var.fastigiata Nat SCP Potentilla newberryi Nat SCP Potentilla rivalis Nat SCP Psilocarphus brevissimus Nat SCP Psoralea lanceolata Nat SCP Puccinellia lemmonii Nat SCP Puccinellia nuttalliana Nat SCP Puccinellia pauciflora Nat SCP Pyrrocoma lanceolata Nat SCP Ranunculus andersonii Nat SCP Ranunculus aquatilis Nat SCP Ranunculus cymbalaria Nat SCP Ranunculus glaberrimus Nat SCP Ranunculus sceleratus var.multifidus Nat SCP Ranunculus trichophyllus var.trichophyllus Nat SCP Ranunculus uncinatus var.uncinatus Nat SCP Rorippa cruvisilaqua var.curvisiliqua Nat SCP Rosa woodsii var.ultramontana Nat SCP Rumex maritimus Nat SCP Rumex salicifolius var.

denticulatus Nat SCP 

Rumex salicifolius var.

mexicanus Nat SCP 
B-46 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Rumex venosus Nat SCP Sagittaria cuneata Nat SCP Salix fragilis Nat SCP Salix geyeriana Nat SCP Salix ligulifolia Nat SCP Salix lucida ssp. caudata Nat SCP Salix melanopsis Nat SCP Salix scouleriana Nat SCP Salvia dorrii ssp. dorrii var.incana Nat SCP Salvia dorrii ssp. dorrii var.pilosa Nat SCP Sambucus nigra ssp. cerulea Nat SCP Saxifraga nidifica var. nidifica Nat SCP Schedonorus phoenix Nat SCP Schoenoplectus acutus Nat SCP Schoenoplectus americanus Nat SCP Schoenoplectus maritimus Nat SCP Schoenoplectus pungens var.longispicatus Nat SCP Scirpus microcarpus Nat SCP Scrophularia lanceolata Nat SCP Scutellaria nana Nat SCP Senecio hydrophilus Nat SCP Senecio integerrimus var.exaltatus Nat SCP Senecio integerrimus var.major Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-47 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Senecio serra Nat SCP Sidalcea oregana ssp. oregana Nat SCP Silene menziesii ssp. menziesii var. viscosa Nat SCP Silene scaposa var. lobata Nat SCP Sisyrinchium idahoense Nat SCP Solanum triflorum Nat SCP Solidago spectabilis Nat SCP Sparganium angustifolium Nat SCP Spergularia salina Nat SCP Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia Nat SCP Spirodela polyrhiza Nat SCP Sporobolus airoides Nat SCP Sporobolus cryptandrus Nat SCP Stanleya pinnata var. pinnata Nat SCP Stellaria longipes Nat SCP Stenotus acaulis Nat SCP Stephanomeria exigua ssp.exigua Nat SCP Stephanomeria minor var.

minor Nat SCP 

Streptanthella longirostris Nat SCP Streptanthus cordatus Nat SCP Stuckenia pectinata Nat SCP Stylocline psilocarphoides Nat SCP Suaeda calceoliformis Nat SCP Suaeda moquinii Nat SCP Symphoricarpos longiflorus Nat SCP 
B-48 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Symphoricarpos oreophilus Nat SCP Symphoricarpos oreophilus var. utahensis Nat SCP Symphyotrichum eatonii Nat SCP Symphyotrichum frondosum Nat SCP Symphyotrichum spathulatum Nat SCP Tetradymia glabrata Nat SCP Tetradymia spinosa Nat SCP Thelypodium flexuosum Nat SCP Thelypodium integrifolium ssp.complanatum Nat SCP Thelypodium laciniatum Nat SCP Thelypodium milleflorum Nat SCP Thelypodium sagittatum ssp.

sagittatum Nat SCP 

Thermopsis montana var.montana Nat SCP Tiquilia nuttallii Nat SCP Trifolium cyathiferum Nat SCP Trifolium gymnocarpon ssp.plummerae Nat SCP Trifolium kingii Nat SCP Trifolium longipes ssp.Hansenii Nat SCP Trifolium macrocephalum Nat SCP Trifolium productum Nat SCP Trifolium variegatum Nat SCP Trifolium wormskioldii Nat SCP Triglochin concinna Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-49 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Triteleia hyacinthina Nat SCP Typha domingensis Nat SCP Typha latifolia Nat SCP Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea Nat SCP Valeriana edulis Nat SCP Veratrum californicum var.

californicum Nat SCP 

Veronica americana Nat SCP Veronica peregrina ssp.xalapensis Nat SCP Vicia americana ssp.americana Nat SCP Viola nephrophylla Nat SCP Viola purpurea Nat SCP Viola vallicola var. vallicola Nat SCP Vulpia microstachys var.pauciflora Nat SCP Woodsia oregana Nat SCP Zannichellia palustris Nat SCP Zigadenus paniculatus Nat SCP Zigadenus venenosus var.venenosus 

Nat SCP 

Alkali pepperweed Lepidium dictyotum Nat X SCP American yellowrocket Barbarea orthoceras Nat SCP Annual bluegrass Poa annua Int SCP Annual bursage Ambrosia acanthicarpa Nat SCP Antelope bitterbrush Purshia tridentata Nat SCP Austin’s knotweed Polygonum douglasii ssp. Nat SCP 
B-50 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

austiniae 

Barbwire Russian thistle Salsola paulsenii Int SCP Barnyardgrass Echinochloa crus-galli Int SCP Basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata Nat SCP Beatley’s clover Trifolium andersonii ssp. beatleyae Nat SCP Biennial wormwood Artemisia biennis Nat /Int SCP Black sagebrush Artemisia nova Nat SCP Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Nat SCP Boraxweed Nitrophila occidentalis Nat X SCP Buckwheat Polygonaceae spp. Nat SCP Bud sagebrush Artemisia spinescens Nat SCP Bulbous bluegrass Poa bulbosa Int SCP Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Int SCP Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Int SCP Cereal rye Secale cereale Int SCP Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Int SCP Chokecherry Prunus virginiana var. melanocarpa Nat SCP Clasping pepperweed Lepidium perfoliatum Int SCP Coast buckthorn Amsinckia menziesii Nat SCP Common cocklebur Xanthium strumarium canadense Nat SCP Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale Int SCP Common mallow Malva neglecta Int SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-51 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Common oats Avena sativa Int SCP Common reed Phragmites australis Nat SCP Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus Int SCP Common wheat Triticum aestivum Int SCP Coyote tobacco Nicotiana attenuata Nat SCP Creeping bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera Int SCP Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum Int SCP Curly dock Rumex crispus Int SCP Curveseed butterwort Ceratocephala testiculata Int SCP Desert cantaury Centaurium exaltatum Nat X SCP Desert dodder Cuscuta denticulata Nat SCP Desert gooseberry Ribes velutinum Nat SCP Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Int SCP Disc mayweed Matricaria matricarioides Int SCP Douglas’ draba Cusickiella douglasii Nat SCP Dwarf phacelia Phacelia tetramera Nat SCP Dwarf rush Juncus hemiendytus Nat SCP Elk thistle Cirsium foliosum Nat SCP Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Int SCP Field mint Mentha arvensis Nat SCP Field pennycress Thlaspi arvense Nat SCP Filaree Erodium cicutarium Int SCP Fivehorn smotherweed Bassia hyssopifolia Int SCP Flat topped broom rape Orobanche corymbosa Nat SCP Flixweed Descurainia sophia Int SCP 
B-52 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Fourwing saltbrush Atriplex canescens Nat SCP Golden currant Ribes aureum Nat SCP Gray horsebrush Tetradymia canescens Nat SCP Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus Nat SCP Great Basin wildrye Leymus cinereus Nat SCP Green bristlegrass Setaria viridis Int SCP Grimy ivesia Ivesia rhypara var. rhypara Nat X Endangere d SCP Hairy whitetop Cardaria pubescens Int SCP Hoary cress Cardaria draba Int SCP Horehound Marrubium vulgare Int SCP Horseweed Conyza canadensis Nat SCP Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Nat SCP Indian hemp Apocynum sibiricum Nat SCP Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Nat SCP Kellogg’s rush Juncus kelloggii Nat SCP Kochia Bassia scoparia Nat SCP Lambsquarter Chenopodium album Int SCP Lombardy poplar Populus nigra Int SCP Low sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula Nat SCP Matrimony vine Lycium barbarum Int SCP Mediterranean barley Hordeum geniculatum Int SCP Mountain big sagebrush 

Artemisia tridentata ssp.vaseyana 

Nat SCP 

Needle-and-thread Hesperostipa comata ssp. comata Nat SCP New Mexico thistle Cirsium utahense Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-53 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Nodding beggertick Bidens cernua Nat SCP Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor Nat SCP Oregon checkerbloom Sigina saginoides Nat SCP Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium Int SCP Pond lily Nuphar spp. Nat SCP Povertyweed Iva axillaris Nat X SCP Prairie junegrass Koeleria macrantha Nat SCP Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Int SCP Prickly russian thistle Salsola tragus Int SCP Prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare Int SCP Prostrate pigweed Amaranthus blitoides Int SCP Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Nat SCP Rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa Nat SCP Rabbitfootgrass Polypogon monspeliensis Int SCP Rattlesnake stickweed Hackelia ophiobia Nat X SCP Red clover Trifolium pratense Int SCP Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea Nat SCP Rose biscuitroot Lomatium roseanum Nat X X SCP Rough bluegrass Poa trivialis Int SCP Rough pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus Nat SCP Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa ssp. consimilis var. oreophila Nat SCP Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa ssp.

nauseosa var. speciosa Nat SCP 
B-54 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Int SCP Sagebrush mariposa lilly Calochortus macrocarpus Nat SCP Saline saltbrush Atriplex subspicata Nat SCP Saltgrass Distichlis spicata Nat SCP Saltlover Halogeton glomeratus Int SCP Sandberg’s bluegrass Poa secunda Nat SCP Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium Int SCP Sea-blight Suaeda torreyana Nat SCP Shadscale saltbrush Atriplex confertifolia Nat SCP Silver sagebrush Artemisia cana Nat SCP Silver saltbrush Atriplex argentea ssp. argentea Nat SCP Smooth brome Bromus inermis Int SCP Snowbrush ceanothus Ceanothus velutinus Nat SCP Spear saltbrush Atriplex patula Nat SCP Spikesedge Eleocharis acicularis Nat X SCP Spikesedge Eleocharis palustris Nat X SCP Spikesedge Eleocharis quinqueflora Nat X SCP Spiny hopsage Grayia spinosa Nat SCP Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Int SCP Spotted ladysthumb Polygonum persicaria Int SCP Spreading wallflower Erysimum repandum Int SCP Squirreltail Elymus elymoides ssp. elymoides Nat SCP Squirreltail Elymus trachycaulus Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-55 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Stinkgrass Eragrostis cilianensis Int SCP Strict forget-me-not Myosotis micrantha Int SCP Tall tumblemustard Sisymbrium altissimum Int SCP Threetip sagebrush Artemisia tripartite Nat SCP Thurber’s needlegrass Achnatherum thurberianum Nat SCP Timothy Phleum pratense Int SCP Toad rush Juncus bufonius Nat SCP Tufted eveningprimrose Oenothera caespitosa ssp. marginata Nat SCP Tumble pigweed Amaranthus albus Int SCP Tumbling saltbrush Atriplex rosea Nat SCP Twoscale saltbrush Atriplex heterosperma Nat SCP Valley sedge Carex vallicola Nat SCP Water hemlock Cicuta douglasii Nat SCP Watercress Nasturtium officinale Int SCP Wax currant Ribes cereum Nat SCP Wedgeleaf dock Rumex triangulivalvis Nat SCP Wedgescale saltbrush Atriplex truncata Nat SCP Weeping alkaligrass Puccinellia distans Nat /Int SCP Western blue flag Iris missouriensis Nat SCP Western juniper Juniperus occidentalis occidentalis Nat Protected SCP White poplar Populus alba Int SCP White sagebrush Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. ludoviciana Nat SCP Whitestem Ribes inerme var. inerme Nat SCP 
B-56 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

gooseberry Winterfat Krascheninnikovia lanata Nat SCP Witchgrass Panicum capillare Nat SCP Wyoming big sagebrush 

Artemisia tridentata ssp.wyomingensis Nat SCP 

Yellow rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Nat SCP Yellow rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 

ssp. viscidiflorus Nat SCP 

Yellow rabbitbrush 

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. viscidiflorus var.

viscidiflorus 

Nat SCP 

Yellow salsify Tragopogon dubius Int SCP Yellow sweetclover Melilotus officinalis Int SCP Reptiles Collared lizard Crotaphytus collaris Nat X X X SCP Desert horned lizard Phrynosoma platyrhinos Nat X X SCP Gopher snake Pituophis melanoleucus Nat SCP Long-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii Nat X A SCP Night snake Hypsiglena torquata Nat X SCP Northern alligator lizard Elgaria coerulea Nat X SCP Pygmy short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglasii Nat X X X SCP Racer Coluber constrictor Nat X SCP Rubber boa Charina bottae Nat X SCP Sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus Nat X X SCP Short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglassi Nat SCP 
Appendix B. Species List B-57 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Native, Introduced, or Hybrid 

Sagebrush-Steppe 

Habitats

1

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe

2

Emergent Marshes and 

Wet Meadows 

Springs and Springbrooks 

Ephemeral Wetlands

3

Reservoirs and Other 

Artifical Riparian Habitats 

Deciduous Woodlands and 

Shrublands (Aspen) 

Mountain Mahogany and 

Western Juniper 

Woodlands 

Cliffs, Canyons, and 

Barren Lands 

Federal Status 

Nevada Wildlife Action 

Plan Status 

Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana Nat X SCP Striped whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus Nat X X SCP Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis Nat X SCP Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis Nat X SCP Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans Nat SCP Western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris Nat X X SCP 

1 Sagebrush-Steppe Habitats: Big Basin, Wyoming, Low sagebrush, salt desert scrub/ greasewood 2 Montane Sagebrush Steppe: mountain big sage, bitterbrush, semi-desert grassland 3 Ephemeral Wetlands: playas, salt flats, and mudflats 

SCP = Species of Conservation Priority (Nevada Wildlife Action Plan) 
B-58 Appendix B. Species List 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations C-1 

Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

C-2 Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations C-3 

Introduction 

The Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy (603 FW 1 [2006]) outlines the process that the Service uses to 

determine when general public uses on refuges may be considered. Priority public uses previously 

defined as wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 are generally exempt from appropriate use review. Other exempt uses 

include situations in which the Service does not have adequate jurisdiction to control the activity, as 

well as refuge management activities. 

In essence, the appropriate use policy provides refuge managers with a consistent procedure to first 

screen and then document decisions concerning a public use. When a use is determined to be 

appropriate, refuge managers must then decide if the use is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

The policy also requires review of existing public uses. 

During the CCP process, the Refuge Manager evaluated all existing and proposed refuge uses at 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge using the following guidelines and criteria as outlined in the 

appropriate use policy: 

 Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

 Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

 Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department and Service policies? 

 Is the use consistent with public safety? 

 Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

 Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first the use has been 

proposed? 

 Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

 Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

 Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

 Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D of the appropriate use 

policy for recreational uses description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the 

future? 

Using this process and these criteria, and as documented on the following pages, the Refuge Manager 

determined the following use(s) are not appropriate: None. 

The Refuge Manager also determined the following refuge use(s) were appropriate and directed that 

compatibility determinations be completed for each use: Hunting (big-game guiding and outfitting); 

Rock Collecting; and Research, Scientific Collecting, and Survey Activities. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

C-4 Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations C-5 

Attachment 1 

Supporting documentation for appropriateness finding based on sound professional judgment 

for: 

Hunting (big-game guiding and outfitting) 

Commercial guide services for sport hunting of big-game animals support an existing priority 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use of Sheldon Refuge. In particular, the services of a licensed 

hunting guide are often a critical factor when determining the quality of sport-hunting opportunities 

for animals such as bighorn sheep that inhabit remote and difficult terrain often unfamiliar to sport 

hunters. 

As an economic refuge use, big-game guiding and outfitting is generally authorized by Special Use 

Permit. Special Use Permits and associated stipulations provide the refuge with an enforceable 

mechanism that promotes safety and compliance with laws and regulations, minimizes conflict with 

other visitors, promotes resource stewardship and conservation, provides reliable opportunities to 

experience wildlife, and uses client satisfaction to help define and evaluate services provided—all of 

which increase the quality of sport-hunting experiences for the visiting public. 

Commercial guides are generally expected to provide specialized services and equipment of equal or 

greater quality that are often not available to the general public. These specialized services and 

equipment offer hunting opportunities to a wider segment of the public than would otherwise be 

provided by the Service, including wilderness and backcountry opportunities and opportunities for 

hunters with disabilities. 

Based upon the findings listed on the preceding form and this attached justification, it is my 

professional judgment big-game guiding and outfitting contributes the Mission of the Refuge System, 

does not conflict with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge, and is an appropriate use of Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

C-6 Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations C-7 

Attachment 1 

Supporting documentation for appropriateness finding based on sound professional judgment 

for: 

Rock Collecting 

Recreational surface collection of rocks and minerals from what is now Sheldon Refuge is a longstanding and traditional use that pre-dates establishment of Sheldon Refuge, and that has been 

repeatedly found compatible with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge. 

The management of wildlife- and wildlands-oriented recreation activities on refuges is guided by the 

Public Use Management Policy of the Refuge Manual (8 RM 9). Section 9.5G of this policy 

specifically addresses the collection of non-renewable resources including minerals, crystals, and 

rocks and directs that these resources must be protected, but also states such uses may be allowed for 

scientific collection or investigation and in unusual cases involving renewable crystals. However, 

Section 9.2 recognizes that there are some unique refuges where non-wildlife-oriented recreation 

activities have co-existed in harmony with wildlife needs since the refuges were established. 

Furthermore, on these refuges where traditional forms of non-wildlife oriented activities have taken 

place for many years and have proven to be compatible with the primary purposes for which the 

refuges were established, such recognized uses will be incorporated into the Refuge Plan. 

After comparing and contrasting the resource benefits from protecting and preserving rocks and 

minerals commonly collected from Sheldon Refuge, the public recreation benefits from limited 

surface collection of these rocks and minerals, and the potential for refuge environmental education 

and interpretation related to these activities and Sheldon Refuge natural history and geology, it is my 

sound professional judgment the continued surface collection of mineral specimens and small 

amounts of common rocks and from Sheldon Refuge is an appropriate non-wildlife-dependent public 

use that does not conflict with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge or other priority wildlife-dependent 

public uses. 

Consistent with public use management policy for the Refuge System, the Sheldon Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the Compatibility Determination for Recreational Rock 

Collecting will contain specific, detailed guidance as to how the use will be managed, including 

stipulations to ensure rock collecting remains compatible with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge and 

the System Mission. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

C-8 Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations C-9 

Attachment 1 

Supporting documentation for Appropriateness finding based on sound professional judgment 

for: 

Research, scientific collecting, and survey activities 

Research, scientific collecting, and survey activities conducted within Sheldon Refuge by 

independent third parties including non-profit organizations, colleges, universities, and consulting 

companies may have purposes that support objectives and strategies for the management of Sheldon 

Refuge. With limited resources and budgets, activities conducted by third parties often meet 

identified but lower project priorities that Sheldon Refuge would not have the staff or funding to 

complete. 

Proposals for research, scientific collecting, and survey activities are reviewed on a case-by-case 

basis to determine whether the purpose for the activities would benefit Sheldon Refuge and whether 

the proposed methods and techniques are sound, defensible, and necessary. When conducted in 

accordance with a refuge Special Use Permit and applicable permit conditions, these activities 

generally do not conflict with other management activities or wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Based upon the findings listed on the preceding form and this attached justification, it is my 

professional judgment that research, scientific collecting, and survey activities contribute to the 

Mission of the Refuge System, do not conflict with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge, and are an 

appropriate use of Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

C-10 Appendix C. Appropriate Use Determinations 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-1 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-2 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-3 

D. Introduction 

Compatibility is a tool refuge managers use to ensure that recreational and other uses do not interfere 

with wildlife conservation, the primary focus of refuges. Under the Compatibility Policy (603 FW 

2), refuge managers are directed to determine if a proposed or existing refuge use is compatible with 

refuge purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. Refuge uses are defined as 

recreational or economic/commercial or management use of the refuge by the public or a non-Refuge 

System entity. The Service does not, however, prepare compatibility determinations for uses when 

the Service does not have jurisdiction. Compatibility determinations are re-evaluated concurrently 

with the preparation of a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and are required to be in writing. 

The Service is also required to provide the public with an opportunity for review and comment on 

compatibility determinations. The purpose of this appendix is to meet these requirements. 

The Service recognizes that compatibility determinations are complex. For this reason, refuge 

managers are required to consider principles of sound fish and wildlife management and best 

available science in making these determinations. If an existing use is not compatible, the refuge 

manager is directed to modify the use to make it compatible or terminate it, as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

Compatibility Determinations Evaluated at This Time 

This set of compatibility determinations evaluates uses projected to occur under the 

CCP/environmental impact statement (EIS) for Sheldon Refuge. The evaluation of funds needed for 

management and implementation of each use also assumes implementation as described under the 

plan. Compatibility determinations are based on the professional judgment of refuge personnel, 

including observations of existing refuge uses. 

Refuge Use Compatible Page 

Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Environmental 

Education, and Interpretation 

Yes D-4 

Sport Fishing Yes D-27 

Sport Hunting Yes D-45 

Guiding Yes D-70 

Rock Collecting Yes D-92 

Research Yes D-110 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-4 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

D.1 Compatibility Determination for Wildlife Observation, Wildlife 

Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation on Sheldon 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Use(s): Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation 

Supporting Uses: Temporary viewing blinds, camping, boating, hiking, backpacking, horseback 

riding, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use 

Refuge Name: Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge 

City/County and State: Washoe County, Nevada; Humboldt County, Nevada; Lake County, 

Oregon 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

What is today known as the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge was initially established by Executive 

Order 5540 dated January 26, 1931, and later enlarged by Executive Order 7364 dated May 6, 1936, 

and Executive Order 7522 dated December 21, 1936. 

The authorities for nearly all Federal lands within Sheldon Refuge are the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r) and the National Wildlife 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). A small portion of Sheldon 

Refuge was acquired under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1231-1544). 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“...as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and birds...” Executive Order 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...” Executive 

Order 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) 

Consistent with Service Policy (601 FW 2), proposed wilderness areas are to be managed as 

designated wilderness. The Wilderness Act of 1964 creates additional purposes within and 

supplemental to other refuge purposes. Proposed wilderness areas are to be managed for the 

purposes of securing an enduring resource of wilderness, protecting and preserving wilderness 

character, and providing opportunities for public use and enjoyment and for “solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation” in ways that will leave the wilderness unimpaired for future use 

and enjoyment as wilderness. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-5 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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]). 

Description of Use(s): 

Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation occur 

throughout Sheldon Refuge but are concentrated along highways, improved roads, and unimproved 

vehicle routes. 

While precise visitation and participation are unknown, certain locations, such as the Virgin Valley 

Campground, are popular and consistently used throughout the summer months. Wildlife 

photography and wildlife observation within Sheldon Refuge are most often conducted in 

conjunction with other activities and by motorists and tourists passing through Sheldon Refuge. The 

number of people who visit Sheldon Refuge specifically to observe and photograph wildlife is 

estimated to be smaller than the number of people fishing, hunting, or participating in non-wildlifedependent uses such as rock collecting. 

Wildlife Viewing and Photography 

Sheldon Refuge has no facilities managed and maintained specifically for these activities other than a 

few unimproved areas posted as places to view wildlife. Wildlife viewers and photographers are free 

to roam Sheldon Refuge and use personally provided temporary blinds. There are no available data 

to estimate the number of visitors participating in wildlife viewing and photography, but most people 

likely participate in these activities while visiting Sheldon Refuge. Generally, the majority of visitors 

in the spring are engaged in wildlife viewing and camping as well as rock collecting. Parts of 

Sheldon Refuge are very remote, and access is limited by the terrain and adverse seasonal conditions. 

This wilderness character is an important part of Sheldon Refuge’s attractiveness for wildlife viewing 

and photography. 

Of particular interest is the viewing and photographing of Greater sage-grouse when concentrated at 

lek locations to display their annual mating dances. This activity is becoming increasingly popular, 

both with amateur and professional photographers. High-quality full-frame photographs, even when 

using telephoto camera lenses, are only possible from relatively close distances due to early morning 

low light conditions and vegetation. Professional photographers currently use Sheldon Refuge and 

are required to obtain a Special Use Permit. 

Refuge-specific regulations that apply to the use of temporary hunting blinds specifically apply to 

sport fishing and sport hunting, but are interpreted as applying to other compatible wildlifedependent public uses as well. Consistent with 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 32.47, 

temporary ground blinds are considered a compatible supporting activity when consistent with the 

stipulations listed at the end of this compatibility determination. The location and number of blinds 

are controlled through refuge Special Use Permits issued on a first-come, first-served basis. Other 

secondary uses of Sheldon Refuge that support wildlife observation and wildlife photography include 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-6 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

hiking, horseback riding, boating, and vehicle use on designated access routes. Overnight camping 

in support of the use occurs at all 13 designated campgrounds and by permit in backcountry areas. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

The environmental education and interpretation program at Sheldon Refuge is minimal, with most 

interpretation conducted opportunistically during visitor contact or through printed materials, kiosk 

information and displays, and signs at various locations associated with refuge entrance points and 

campgrounds. Sheldon Refuge Complex also maintains a website 

(http://www.fws.gov/sheldonhartmtn) where current information can be obtained at any time. 

The remoteness of Sheldon Refuge does not lend itself to many opportunities for environmental 

education in a traditional format where school children are presented programs on-site. The majority 

of hosted environmental education and interpretation activities are conducted primarily by the 

Refuge Manager and volunteers at the Sheldon Refuge Office (Dufurrena) and the Virgin Valley 

Campground. Environmental education and interpretation is provided through wildlife viewing tours 

hosted by refuge staff twice a year, in the spring and fall, and by volunteer groups. Tours are 

available on request to the staff; however, refuge staffing is extremely limited and there is no visitor 

contact station or regular staffing at the Sheldon Refuge Office. 

As part of the Final Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS preferred alternative, several visitor facilities would be 

constructed or enhanced to increase environmental education, interpretation, and participation in 

wildlife viewing and photography. These facilities include a larger visitor contact facility along 

Highway 140, an interpretive hiking trail at Kinney Camp (McKinney Ranch), a designated wildlife 

viewing auto tour route with roadside pullouts and interpretive signs, and a wildlife observation deck. 

These facilities would be more noticeable and accessible to people traveling Highway 140, and as a 

result we anticipate visitation to Sheldon Refuge would increase by approximately 500 visitors per 

year. 

Supporting Uses: 

Camping

Camping itself is not a priority public use on Service lands, but because of the size, remoteness, and 

quality of roads within Sheldon Refuge, it is important in supporting priority uses including fishing, 

hunting, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. There are four types of camping 

opportunities currently provided within Sheldon Refuge: developed, semi-primitive, primitive, and 

backcountry/wilderness. 

Camping within Sheldon Refuge is allowed in 13 designated campgrounds and by Refuge Special 

Use Permit for backcountry camping. 

Developed Camping: Virgin Valley Campground located at Dufurrena is considered the only 

developed campground. Virgin Valley Campground is easily accessible year-round for all types of 

vehicles, including recreational vehicles (RVs), and it offers shade trees, potable water, two vault 

toilets, 16 picnic tables, 24 fire rings, a meat-hanging pole, a bath-house, and a hot spring developed 

for swimming. Campground use is managed on a first-come, first-served basis without fees or 

designated sites. From 2005 through 2007 an average of 18 campsites were occupied per day during 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-7 

the days surveyed, for a seasonal average of 6,573 visitor use days (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

[USFWS] undated report). 

From mid-August through mid-November, the Virgin Valley Campground is heavily used by 

hunters. During peak seasons, overcrowding and user conflicts have been a concern, as has overflow 

into upland areas adjacent to the campground, which can result in further environmental damage. 

There is also a private developed campground at the Royal Peacock Mine located in the Virgin 

Valley Mining District, which has RV hookups. 

Semi-primitive Camping: Five campgrounds (Catnip Reservoir, West Rock Spring, Fish Spring, 

Badger, and Big Spring Reservoir) are considered semi-primitive and include outhouses, fire rings, 

meat-hanging poles, and in the case of Fish Spring and Badger campgrounds, horse corrals. These 

semi-primitive campgrounds are accessible from primary roads or improved secondary roads suitable 

for most types of vehicles and are primarily used by hunters. Sport anglers also use campgrounds at 

Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs. 

Additional facilities such as campsite amenities (i.e., picnic tables and accessible fire rings or 

barbeque grills), potable water, shade structures, kiosks, and dedicated volunteer sites are planned for 

Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds. These facilities would 

provide developed camping opportunities that are not commonly available within Sheldon Refuge or 

the region. However, these improved facilities would only be sustainable over the long term through 

campsite fees to support volunteers, maintenance, and replacement. 

The Service also proposes to allow public overnight use of some existing historic structures within 

Sheldon Refuge. The most likely structures are the Little Sheldon Overnight Cabin and Badger 

Cabin. 

Primitive Camping: Seven campgrounds (Little Catnip Spring, Gooch Spring, North Hell Creek, 

Wheeler Spring, Bateman Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Spring) are considered primitive 

campgrounds and have only fire rings or no improvements, are remote, and are accessible to fourwheel drive or high-clearance vehicles when road conditions are passable. These primitive 

campgrounds receive intermittent and low amounts of use, occurring mostly during the big-game 

hunting seasons (early August through October). All of these campgrounds are located immediately 

adjacent to, or include, wet meadows, spring, or springbrook habitats. Three primitive campgrounds 

(Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Spring) also include aspen woodland habitats. Impacts 

associated with primitive campgrounds were identified as an issue during the Sheldon CCP planning 

process. The impacts identified and stipulations for reducing or eliminating those impacts are 

addressed in subsequent sections of this compatibility determination. 

Backcountry/Wilderness Camping: Backcountry camping for up to 14 days is allowed by Refuge 

permit. Permits are not limited, but do stipulate visitors must camp at least 0.5 mile from open roads 

and at least 100 yards from water sources. The majority of backcountry camping permits are issued 

to hunters, but the amount of use is low and no adverse impacts have been observed. Backcountry 

use would continue to be monitored, and future management actions to reduce or eliminate any 

impacts would be implemented as necessary. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-8 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Public Access 

Public access to areas within Sheldon Refuge is provided by a network of vehicle roads and informal 

backcountry routes and trails. Roads include one two-lane paved highway, maintained gravel roads, 

and numerous primitive and unmaintained dirt roads. Trails throughout the refuge backcountry and 

wilderness areas are primarily abandoned vehicle routes historically used for access to livestock 

developments and private inholdings later purchased by the Service. 

The most substantial changes to wildlife viewing and photography are expected to result from the 

relocation and enlargement of the Refuge visitor contact station, improvement of campground 

facilities, and improved signing of routes open to vehicle use. Improved gravel roads within Sheldon 

Refuge would be maintained more frequently, and all routes open to the public use of vehicles would 

be adequately signed and marked. Visitors would be required to register all OHVs consistent with 

State of Nevada regulation or with Sheldon Refuge for use on refuge roads and routes designated 

open to vehicle use. These actions are intended to improve the quality of the transportation system 

and deter vehicle violations while requiring only minimal law enforcement presence. 

Maintained Public Roads: In preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, each route within the 

refuge was evaluated to assess impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, as well as benefits 

for public use and recreation opportunity. Following this evaluation, 300 miles of existing roads 

(including State Highway 140 and all maintained county roads) were designated for public vehicle 

use. The Service has determined the continued use and maintenance of these designated roads, 

including actions for re-routing or modification as proposed in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, would 

have minimal or no impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat and/or are subject to existing right-ofway. The unimproved roads within Sheldon Refuge are not regularly maintained, but are repaired on 

a site-by-site basis to keep them in usable condition or to prevent undue resource damage (i.e., 

excessive erosion). 

Trails and Backcountry Access: Hiking, horseback riding, use of pack stock, and other nonmechanical modes of access are allowed on trails, routes, and other areas of Sheldon Refuge open to 

the public. All vehicle use is restricted to designated open roads. Existing trails throughout Sheldon 

Refuge would remain, but would not be marked or maintained for public use. No adverse impacts 

have been observed from visitors using these routes for hiking, horseback riding, or use of pack 

stock. 

Horseback Riding and Pack Stock Use: Horseback riding has been allowed as a recreation activity 

within Sheldon Refuge for many years. However, it is estimated that fewer than 10 horseback 

visitors use Sheldon Refuge each year, and as a result, horseback riding is considered a low-impact 

activity. Horseback riding gives the public an opportunity to visit remote and undeveloped portions 

of Sheldon Refuge, and to enjoy the wildlife viewing, solitude, and expansive views that Sheldon 

Refuge is known for. 

There is a concern that the number of visitors engaging in horseback riding may increase, particularly 

with hunting guides and their clients, and that use of horses and pack stock within the Refuge would 

introduce invasive non-native plants. These impacts have not been observed, but monitoring would 

continue, and the Service would take additional action as needed to maintain wilderness character 

and prevent the introduction of weeds to Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-9 

The corrals at Badger and Fish Spring campgrounds are the only facilities that specifically support 

horseback riding and the use of pack stock. 

Boating: Refuge-specific regulations that apply to the use of non-motorized boats and boats with 

electric motors specifically apply to sport fishing and sport hunting, but are interpreted as applying to 

other compatible wildlife-dependent public uses as well. In particular, the use of non-motorized 

boats and boats with electric motors in Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip Reservoir, and Dufurrena Ponds 

consistent with 50 CFR 32.47 is considered a compatible activity that supports wildlife observation 

and wildlife photography. 

Availability of Resources: 

Administration and management of wildlife observation and photography include information kiosks 

at Sheldon Refuge entrances; Sheldon Refuge websites, brochures, and leaflets; and certain Special 

Use Permits. Maintenance of the campgrounds, access roads, and other supporting facilities and 

routine law enforcement patrols are also conducted by Sheldon Refuge. 

As part of the preferred alternative, a visitor facility would be constructed, staffed, and maintained. 

This facility represents the majority of costs associated with the environmental education and 

interpretation program. The visitor contact facility would be constructed when necessary funding 

and staffing become available. 

Category and Itemization One-time Annual 

Administration and management (volunteer host site 

development, volunteer campground hosts, law 

enforcement patrols, backcountry use permits, fee 

collection and processing, administration and staffing 

of the visitor contact facility) 

$15,000 $70,000 

Maintenance (trails, signs, and visitor contact facility) $15,000 $10,000-

$15,000 

Monitoring $500 $500 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements (visitor 

contact facility, campgrounds and access roads) 

$3,000,000 $500-$1,500 

Offsetting revenues1 $5,500 $5,500 

The proposed facilities are analyzed in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS and submitted as funding needs 

under a variety of appropriate funding sources (e.g., deferred maintenance, construction, refuge 

roads, visitor facility enhancements). 

                                                           

1

 Anticipated campsite fee revenues as proposed in the CCP are based on $5/site/day for 1,100 site-use days. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-10 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Increased staffing, funding, volunteer assistance, strengthened existing partnerships, and new 

partnerships would be sought to support these programs in an effective, safe, and compatible manner. 

Refuge staff would continue volunteer recruiting efforts as needed to ensure assistance is available to 

provide basic visitor information and maintenance of public use facilities. Volunteers, interns, and 

various user groups when provided appropriate training can assist Sheldon Refuge with monitoring, 

education, and interpretation programs, and maintenance projects. With additional assistance as 

described above, staffing and funding is expected to be sufficient to manage these uses. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Effects from Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography within Sheldon Refuge are supported by 13 primitive, semiprimitive, and developed campgrounds. The 13 campgrounds are located near water and partially 

within riparian habitats and several prehistoric cultural sites. While the majority of impacts occurred 

following the initial establishment of these campgrounds, some impacts continue due to ongoing soil 

disturbance and compaction within existing campsites, occasional use of previously unused areas 

adjacent to the campgrounds, and vehicle use outside designated areas. It is anticipated actions to 

relocate campgrounds to alternative sites, protect sensitive habitats at each of these campgrounds, 

and confine use to designated campsites in heavily used campgrounds would mitigate or avoid 

additional impacts altogether. Effects from camping are described in subsequent sections of this 

compatibility determination. 

Wildlife observation and photography activities have both direct and indirect impacts on wildlife 

distribution, behavior, and habitats. The most frequent impacts are disturbances to large birds and 

mammals from people approaching too close and from vehicle presence. These impacts are most 

severe during periods of mating, nesting, lambing, and fawning. However, because people 

participating in wildlife observation and photography generally do not venture far from roads and 

campgrounds, impacts from these visitors are only a portion of the overall wildlife disturbance. 

One exception is the potential for disturbance of Greater sage-grouse from viewing and photography 

activities during the mating display. Greater sage-grouse return to specific lek locations each spring 

to perform mating displays, and public use activities at these sites can disrupt mating behavior and 

possibly cause one or more birds to abandon the lek. To minimize adverse effects and still provide 

high-quality wildlife viewing and photography opportunities, use near active leks would be 

controlled through Special Use Permit stipulations (see stipulations section). 

Access for wildlife observation and photography is provided by approximately 300 miles of 

motorized vehicle routes and several established routes and trails in the refuge backcountry. Roads 

and vehicle use can cause a number of impacts to soils, water, habitat, fish, and wildlife. Vehicle use 

is allowed on routes within the refuge where these impacts are anticipated to be minimal, or where 

planned management actions such as re-routing, realignment, and seasonal closures would acceptably 

minimize impacts. Route segments identified for re-routing, realignment, or other action were 

identified in the Final Sheldon Refuge CCP preferred alternative. Effects from vehicle use are 

described in subsequent sections of this compatibility determination. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-11 

Effects from Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Impacts related to environmental education and interpretation would primarily be associated with the 

proposed visitor contact facility along Highway 140. This facility would require that approximately 

3 to 5 acres of wildlife habitat be eliminated or permanently impacted through construction and 

facility maintenance. Large wildlife within the area of the visitor contact facility would likely be 

displaced by construction and increased use of the area by visitors. Construction of new visitor 

facilities would result in a small permanent loss of habitat in site-specific areas, which would 

represent a moderate to major, long-term, adverse impact to plant communities located within 

construction areas; however, the impact would be negligible at the refuge scale because the area of 

lost habitat would represent an extremely small percentage of Sheldon Refuge lands and would not 

impact sensitive or rare habitats. Site-specific adverse impacts to individual or small populations of 

wildlife species would be likely to occur during construction activities and continue due to visitor 

and staff use of the facilities in the long term; these direct impacts would be minor and would not be 

likely to affect the health or diversity of wildlife species or communities on Sheldon Refuge. New 

facilities intended for wildlife observation and photography may result in long-term, adverse impacts 

to some species by affecting wildlife behavior. These impacts would likely be similar to the 

temporary construction impacts previously described. Beneficial impacts may occur as well because 

many of the new facilities would include educational or interpretive components that would increase 

public awareness and educate visitors about Sheldon Refuge resources, including wildlife and their 

habitats. This could possibly result in minor, long-term, indirect, impacts to vegetation and wildlife 

as visitor appreciation of the importance of Sheldon Refuge habitats and wildlife increases and 

behaviors are subsequently adjusted to reflect this knowledge. 

Monitoring of public use in identified sensitive wildlife habitats (i.e., Thousand Creek Gorge) would 

be used to determine if impacts from wildlife observation and photography could impact the health, 

vigor, or productivity of fish, wildlife, or their habitats in these areas. If such potential for impact is 

identified, Sheldon Refuge would increase public interpretation and education regarding those 

impacts and/or close the areas to public use for critical periods or longer if necessary. If impacts 

from public use in general are documented, access for wildlife observation and photography would 

receive priority over non-wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Effects from Camping and Campgrounds 

Use of campgrounds within Sheldon Refuge causes impacts to vegetation, soils, water quality, and 

cultural resources. During dry conditions, carelessness with campfires can lead to wildfires. 

Management and development of campgrounds is also expected to affect the type and quality of 

recreation opportunities available. 

Impacts to Vegetation, Soils, and Water Quality: Campgrounds and their use within the refuge range 

from primitive sites with relatively low and only intermittent use to very developed sites with yearround and relatively high amount of use during summer months. Current impacts and expected 

future impacts associated with use and development of these campgrounds also vary widely. 

Because the most primitive campgrounds are currently the least impacted, we can expect that these 

sites would exhibit the greatest amount of additional or potential impact with only slightly more use. 

Conversely, most impacts have already occurred at the most heavily used and developed 

campgrounds, and we can expect very little additional impact to vegetation, soils, or water quality 

even with relatively large increases in use at these campgrounds. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-12 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

The greatest difference in durability between vegetation types occurs at moderately low use levels 

(Cole 1985). Sites that are used frequently are likely to be highly impacted regardless of their 

fragility. Because vegetation loss usually occurs more rapidly than loss of organic soil horizons, sites 

with either no vegetation or resistant vegetation (e.g., grasses as opposed to forbs) recover more 

quickly and are less likely to be impacted by low levels of use, while sites with thick organic soil 

horizons are less susceptible to erosion and are more likely to withstand high amounts of use. 

Experimental studies suggest that there is an important difference between a site’s resistance (its 

ability to tolerate use without being damaged) and its resilience (its ability to recover from damage). 

Cole (1995) has shown, for groundcover plants, that resistance decreases with erectness and that 

broad-leaved herbs are typically less resistant than grass-like plants and shrubs. Low shrubs, such as 

heather, are relatively resistant to trampling stress but their resilience is low. Once damaged, they 

recover slowly. Grass-like plants are most tolerant of trampling (Cole 1989). The compaction of 

soils from campsite use reduces water infiltration and water holding capacity, which leads to 

increased runoff and erosion potential (Cole 2004; Monti and Mackintosh 1979). Impacts associated 

with use at primitive campgrounds can be readily observed and tend to occur rapidly, but these 

impacts are relatively inconsequential when considered in the context of the entire refuge. Impacts 

associated with campgrounds located within riparian areas or near water sources are of greater 

concern, but current impacts are not severe and vegetation, soils, and water quality at primitive 

campgrounds are expected to recover noticeably within a few years following campground 

relocation. This assessment is supported by Cole (1981) who noted that hiking and camping impacts 

on soil and vegetation, while severe when measured at small scales, are minimal at large spatial 

scales. This suggests that while recreation impacts can be serious for individual plants and animals 

and perhaps localized rare populations, they are generally of little significance to landscape integrity 

or regional biotic diversity. Moreover, unless much of a population is impacted by a single affected 

site, the intensity, size, and distribution of impacts are not relevant to the significance of impacts 

assessed at large spatial scales (Cole 1989). 

Virgin Valley Campground is located at a site previously developed and used by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps in the late 1930s. Catnip Reservoir and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds are 

located immediately adjacent to artificial reservoirs. These three campgrounds receive the greatest 

amounts of use and exhibit the greatest amount of impact. The core areas of use at these 

campgrounds no longer support vegetation or vegetation diversity is substantially reduced, water 

infiltration is considered low due to soil compaction, and gravel has been placed in some areas to 

reduce erosion and rutting from vehicles. Non-native plants and animals in and around these three 

campgrounds were likely introduced by early ranching and development activities rather than 

campground visitors. Monitoring and control efforts would continue to detect and remove or 

eradicate small or new populations of invasive species. 

The remaining 10 campgrounds are all located immediately adjacent to or include aspen woodland, 

wet meadows, spring, and/or springbrook habitats. Most of these campgrounds have moderate 

amounts of vegetation loss and soil compaction, which is limited to parking areas, areas around fire 

rings, outhouses, and along connecting paths. These impacts are generally not continuous throughout 

the campground and are expected to remain stable with current amounts of intermittent use, which 

occurs during late summer and fall after most annual and biannual plants have finished growing for 

the season and when soils are typically drier and more resistant to impact. Some primitive 

campgrounds have no visible bare ground, and where located in meadow habitats, vegetation is 

generally able to recover from the current amount of use. Some primitive campgrounds exhibit small 

areas of bare ground, generally a lack forbs, which are not resistant to trampling, and in the case of 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-13 

Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Springs, exhibit some impacts to aspen trees from 

trampling, soil compaction, root exposure, and cutting. Because these campgrounds receive little 

visitation or are located near frequently traveled gravel roads, impacts to wildlife from campground 

use are estimated to be minor or negligible. Due to the nature of these impacts and relatively low 

amount of use, we anticipate these campgrounds would exhibit the greatest natural recovery 

compared to the three more developed and heavily used campgrounds if camping use were 

eliminated, but they would also exhibit the greatest amount of additional impact if camping use were 

to substantially increase. Aspen stands associated with the Devaney, Wheeler Spring, and East Rock 

Springs campgrounds are also expected to recover, but regeneration of the understory shrubs and 

younger trees would occur slowly and would likely require some active restoration and/or replanting. 

Up to nine semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds would be relocated away from sensitive 

riparian habitats and areas with cultural resources. It is anticipated actions to relocate campgrounds 

to alternative sites, protect sensitive habitats at each of these campgrounds, and confine use to 

designated campsites in heavily used campgrounds would minimize or avoid additional impacts 

altogether. 

We expect some primitive campgrounds to be consolidated with other existing campgrounds, which 

would need to be enlarged and have additional campsites constructed (the most likely candidates for 

enlargement include Catnip Reservoir, Big Spring Reservoir, Fish Spring, and West Rock Spring 

campgrounds). Consolidation would result in additional impacts from increased use of existing 

facilities and campsites and from designation and construction within existing campgrounds. Where 

camping already occurs, increased use of existing campsites and facilities is expected to have little or 

no measurable impact to vegetation or wildlife. Impacts to expanded portions of these campgrounds 

are expected to occur quickly as vegetation is trampled and soil compacted within the first two or 

three seasons of use, but then stabilize over the long term. We expect enlargement of existing 

campgrounds would result in minor, site-specific, long-term, direct adverse impacts to plants and 

their habitats from removal of vegetation, soil compaction, and loss of organic soil horizon at these 

sites. 

Impacts from Wildfire: Campfires are allowed at designated campgrounds but are occasionally 

prohibited during periods of high fire danger. Wildfires have been started by refuge visitors in the 

past and we expect some wildfires would occasionally start as a result of escaped campfires or 

misuse of stoves. Seasonal campfire restrictions and rapid fire suppression response would continue 

to minimize impacts. 

Impacts to Cultural Resources: Most of the 13 designated campgrounds are located within or 

adjacent to prehistoric cultural sites. While the majority of impacts occurred following the initial 

establishment and use of these campgrounds, some impacts continue due to ongoing soil disturbance 

and compaction within existing campsites, trampling and removal of vegetation, occasional use of 

previously unused areas adjacent to the campgrounds, and vehicle use outside designated areas. 

Limited fee use of the Little Sheldon Overnight Cabin or Badger Cabin is expected to increase public 

appreciation for historic resources and understanding for their protection and preservation. In 

addition, the use of these sites and the collection of fees would provide justification and funding for 

restoration work and continued maintenance. As a result, the integrity of sites eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places would be protected. Therefore, we anticipate use of these 

facilities to support wildlife photography and observation would have a major, long-term, beneficial 

impact on cultural resources. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-14 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Impacts to Recreation Opportunity: Campsite registration, overnight fees, and the other 

improvements planned for the developed campgrounds would increase maintenance, increase visitor 

compliance with rules and regulations (by defining and designating campsites), and decrease 

competition for campsites. Campground management strategies are expected to result in moderate, 

indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts to the camping experience, in support of providing quality 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Effects from Public Access 

Adverse impacts are expected to continue as a result of the network of developed and undeveloped 

roads throughout Sheldon Refuge and their associated maintenance. Road development and use 

continues to adversely impact the biological integrity within Sheldon Refuge by contributing to the 

altered composition of plant communities, soil disturbance (Eckert et al. 1979; Iverson et al. 1981; 

Switalski et al. 2004), altered hydrology and stream sedimentation (Forman and Alexander 1998), 

facilitation of the spread of invasive vegetation, changes in the natural fire regimes, and habitat 

fragmentation. 

Many direct effects are obvious during construction, but other effects are permanent and can extend 

substantially beyond the actual road surface (road-effect zone; Forman 2000; Forman and Alexander 

1998). At the landscape scale, major ecological impacts of a road network include fragmentation, the 

disruption of landscape processes, and loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity declines as the road network 

impacts interior species (species cut off by roads), species with large home ranges, stream and 

wetland species, and rare native species (Forman and Alexander 1998). Fragmentation of previously 

extensive landscapes can influence the distribution and abundance of a host of wildlife species 

through redistribution of habitat types and through the pattern of habitat fragmentation, including 

characteristics such as decreased patch area and increased habitat edge (Vander Haegen et al. 2000). 

Roads (including OHV trails) are commonly identified as important correlates or indicators of loss of 

ecological health and affect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in several general ways: 1) increased 

mortality from road construction; 2) increased mortality from collision with vehicles; 3) modification 

of animal behavior; 4) alteration of physical environment; 5) alteration of chemical environment; 6) 

spread of exotic species; and 7) increased alteration and use of habitats by humans (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000; Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

The ecological effect of road avoidance is likely related to traffic density and speed of travel, as well 

as traffic noise levels (Forman and Alexander 1998). Road-effect zones generally result in lower 

breeding densities and reduced species richness; species demonstrated to avoid or be negatively 

impacted by roads include arthropods, reptiles, small mammals, ungulates, and forest and grassland 

birds (Andrews and Gibbons 2005; Carr and Fahrig 2001; Forman and Alexander 1998; McGrann et 

al. 2006; Rost and Bailey 1979). For example, proximity to OHV trails (<1,000 meters [3,280 feet]) 

was found to have a direct correlation with reduced-quality habitat for nesting songbirds in 

sagebrush-steppe habitats, including nest desertion, nest predation, and abandonment (Barton and 

Holmes 2007). Behavioral disturbance from recreation, including that associated with trails and 

roads, may also have both immediate and long-term effects on wildlife (Taylor and Knight 2003). In 

one study of pronghorn, deer, and bison, individuals exhibited a 70% probability of flushing within 

1,000 meters (3,280 feet) on either side of a trail used by hikers and mountain bikers (Taylor and 

Knight 2003); presumably, responses are similar in the presence of vehicles such as OHVs. Road 

density can be used as an overall index to average patterns over an area. For example, road densities 

of approximately 1.0 mile per square mile have been recommended as the maximum for a naturally 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-15 

functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large predators (Forman and Alexander 

1998). However, the effects of road density are likely sensitive to road width or type, traffic density, 

network connectivity, and the frequency of spur roads into remote areas (Forman and Alexander 

1998). 

Within Sheldon Refuge, more than 50 introduced, non-native, and often noxious plant species have 

been documented (refer to Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS Appendix B). Invasive plants typically need 

transportation to spread to new areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000), and within Sheldon Refuge 

several methods are possible, including vehicles, people, wild and domestic animals, and firefighting 

equipment. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that habitats distant from roads may provide important 

refuge for native grassland species, and that this effect may be even more pronounced in 

predominately intact landscapes such as those in parts of the Great Basin (Gelbard and Harrison 

2003). Human access and disturbance effects on remote areas tend to increase with higher road 

densities, as well as human-caused fire ignitions (Forman and Alexander 1998). 

Sheldon Refuge proposes that various methods, including systematic inventory and monitoring for 

invasive plants, mowing, use of herbicides, and elimination of grading road shoulders, be used to 

detect new infestations, control and contain existing infestations, and treat up to 1,000 acres per year. 

Management strategies to combat invasive plants support the Service policy for biological integrity 

and diversity within Sheldon Refuge. With a more systematic approach for inventory of noxious 

weeds and other invasive plants, populations are more likely to be detected when they are small and 

more easily managed and controlled. Increased treatment and reduced soil disturbance along road 

corridors should reduce the spread of invasive plants already present and reduce the potential for new 

populations. As a result, we anticipate these actions would result in major, long-term, direct, 

beneficial impacts to all habitats. Implementing treatment strategies (e.g., mechanical removal of 

vegetation, application of herbicides) would likely eliminate or prevent the spread of noxious weed 

populations when detected and provide some conservation of native habitats, resulting in minor, sitespecific, short-term, direct, beneficial impacts to habitat on approximately 1,000 acres per year. 

In conjunction with preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, Refuge staff conducted an 

evaluation of existing routes and trails and identified known and potential resource impacts and 

public benefits and recreation opportunities associated with vehicle access. Route segments that 

were identified as causing substantial impacts to soils, riparian areas, and/or wildlife, were redundant 

with other routes, or provided very little or no access for wildlife-dependent uses were not identified 

for designation as open roads for public use of vehicles. To minimize or avoid lesser impacts from 

roads and vehicle use, the Service would implement a number of transportation management 

strategies including designating roads that are not duplicative, re-routing or realigning road segments 

that pass through sensitive resource areas, installing erosion control structures, increasing monitoring 

and treatment of weeds along road corridors, and posting signs marking all designated open roads. 

These actions would result in long-term, minor, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts to soils by 

decreasing erosion in sensitive areas that are currently affected. Overall we expect impacts from 

road management to be minor, direct, and adverse to habitats on a localized and long-term basis. 

Management of wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation supports Service policy by providing various opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined types of recreation throughout Sheldon Refuge. Hiking, horseback riding, and vehicle 

access are secondary uses that support wildlife-dependent recreational activities within Sheldon 

Refuge. Sheldon Refuge allows access on foot, by horseback, or by vehicle. However, all vehicle 

routes are open to both motorized and non-motorized vehicles, and there are no areas managed for 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-16 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

non-motorized vehicle access (i.e., mountain bikes or game carts) or semi-primitive non-motorized 

recreation opportunity. In areas open to vehicle use we assume impacts to non-motorized vehicle 

users are asymmetrical (Webber 1995) and occur from conflict, noise, dust, competition with 

motorized users for recreation opportunity, and displacement to non-motorized areas outside the 

refuge (Adelman et al. 1982; Gambill 1996; Manning and Valliere 2002; Moore 1994; Stokowski 

and LaPointe 2000). The somewhat narrow range of vehicle access for non-motorized users 

provided within the refuge represents a direct, adverse, moderate, long-term impact to quality 

recreation opportunities. 

Effects from Horseback Riding and Use of Pack Stock 

Because the number of visitors who ride horseback or use pack stock within Sheldon Refuge is 

estimated to be less than 10 per year and because little impact has been observed from such use, we 

expect future impacts from trampling and introduction of non-native weed would also be low and 

less than similar impacts associated with overnight camping and vehicle use. Stock use areas at 

Badger and Fish Spring campgrounds would continue to be monitored, particularly for new 

populations of non-native plants, and additional action such as requiring certified weed-free feed and 

weed removal would be implemented as necessary. 

Effects from Boating 

The use of non-motorized or electric-powered boats is allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip 

Reservoir, and the Dufurrena Ponds, consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. The majority of boating occurs 

in conjunction with sport fishing, and while migratory bird hunting is not allowed on these waters, 

occasional and intermittent boating does occur in conjunction with other hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation, research, scientific 

collecting, and surveys. The amount of boating that occurs within Sheldon Refuge has not been 

quantified, but is considered low based upon angler participation and incidental observation by staff 

and volunteers. Boating generally occurs during summer months following the waterfowl nesting 

season (when the potential for bird disturbance or displacement impacts would be greatest) and 

following the beginning of trout fishing season, when there are higher water temperatures at 

Dufurrena Ponds, which provide better fishing success. Requirements for use of non-motorized 

boats or boats with electric motors would eliminate the potential for water pollution associated with 

use of outboard motors and would maintain opportunities for visitor solitude. Overall, the amount of 

boating associated with wildlife-dependent public uses is considered low, and adverse impacts are 

estimated to be short-term, intermittent, and negligible. 

Economic Effects 

Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are the most common wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities taking place on Sheldon Refuge, resulting in an estimated 17,900 annual visits. As a result, 

expenditures associated with wildlife observation and photography are the largest contributor to 

gross state product (GSP) of the wildlife-dependent recreational activities assessed, contributing 

$2.47 million to GSP (30%). Expenditures associated with camping have not been expressly 

quantified but are expected to largely overlap with other wildlife observation and photography 

expenditures (Industrial Economics 2010). 

As additional opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental 

interpretation, and education are provided through the projects and programs proposed for Sheldon 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-17 

Refuge, we expect visitation related to wildlife viewing and overall visitation to Sheldon Refuge 

would increase over the next 15 years. This increase in visitation is an assumed result primarily 

because of the construction of the new visitor contact station, but it is also expected to result from 

numerous other planned improvements to refuge facilities. Specifically, visitation is assumed to 

increase by 5,000 visitors over the course of the 15-year planning period. With this increase, we 

expect wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation at Sheldon 

Refuge to contribute $2.93 million annually to GSP by the end of this 15-year time period (Industrial 

Economics 2010). 

Effects to Wilderness Character 

Naturalness: Approximately 300 miles of existing vehicle routes would remain visible, and their 

designation for motorized use is not expected to result in any short-term impacts to naturalness. Over 

the long term, as public use continues to increase, we expect that there would be a need for additional 

signs, road maintenance, and other developments to ensure compatibility. Increased visitation to 

these areas would also increase the potential for introduction and spread of weeds and for the 

disturbance and displacement of wildlife. 

Weed treatments occurring on approximately 1,000 acres per year, primarily along road corridors, 

are expected to slow or possibly reverse the trend of weed spread and invasion into undeveloped and 

more natural areas of Sheldon Refuge, but would adversely affect natural character due to the 

presence of dead vegetation and vehicle tracks. 

Untrammeled Conditions: Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation rely primarily on existing campgrounds, roads, and other facilities, which results in 

little or no change to untrammeled conditions within Sheldon Refuge. 

Solitude: Due to the limited number of campsites available and the implementation of fees for use at 

the Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds, we anticipate some 

increased use of primitive campgrounds and some additional overnight backcountry use by visitors 

participating in wildlife observation and photography who continue to seek opportunities for solitude. 

Such opportunities would continue to be available throughout much of Sheldon Refuge during 

substantial portions of the year. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Designation of 300 miles of existing roads for public use of 

vehicles would result in only minor impacts. These existing roads would maintain their current 

condition and level of maintenance, and use of unimproved dirt roads is expected to remain low and 

intermittent for access to more primitive and remote portions of Sheldon Refuge. Other routes would 

continue to be used for hiking, backpacking, and horseback riding, and occasionally by vehicle for 

administrative purposes. Management actions would also result in greater management presence, 

development, and regulation at the Virgin Valley, Catnip, and Big Spring campgrounds. Impacts to 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation would be minor, with vehicle use confined to 

existing campgrounds and roads where public use has been well established for many years. 

Cumulative Effects from Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography, Environmental Education, and 

Interpretation 

Impacts to wildlife populations and other public uses from wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation within the refuge, including both direct and indirect 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-18 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

impacts, are considered minor. Actions proposed to manage public uses within the refuge, including 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation, are expected to have 

both adverse and beneficial impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat and to increase opportunities for 

high-quality wildlife-dependent public uses. When considered with other existing and proposed 

public uses and proposed management actions at Sheldon Refuge, cumulative impacts from wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, or interpretation would be minor, and 

cumulative impacts from management of supporting uses such as temporary viewing blinds, 

camping, and vehicle access would be beneficial and minor to moderate. Continued monitoring of 

public uses and visitation to sensitive habitats would provide necessary information and management 

to ensure impacts from wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, or interpretation 

within the refuge remain minor. It is anticipated the overall amount of refuge visitation associated 

with wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, or interpretation would increase 

but would not interfere with or detract from the quality of other refuge public uses. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This and other compatibility determinations were prepared concurrently with the Final CCP/EIS for 

the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (in press). Open houses were held, multiple planning updates 

were mailed, and written comments were solicited from the public during development of the Final 

CCP/EIS for the refuge. Appendix A of the Final CCP/EIS further details public involvement during 

development of the CCP. A summary of public comments received during review of the Draft 

CCP/EIS along with the Service’s response to those comments are included in Appendix N of the 

Final CCP/EIS. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Management direction is provided in the CCP/EIS for Sheldon Refuge. This directs monitoring of 

wildlife observation and photography activities. Findings from these monitoring efforts would be 

used in determining what additional management actions, if any, are needed to ensure public use 

activities remain compatible with refuge purposes. Stipulations that apply to wildlife viewing and 

observation within Sheldon Refuge are listed below. 

1. The construction and use of temporary blinds for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, or outreach is allowed only by refuge Special Use Permit and is subject 

to the following conditions: 

i. Blinds may not be constructed earlier than one week prior to use. 

ii. All blinds must be portable, temporary, and constructed of synthetic material. 

iii. Blinds must be removed no later than 14 days after construction. 

iv. Blinds must be tagged with the date of construction, owner’s full name, physical 

address of residence, and contact phone number or contact email address. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-19 

v. Destruction of natural vegetation or belowground excavation are prohibited (see 50 

CFR 27.51). 

vi. All blinds within 100 yards of any active Greater sage-grouse lek must be specifically 

authorized for the viewing and/or observation of Greater sage-grouse and be located 

at a distance of 50 yards or more from all active Greater sage-grouse lek locations as 

directed by the Refuge Manager. Permittees would construct blinds the afternoon 

prior to use, occupy blinds no less than two hours prior to sunrise, and leave blinds 

only after all birds have departed the lek. 

vii. Blinds within 100 yards of active Greater sage-grouse leks not specifically authorized 

by permit would be removed and the owner contacted by Sheldon Refuge. 

2. Any person participating in or attempting to participate in the viewing and/or photography of 

Greater sage-grouse between March 1 and June 1 must be in possession of a valid refuge Special 

Use Permit specifically authorizing such activities. 

3. Applications to view or photograph Greater sage-grouse must be received no later than 60 days 

prior to the proposed activity. The availability of permits would be limited to regularly 

scheduled refuge lek count days and staff availability. Permits would be granted on a first-come, 

first-served basis, unless otherwise determined. 

4. A maximum of one (1) refuge special use permit per person per year may be issued for the 

viewing and/or photography of Greater sage-grouse. 

5. All vehicles defined as off-road vehicles under 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 must be registered with 

the State of Nevada or Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge for use on lands administered by 

Sheldon Refuge. 

6. Vehicle use within Sheldon Refuge is allowed only on roads and routes that are designated 

“open” on Figure D.1 and that are signed or otherwise marked for such use. Off-road use is 

prohibited. 

7. Unless otherwise indicated by sign, permit, or regulation, the maximum number of consecutive 

nights any person or attended vehicle may remain at a designated Refuge campground is 14 

nights. 

8. Except for camping within campgrounds that are designated for such use on maps included in the 

Final Record of Decision for the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EIS and that are signed 

or otherwise marked for such use, no overnight use is allowed on lands administered by Sheldon 

Refuge unless expressly authorized by a valid Special Use Permit. 

9. Non-motorized boats or boats with electric motors are allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, 

Catnip Reservoir, and Dufurrena Ponds consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. 

10. Open fires are allowed only at designated campgrounds and within constructed fire rings, subject 

to additional seasonal fire restrictions and/or closures. 

11. Pets must be leashed, except dogs used for hunting migratory or upland birds. Hunting dogs 

must be under strict voice control at all times. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-20 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

12. Riding or packing with horses and mules is allowed in all areas open to public use. All horses 

and mules must be haltered, branded, tagged, or otherwise visibly marked as a domestic animal 

and must be tied, hobbled, high-lined, corralled, or otherwise under direct control at all times. 

13. Grazing of domestic animals within Sheldon Refuge is not allowed. 

14. We encourage the use of certified weed-free hay, pellets, straw, and other livestock feed within 

Sheldon Refuge. The use of certified weed-free feed would be required if monitoring of stock 

use areas indicates the spread or introduction of noxious weeds from uncertified feed. 

National Special Use Permit Conditions and Requirements 

1. Responsibility of Permittee: The permittee by operating on the premises shall be considered to 

have accepted these premises with all facilities, fixtures, or improvements in their existing 

condition as of the date of this permit. At the end of the period specified or upon earlier 

termination, the permittee shall give up the premises in as good order and condition as when 

received except for reasonable wear, tear, or damage occurring without fault or negligence. The 

permittee will fully repay the Service for any and all damage directly or indirectly resulting from 

negligence or failure on his/her part, or the part of anyone of his/her associates, to use reasonable 

care. 

2. Operating Rules and Laws: The permittee shall keep the premises in a neat and orderly condition 

at all times, and shall comply with all municipal, county, and State laws applicable to the 

operations under the permit as well as all Federal laws, rules, and regulations governing national 

wildlife refuges and the area described in this permit. The permittee shall comply with all 

instructions applicable to this permit issued by the refuge official in charge. The permittee shall 

take all reasonable precautions to prevent the escape of fires and to suppress fires and shall 

render all reasonable assistance in the suppression of refuge fires. 

3. Use Limitations: The permittee’s use of the described premises is limited to the purposed herein 

specified and does not, unless provided for in this permit, allow him/her to restrict other 

authorized entry on to his/her area; and permits the Service to carry on whatever activities are 

necessary for (1) protection and maintenance of the premises and adjacent lands administered by 

the Service; and (2) the management of wildlife and fish using the premises and other Service 

lands. 

4. Transfer of Privileges: This permit is not transferable, and no privileges herein mentioned may 

be sublet or made available to any person or interest not mentioned in this permit. No interest 

hereunder may accrue through lien or be transferred to a third party without the approval of the 

Regional Director of the Service and the permit shall not be used for speculative purposes. 

5. Compliance: The Service’s failure to require strict compliance with any of this permit’s terms, 

conditions, and requirements shall not constitute a waiver or be considered as a giving up of the 

Service’s right to thereafter enforce any of the permit’s terms or conditions. 

6. Conditions of Permit not Fulfilled: If the permittee fails to fulfill any of the conditions and 

requirements set forth herein, all money paid under this permit shall be retained by the 

Government to be used to satisfy as much of the permittee’s obligation as possible. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-21 

7. Payments: All payment shall be made on or before the due date to the local representative of the 

Service by a postal money order or check made payable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

8. Termination Policy: At the termination of this permit the permittee shall immediately give up 

possession to the Service representative, reserving, however, the rights specified in paragraph 11. 

If he/she fails to do so, he/she will pay the Government, as liquidated damages, an amount double 

the rate specified in this permit for the entire time possession is withheld. Upon yielding 

possession, the permittee will still be allowed to re-enter as needed to remove his/her property as 

stated in paragraph 11. The acceptance of any fee for liquidated damages or any other act of 

administration relating to the continued tenancy is not to be considered as an affirmation of the 

permittees’ action nor shall it operate as a waiver of the Government’s right to terminate or 

cancel the permit for the breach of any specified condition or requirement. 

9. Revocation Policy: This permit may be revoked by the Regional Director of the Service without 

notice for noncompliance with the terms hereof or for violation of general and/or specific laws or 

regulations governing national wildlife refuges or for nonuse. It is at all times subject to 

discretionary revocation by the Director of the Service. Upon such revocation the Service, by 

and through any authorized representative, may take possession of the said premises for its own 

and sole use, or may enter and possess the premises as the agent of the permittee and for his/her 

account. 

10. Damages: The United States shall not be responsible for any loss or damage to property 

including, but not limited to, growing crops, animals, and machinery or injury to the permittee or 

his/her relatives, or to the officers, agents, employees, or any other who are on the premises from 

instructions or by the sufferance of wildlife or employees or representatives of the Government 

carrying out their official responsibilities. The permittee agrees to save the United States or any 

of its agencies harmless from any and all claims for damages or losses that may arise to be 

incident to the flooding of the premises resulting from any associated Government river and 

harbor, flood control, reclamation, or Tennessee Valley Authority activity. 

11. Removal of Permittee’s Property: Upon the expiration or termination of this permit, if all rental 

charges and/or damage claims due to the Government have been paid, the permittee may, within 

a reasonable period as stated in the permit or as determined by the refuge official in charge but 

not to exceed 60 days, remove all structures, machinery, and/or other equipment, etc., from the 

premises for which he/she is responsible. Within this period the permittee must also remove any 

other of his/her property including his/her acknowledged share of products or crops grown, cut, 

harvested, stored, or stacked on the premises. Upon failure to remove any of the above items 

within the aforesaid period, they shall become the property of the United States. 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Conditions 

1. A copy of this permit must be in the permittee’s possession at all times while exercising the 

privileges of this permit. 

2. All waste materials must be removed from the Refuge upon the permittee’s and/or clients’ 

departure. The permittee is responsible for removal of clients’ garbage. 

3. The landing of aircraft and use of helicopters is prohibited. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-22 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

4. Management direction is provided in the CCP for Sheldon Refuge. This directs monitoring of 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities and other public uses. Findings from these monitoring 

efforts would be used in determining what additional management actions, if any, are needed to 

ensure public use activities remain compatible with refuge purposes. 

Justification: 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (as amended) identifies wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography as two of six priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. 

The law states that, when managed in accordance with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management and administration, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and the other priority 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses “have been and are expected to continue to be generally 

compatible uses.” The Act further states that these priority public uses should receive enhanced 

consideration over other general public uses in refuge planning and management, and directs the 

USFWS to provide increased opportunities for the public to safely engage in traditional outdoor 

activities such as fishing and hunting. 

Wildlife photography, observation, interpretation, and environmental education can result in 

disturbance, displacement, and habituation of wildlife. However, overall visitation to the refuge is 

approximately 17,000 people per year, and the majority of visitors who engage in these activities 

remain on improved gravel roads and highways. There is sufficient undisturbed habitat available to 

refuge wildlife for escape and cover. Regulating the use of wildlife-viewing blinds, sage-grouse 

viewing, and photography would ensure that the use of established leks continues with only minimal 

disturbance or disruption. Other requirements regarding the use of non-motorized boats or boats with 

electric motors and designated campgrounds and requirements for backcountry camping permits 

would also minimize wildlife disturbance and displacement from important habitats and habitat 

impacts while maintaining opportunities for solitude within proposed wilderness areas and 

wilderness study areas. Stipulations identified in this compatibility determination are expected to 

minimize impacts from wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education within Sheldon Refuge to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Thus, allowing wildlife 

photography, observation, interpretation, and environmental education to occur with stipulations 

would not materially detract from or interfere with the purposes for which the refuge was established 

or the Refuge System mission. 

Closure of the Virgin Valley and Little Sheldon areas to all hunting and closure of Big Spring and 

Catnip reservoirs to migratory bird hunting would continue to provide outstanding opportunities for 

observation and photography of wildlife, including large animals and birds in their natural habitats 

and exhibiting behavior not influenced by hunting pressure. Construction of a visitor contact station 

along Highway 140 would provide better interpretive opportunities for a larger number of people 

than are currently available. Due to the new visitor contact station and other refuge interpretive 

materials, displays, and signs, we expect visitors would be better informed and more knowledgeable 

about Sheldon Refuge public use regulations, refuge resources, and the need for conservation of 

refuge resources. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide year for “allowed” uses only) 

 2026 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-23 

 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Literature Cited: 

Adelman, B., T. Heberlein, and T. Bonnicksen. 1982. Social psychological explanations for the 

persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences 5:45-61. 

Andrews, K.M. and J.W. Gibbons. 2005. How do highways influence snake movement? Behavioral 

responses to roads and vehicles. Copeia 2005:772-782. 

Barton, D.C. and A.L. Holmes. 2007. Off-highway vehicle trail impacts on breeding songbirds in 

northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1617-1625. 

Carr, L.W. and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing 

vagility. Conservation Biology 15:1071-1078. 

Cole, D.N. 1981. Vegetational changes associated with recreational use and fire suppression in the 

Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon: some management implications. Biological Conservation 

20:247-270. 

Cole, D.N. 1985. Recreational trampling effects on six habitat types in western Montana. Research 

Paper INT-350. USDA Forest Service. 43 pp. 

Cole, D.N. 1989. Some principles to guide wilderness campsite management. Pages 181-187 in: 

D.W. Lime, ed. Campsite management and monitoring in wilderness. St. Paul, MN: 

Minnesota Extension Service and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of 

Minnesota. 

Cole, D.N. 1995. Experimental trampling of vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 32:215-224. 

Cole, D.N. 2004. Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review. Available at: 

http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs12/Ecotourism.pdf. Accessed January 

31, 2011. 

Eckert, R.E., Jr., M.K. Wood, W.H. Blackburn, and F.F. Peterson. 1979. Impacts of off-road 

vehicles on infiltration and sediment production of two desert soils. Journal of Range 

Management 32:394-397. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-24 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road network in the United 

States. Conservation Biology 14:31-35. 

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. 

Gambill, P. 1996. Multi-use trail management policy: user-group conflict and resource impact 

issues. Wheaton, IL: The Wheaton Center. 

Gelbard, J.L. and S. Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: interactions 

with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications 13:404-415. 

Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010. Economic assessment in support of comprehensive conservation 

planning at Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Industrial Economics, Inc. Cambridge, MA. 

Iverson, R.M., B.S. Hinckley, R.M. Webb, and B. Hallet. 1981. Physical effects of vehicular 

disturbances on arid landscapes. Science 212:915-917. 

Manning, R. and W. Valliere. 2002. Coping in outdoor recreation: causes and consequences of 

crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research 33(4):410-

426. 

McGrann, M.C., G.R. Wright, R.J. Dial, and A.M. McGrann. 2006. Off-highway vehicle impact on 

the flat-tailed horned lizard, Phrynosoma mcallii, in the Colorado Desert of southern 

California. California Fish and Game 92:67-80. 

Monti, P. and E.E. Mackintosh. 1979. Effect of camping on surface soil properties in the boreal 

forest region of northwestern Ontario, Canada. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43: 

1024-1029. 

Moore, R.L. 1994. Conflicts on multiple-use trails: Synthesis of the literature and state of the 

practice, Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Rost, G.R. and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 43:634-641. 

Stokowski, P.A. and C.B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and social effects of ATVs and ORVs: an 

annotated bibliography and research assessment. School of Natural Resources, University of 

Vermont. 31 pp. Available at: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/atv_nov20_final.pdf. 

Switalski, T.A, J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and 

impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:21-28. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-25 

USFWS. Undated report. Camping use days Virgin Valley Campground Sheldon NWR. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Lakeview, OR. 

Webber, P.C. 1995. Report to the board of environmental management on the policy for off-road 

vehicle use in Massachusetts forests and parks. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, 

MA: Department of Environmental Management. 

Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2006. Nevada wildlife action plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

Reno, NV. 

Vander Haegen, W.M., F.C. Dobler, and D.J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and 

landscape variables in Eastern Washington, USA. Conservation Biology 14:1145-1160. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-26 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Refuge Determination 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

 ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-27 

D.2 Compatibility Determination for Sport Fishing on Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Use(s): Fishing 

Supporting Uses: Camping, boating, and vehicle use 

Refuge Name: Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge 

City/County and State: Washoe County, Nevada; Humboldt County, Nevada; Lake County, 

Oregon 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

What is today known as the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge was initially established by Executive 

Order 5540 dated January 26, 1931, and later enlarged by Executive Order 7364 dated May 6, 1936, 

and Executive Order 7522 dated December 21, 1936. 

The authorities for nearly all Federal lands within Sheldon Refuge are the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r) and the National Wildlife 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). A small portion of Sheldon 

Refuge was acquired under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1231-1544). 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“...as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and birds...” Executive Order 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....” Executive 

Order 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) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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]). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-28 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use(s): 

Fishing on Sheldon Refuge occurs within artificial ponds and reservoirs originally constructed to 

increase late-summer water availability for livestock and to supply irrigation for pastures and fields. 

Because commercial livestock grazing, haying, and farming no longer occur on Sheldon Refuge, the 

purposes for these artificial waters are now primarily to provide habitat for fish and wildlife and 

secondarily to provide recreational fishing opportunities. Both warm-water fishing (i.e., bass) and 

cold-water fishing (i.e., trout) opportunities exist on Sheldon Refuge. Currently fishing is allowed at 

Big Spring Reservoir for rainbow trout, at Catnip Reservoir for Lahontan cutthroat trout, and at 

Dufurrena Ponds (which includes McGee Pond) for bass, crappie, sunfish, and perch. McGee Pond 

is managed to provide fishing opportunities only for individuals who are age 12 or under, age 65 or 

older, or disabled. The waters listed are closed to migratory bird hunting, but the use of nonmotorized boats and boats with electric motors is allowed. 

In the past Big Spring Reservoir has been a popular and productive fishing destination for anglers, 

and it has facilities in support of fishing, including a campground and a boat launch. More than 

1,900 anglers reported an average of five fish caught per day in 1998 (Nevada Department of 

Wildlife [NDOW] 2009). For comparison, 2007 angler questionnaire results indicated that 1,116 

anglers fished Squaw Creek Reservoir (the next closest highway-accessible reservoir fishery in the 

state), and 3,111 anglers fished Rye Patch Reservoir, located just north of Interstate 84 near 

Winnemucca, Nevada (NDOW 2009). More recently, drier weather and the resulting lack of water at 

Big Spring Reservoir has at least temporarily eliminated fishing opportunities. The fishing season is 

open from the second Saturday in May through the last day of February. The fishing limit is five 

trout. 

Catnip Reservoir also has a campground to support fishing activities, but at 22 acres and accessible 

by a maintained gravel road, Catnip Reservoir experiences angler use more typical of reservoirs 

scattered throughout northwest Nevada. Questionnaire results indicate 312 anglers fished Catnip 

Reservoir in 2007 (NDOW 2009). We assume at least some anglers who fished at Big Spring 

Reservoir in the past are now visiting Catnip Reservoir. NDOW has periodically stocked up to 3,000 

fish in Catnip Reservoir. The fishing season is open the second Saturday in June through November 

15. The fishing limit is one trout. Only artificial lures with single barbless hooks may be used. 

The least amount of recreational fishing within Sheldon Refuge occurs at Dufurrena Ponds, with 176 

anglers reporting 577 fishing days in 2007 (NDOW 2009). The Virgin Valley Campground is 

located 1.5 miles from Dufurrena Ponds 19 and 20. Dufurrena Pond 20 and McGee Pond have 

fishing docks that are accessible to people with physical disabilities. Fishing season is open yearround. The fishing limit is 15 fish. The Dufurrena Ponds are more easily accessible than Catnip and 

Big Spring reservoirs, which are more remote but accessible by maintained gravel roads. 

Because there are few people in Nevada, the limited amount of angler visitation data can be 

misleading. Fishing opportunities provided within Sheldon Refuge represent important regional 

destinations for recreation fishing, and anglers consistently travel more than 200 miles to reach these 

locations throughout the summer months. The popularity of fishing on Sheldon Refuge results in 

visitation that approaches or exceeds campground capacity at some sites during short periods of the 

summer and fall. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-29 

Secondary uses of Sheldon Refuge that support fishing include overnight camping at three designated 

campgrounds (Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds), nonmotorized boating, and vehicle use on designated access routes. 

Supporting Uses 

Camping

Camping itself is not a priority public use on Service lands, but because of the size, remoteness, and 

quality of roads within Sheldon Refuge, it is important in supporting priority uses including fishing, 

hunting, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. There are four types of camping 

opportunities currently provided within Sheldon Refuge: developed, semi-primitive, primitive, and 

backcountry/wilderness. Fishing activities occur in more developed areas of the Refuge, and fishing 

is supported by campgrounds at Big Spring and Catnip reservoirs and Virgin Valley Campground. 

These facilities are described below under developed and semi-primitive camping. 

Developed Camping: Virgin Valley Campground located at Dufurrena is considered the only 

developed campground. Virgin Valley Campground is easily accessible year-round for all types of 

vehicles, including RVs, and it offers shade trees, potable water, two vault toilets, 16 picnic tables, 

24 fire rings, a meat-hanging pole, a bath-house, and a hot spring developed for swimming. 

Campground use is managed on a first-come, first-served basis without fees or designated sites. 

From 2005 through 2007, an average of 18 campsites were occupied per day during the days 

surveyed, for a seasonal average of 6,573 visitor use days (USFWS undated report). 

From mid-August through mid-November, the Virgin Valley Campground is heavily used by 

hunters. Sport anglers also use the Virgin Valley Campground, which supports fishing at the 

Dufurrena Ponds and McGee Pond. During peak seasons, overcrowding and user conflicts have been 

a concern as has overflow into upland areas adjacent to the campground, which can result in further 

environmental damage. 

Semi-primitive Camping: Of five semi-primitive campgrounds, only Catnip Reservoir and Big 

Spring Reservoir campgrounds support fishing within Sheldon Refuge. Both campgrounds include 

outhouses and fire rings. Catnip Reservoir is accessible from county road 8A, and Big Spring 

Reservoir is accessible by improved gravel road approximately 1 mile north of State Highway 140; 

both roads are suitable for most types of vehicles. 

Additional facilities such as campsite amenities (i.e., picnic tables and accessible fire rings or 

barbeque grills), potable water, shade structures, kiosks, and dedicated volunteer sites are planned for 

Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds. These facilities would 

provide developed camping opportunities that are not commonly available within Sheldon Refuge or 

the region. However, these improved facilities would only be sustainable over the long term through 

campsite fees to support volunteers, maintenance, and replacement. 

Public Access 

Public access to fishing areas within the Refuge is provided by three maintained gravel surface roads. 

The Virgin Valley Road provides access from State Highway 140 to the Dufurrena Ponds and the 

Virgin Valley Campground, which is located 2.5 miles from the highway. Big Spring Reservoir and 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-30 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

campground are also accessible by 2.25 miles of maintained gravel road from State Highway 140, 

and county road 8A provides access from multiple locations to Catnip Reservoir and campground. 

Changes to fishing activities may result from the relocation and enlargement of the Refuge visitor 

contact station, improvement of campground facilities, and improved signing of routes open to 

vehicle use; however, since fishing activities currently occur in the more developed areas of the 

Refuge these changes are anticipated to be minor as compared to other uses, which would involve 

use of undeveloped areas of the Refuge or construction of new facilities. Improved gravel roads 

within Sheldon Refuge would be maintained more frequently, and all routes open to the public use of 

vehicles would be adequately signed and marked. Visitors would be required to register all OHVs 

consistent with State of Nevada regulation or with Sheldon Refuge for use on refuge roads and routes 

designated open to vehicle use. These actions are intended to improve the quality of the 

transportation system and deter vehicle violations while requiring only minimal law enforcement 

presence. 

Maintained Public Roads: In preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, each route within the 

refuge was evaluated to assess impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, as well as benefits 

for public use and recreation opportunity. Following this evaluation, 300 miles of existing roads 

(including State Highway 140 and all maintained county roads) were designated for public vehicle 

use. The Service has determined the continued use and maintenance of designated roads to support 

fishing, including actions for re-routing or modification as proposed in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS 

would have minimal or no impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat and/or are subject to existing rightof-way. 

Boating: Refuge-specific regulations that apply to the use of non-motorized boats and boats with 

electric motors specifically apply to sport fishing and sport hunting, but are interpreted as applying to 

other compatible wildlife-dependent public uses as well. Primarily, the use of non-motorized boats 

and boats with electric motors in Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip Reservoir, and Dufurrena Ponds 

consistent with 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 32.47 is considered a compatible activity that 

supports fishing. 

Availability of Resources: 

Most administration and management of recreational fishing, including periodic restocking, is 

conducted by NDOW and does not represent a refuge cost for managing sport fishing opportunities. 

Maintenance of the reservoirs, ponds, docks, campgrounds, access roads, and other supporting 

facilities and routine law enforcement patrols are conducted by Sheldon Refuge. 

All fishing opportunities within Sheldon Refuge are dependent upon constructed ponds and 

reservoirs, which require occasional dredging and repair to maintain public safety and water depths 

sufficient for self-sustaining fish populations and their habitats. Both Catnip and Big Spring 

reservoirs are constructed impoundments with limited to no spawning and rearing habitat that would 

facilitate self-sustaining trout populations large enough to support a recreational fishery. 

The earth dam at Catnip Reservoir is currently in poor condition due to leaking caused by burrowing 

animals. Extensive repair or possibly complete replacement would be necessary to maintain the 

Lahontan cutthroat trout population over the long term. The reservoir has gradually filled with 

sediment, bringing the current depth to approximately 4 feet. To maintain sufficient water depth for 

a sustainable trout population, Catnip Reservoir would need to be dredged. Previous estimates for 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-31 

the repair of Catnip Reservoir dam range from $334,000 to $795,000 (Sverdrup Corporation 1991). 

We estimate an additional $2 to $2.25 million would be necessary to complete the necessary 

dredging today. However, over the next 10 to 15 years we anticipate Catnip Reservoir would hold 

water sufficient to support the Lahontan cutthroat trout fishery without major reconstruction or 

dredging. 

Category and Itemization One-time Annual 

Administration and management (volunteer host site 

development, volunteer campground hosts, law 

enforcement patrols, fee collection and processing) 

$15,000 $5,000 

Maintenance (includes Catnip Reservoir dredging and 

dam repairs) 

$3,000,000 $500-$1,500 

Monitoring $500 $500 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements 

(campgrounds, docks, and access roads) 

$150,000 $500-$1,500 

Offsetting revenues2 $5,500 $5,500 

Increased staffing, funding, volunteer assistance, strengthened existing partnerships, and new 

partnerships would be sought to support these programs in an effective, safe, and compatible manner. 

Refuge staff would continue volunteer recruiting efforts as needed to ensure assistance is available to 

provide basic visitor information and maintenance of public use facilities. Volunteers, interns, and 

various user groups when provided appropriate training can assist Sheldon Refuge with monitoring 

and maintenance projects related to sport fishing within Sheldon Refuge. With additional assistance 

as described above, staffing and funding are expected to be sufficient to manage these uses. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Effects from Fishing 

Lahontan cutthroat trout were first stocked in Catnip Reservoir in 1947 (Williams et al. 1980). 

Subsequently, the Lahontan cutthroat trout was federally listed as threatened, and they are currently 

managed consistent with a special rule under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, which 

authorizes the taking of these trout in accordance with state law. Big Spring Reservoir has been 

repeatedly stocked with rainbow trout since at least 1973. Because both Catnip and Big Spring are 

constructed reservoirs with limited to no spawning and rearing habitat, regular restocking would be 

necessary to maintain these sport fishing opportunities in the future. No short-term or long-term 

adverse impacts to other Sheldon Refuge resources or uses have been identified as a result of 

recreational fishing at Catnip or Big Spring reservoirs, and none are anticipated over the next 15 

                                                           

2 Anticipated campsite fee revenues as proposed in the CCP are based on $5/site/day for 1,100 site-use days. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-32 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

years. However, rainbow trout are not considered native or indigenous to the region, and stocking 

Big Spring Reservoir with Lahontan cutthroat, Alvord cutthroat, or redband trout—which are 

indigenous to the region—would be more desirable and consistent with Service policy. 

Non-native fish populations in the Dufurrena Ponds are typically confined to the ponds themselves, 

but during high flows these fish have escaped into other portions of the Thousand Creek and Virgin 

Creek watersheds where they have established viable populations. These fish populations likely 

cause minor adverse impacts to invertebrates and other aquatic wildlife within the ponds themselves. 

Of greater concern are the moderate adverse impacts to native fishes and the natural ecology of 

Virgin Creek from non-native fish that escape from Dufurrena Ponds. Under management for 

Sheldon Refuge included in the CCP/EIS preferred alternative, these impacts are expected to 

continue. Over the long term it would be necessary to dredge the various ponds and reservoirs to 

maintain open water with depths sufficient to support recreational fisheries. This periodic dredging 

is expected to have both short-term and long-term adverse impacts to water quality and native 

downstream riparian habitats. 

Recreational fishing within Sheldon Refuge is supported by the Catnip, Big Spring, and Virgin 

Valley campgrounds. These three campgrounds are located near water and partially within riparian 

habitats and prehistoric cultural sites. While the majority of impacts occurred following the initial 

establishment of these campgrounds, some impacts continue due to continued soil disturbance and 

compaction within existing campsites, occasional use of previously unused areas adjacent to the 

campgrounds, and vehicle use outside designated areas. It is anticipated that actions to define each 

of these campgrounds and confine use to designated campsites would mitigate or avoid additional 

impacts altogether. 

The three ponds near Dufurrena that provide recreation fishing opportunities are interconnected 

within the same watershed. Sediment from upper ponds are trapped by lower ponds, but periodic 

dredging of these lower ponds is expected to have an adverse cumulative impact on the Thousand 

Creek Gorge portion of the watershed. These impacts are associated with the primary purpose of 

maintaining open water habitat for wildlife; benefits to fish from dredging are secondary and would 

occur regardless of the fishing opportunity provided. Most anglers fish from shore or in nonmotorized boats, or in boats with electric motors. Only non-motorized boats or boats with electric 

motors are allowed at Dufurrena Ponds, Big Spring Reservoir, and Catnip Reservoir. No impacts 

related to the use of boats have been documented within Sheldon Refuge. Angler activities have both 

direct and indirect impacts on aquatic habitats and dependent wildlife. Other than fish mortality from 

angling, the most frequent impact is disturbance of birds and mammals. However, because all 

fishing areas are located near developed roads and campgrounds, impacts from recreational fishing 

are only a portion of the overall wildlife disturbance at these locations. 

Annual NDOW fishing regulations and publications educate anglers about invasive aquatic species 

and suggest methods to avoid introducing these pests into new areas. Anglers have not been 

identified as the cause for any invasive species being introduced to Sheldon Refuge. 

No fishing or supporting activities occur within proposed wilderness, and no activities to maintain 

fishing opportunities are anticipated to affect nearby proposed wilderness areas. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-33 

Effects from Camping and Campgrounds 

Use of campgrounds within Sheldon Refuge causes impacts to vegetation, soils, water quality, and 

cultural resources. During dry conditions, carelessness with campfires can lead to wildfires. 

Management and development of campgrounds is also expected to affect the type and quality of 

recreation opportunities available. 

Impacts to Vegetation, Soils, and Water Quality: Fishing activities are supported by the campgrounds 

at Big Spring and Catnip reservoirs and Virgin Valley Campground. These campgrounds are among 

the more developed campgrounds on the Refuge. Because most impacts have already occurred at the 

most heavily used and developed campgrounds, we can expect very little additional impact to 

vegetation, soils, or water quality due to fishing activities as compared to other uses despite 

anticipated increases in use at these campgrounds. 

The greatest difference in durability between vegetation types occurs at moderately low use levels 

(Cole 1985). Sites that are used frequently are likely to be highly impacted regardless of their 

fragility. Because vegetation loss usually occurs more rapidly than loss of organic soil horizons, sites 

with either no vegetation or resistant vegetation (e.g., grasses as opposed to forbs) recover more 

quickly and are less likely to be impacted by low levels of use, while sites with thick organic soil 

horizons are less susceptible to erosion and are more likely to withstand high amounts of use. 

Experimental studies suggest that there is an important difference between a site’s resistance (its 

ability to tolerate use without being damaged) and its resilience (its ability to recover from damage). 

Cole (1995) has shown, for groundcover plants, that resistance decreases with erectness and that 

broad-leaved herbs are typically less resistant than grass-like plants and shrubs. Low shrubs, such as 

heather, are relatively resistant to trampling stress but their resilience is low. Once damaged, they 

recover slowly. Grass-like plants are most tolerant of trampling (Cole 1989). The compaction of 

soils from campsite use reduces water infiltration and water holding capacity, which leads to 

increased runoff and erosion potential (Cole 2004; Monti and Mackintosh 1979). Impacts associated 

with use at primitive campgrounds can be readily observed and tend to occur rapidly, but these 

impacts are relatively inconsequential when considered in the context of the entire refuge. Impacts 

associated with campgrounds located within riparian areas or near water sources are of greater 

concern, but current impacts are not severe and vegetation, soils, and water quality at primitive 

campgrounds are expected to recover noticeably within a few years following campground 

relocation. This assessment is supported by Cole (1981) who noted that hiking and camping impacts 

on soil and vegetation, while severe when measured at small scales, are minimal at large spatial 

scales. This suggests that while recreation impacts can be serious for individual plants and animals 

and perhaps localized rare populations, they are generally of little significance to landscape integrity 

or regional biotic diversity. Moreover, unless much of a population is impacted by a single impacted 

site, the intensity, size, and distribution of impacts are not relevant to the significance of impacts 

assessed at large spatial scales (Cole 1989). 

Virgin Valley Campground is located at a site previously developed and used by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps in the late 1930s. Catnip Reservoir and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds are 

located immediately adjacent to artificial reservoirs. These three campgrounds receive the greatest 

amounts of use and exhibit the greatest amount of impact. The core areas of use at these 

campgrounds no longer support vegetation or vegetation diversity is substantially reduced, water 

infiltration is considered low due to soil compaction, and gravel has been placed in some areas to 

reduce erosion and rutting from vehicles. Non-native plants and animals in and around these three 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-34 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

campgrounds were likely introduced by early ranching and development activities rather than 

campground visitors. Monitoring and control efforts would continue to detect and remove or 

eradicate small or new populations of invasive species. 

We expect some primitive campgrounds to be consolidated with other existing campgrounds, which 

would need to be enlarged and have additional campsites constructed (the most likely candidates for 

enlargement include Catnip Reservoir, Big Spring Reservoir, Fish Spring, and West Rock Spring 

campgrounds). Consolidation would result in additional impacts from increased use of existing 

facilities and campsites and from the designation and construction within existing campgrounds. 

Where camping already occurs, increased use of existing campsites and facilities is expected to have 

little or no measurable impact to vegetation or wildlife. Impacts to expanded portions of these 

campgrounds are expected to occur quickly as vegetation is trampled and soil compacted within the 

first two or three seasons of use, but then stabilize over the long term. We expect enlargement of 

existing campgrounds would result in minor, site-specific, long-term, direct adverse impacts to plants 

and their habitat from removal of vegetation, soil compaction, and loss of organic soil horizon at 

these sites. 

Impacts from Wildfire: Campfires are allowed at designated campgrounds but are occasionally 

prohibited during periods of high fire danger. Wildfires have been started by refuge visitors in the 

past and we expect some wildfires would occasionally start as a result of escaped campfires or 

misuse of stoves. Seasonal campfire restrictions and rapid fire suppression response would continue 

to minimize impacts. 

Impacts to Cultural Resources: Most of the designated campgrounds that support fishing activities 

are located within or adjacent to prehistoric cultural sites. While the majority of impacts occurred 

following the initial establishment and use of these campgrounds, some impacts continue due to 

ongoing soil disturbance and compaction within existing campsites, trampling and removal of 

vegetation, occasional use of previously unused areas adjacent to the campgrounds, and vehicle use 

outside designated areas. Therefore, we anticipate use of these facilities to support fishing would 

have only negligible or minor, site-specific, long-term, adverse impact on cultural resources. 

Impacts to Recreation Opportunity: Campsite registration, overnight fees, and the other 

improvements planned for the developed campgrounds would increase maintenance, increase visitor 

compliance with rules and regulations (by defining and designating campsites), and decrease 

competition for campsites. Campground management strategies are expected to result in moderate, 

indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts to the camping experience, in support of providing quality 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Effects from Public Access 

Adverse impacts are expected to continue as a result of the network of developed and undeveloped 

roads throughout Sheldon Refuge and their associated maintenance. Road development and use 

continues to adversely impact the biological integrity within Sheldon Refuge by contributing to the 

altered composition of plant communities, soil disturbance (Eckert et al. 1979; Iverson et al. 1981; 

Switalski et al. 2004), altered hydrology and stream sedimentation (Forman and Alexander 1998), 

facilitation of the spread of invasive vegetation, changes in the natural fire regimes, and habitat 

fragmentation. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-35 

Many direct effects are obvious during construction, but other effects are permanent and can extend 

substantially beyond the actual road surface (road-effect zone; Forman 2000; Forman and Alexander 

1998). At the landscape scale, major ecological impacts of a road network include fragmentation, the 

disruption of landscape processes, and loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity declines as the road network 

impacts interior species (species cut off by roads), species with large home ranges, stream and 

wetland species, and rare native species (Forman and Alexander 1998). Fragmentation of previously 

extensive landscapes can influence the distribution and abundance of a host of wildlife species 

through redistribution of habitat types and through the pattern of habitat fragmentation, including 

characteristics such as decreased patch area and increased habitat edge (Vander Haegen et al. 2000). 

Roads (including OHV trails) are commonly identified as important correlates or indicators of loss of 

ecological health and affect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in several general ways: 1) increased 

mortality from road construction; 2) increased mortality from collision with vehicles; 3) modification 

of animal behavior; 4) alteration of physical environment; 5) alteration of chemical environment; 6) 

spread of exotic species; and 7) increased alteration and use of habitats by humans (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000; Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

The ecological effect of road avoidance is likely related to traffic density and speed of travel, as well 

as traffic noise levels (Forman and Alexander 1998). Road-effect zones generally result in lower 

breeding densities and reduced species richness; species demonstrated to avoid or be negatively 

impacted by roads include arthropods, reptiles, small mammals, ungulates, and forest and grassland 

birds (Andrews and Gibbons 2005; Carr and Fahrig 2001; Forman and Alexander 1998; McGrann et 

al. 2006; Rost and Bailey 1979). For example, proximity to OHV trails (<1,000 meters [3,280 feet]) 

was found to have a direct correlation with reduced-quality habitat for nesting songbirds in 

sagebrush-steppe habitats, including nest desertion, nest predation, and abandonment (Barton and 

Holmes 2007). Behavioral disturbance from recreation, including that associated with trails and 

roads, may also have both immediate and long-term effects on wildlife (Taylor and Knight 2003). In 

one study of pronghorn, deer, and bison, individuals exhibited a 70% probability of flushing within 

1,000 meters (3,280 feet) on either side of a trail used by hikers and mountain bikers (Taylor and 

Knight 2003); presumably responses are similar in the presence of vehicles such as OHVs. Road 

density can be used as an overall index to average patterns over an area. For example, road densities 

of approximately 1.0 mile per square mile have been recommended as the maximum for a naturally 

functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large predators (Forman and Alexander 

1998). However, the effects of road density are likely sensitive to road width or type, traffic density, 

network connectivity, and the frequency of spur roads into remote areas (Forman and Alexander 

1998). 

Within Sheldon Refuge, more than 50 introduced, non-native, and often noxious plant species have 

been documented (refer to Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS Appendix B). Invasive plants typically need 

transportation to spread to new areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000), and within Sheldon Refuge 

several methods are possible, including vehicles, people, wild and domestic animals, and firefighting 

equipment. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that habitats distant from roads may provide important 

refuge for native grassland species, and that this effect may be even more pronounced in 

predominately intact landscapes such as those in parts of the Great Basin (Gelbard and Harrison 

2003). Human access and disturbance effects on remote areas tend to increase with higher road 

densities, as well as human-caused fire ignitions (Forman and Alexander 1998). 

Sheldon Refuge proposes various methods, including systematic inventory and monitoring for 

invasive plants, mowing, use of herbicides, and elimination of grading road shoulders, that would be 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-36 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

used to detect new infestations, control and contain existing infestations, and treat up to 1,000 acres 

per year. Management strategies to combat invasive plants support the Service policy for biological 

integrity and diversity within Sheldon Refuge. With a more systematic approach for inventory of 

noxious weeds and other invasive plants, populations are more likely to be detected when they are 

small and more easily managed and controlled. Increased treatment and reduced soil disturbance 

along road corridors should reduce the spread of invasive plants already present and reduce the 

potential for new populations. As a result, we anticipate these actions would result in major, longterm, direct, beneficial impacts to all habitats. Implementing treatment strategies (e.g., mechanical 

removal of vegetation, application of herbicides) would likely eliminate or prevent the spread of 

noxious weed populations when detected and provide some conservation of native habitats, resulting 

in minor, site-specific, short-term, direct, beneficial impacts to habitat on approximately 1,000 acres 

per year. 

In conjunction with preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, Refuge staff conducted an 

evaluation of existing routes and trails, and identified known and potential resource impacts and 

public benefits and recreation opportunities associated with vehicle access. Route segments that 

were identified as causing substantial impacts to soils, riparian areas, and/or wildlife, were redundant 

with other routes, or provided very little or no access for wildlife-dependent uses were not identified 

for designation as open roads for public use of vehicles. To minimize or avoid lesser impacts from 

roads and vehicle use, the Service would implement a number of transportation management 

strategies including designating roads that are not duplicative, re-routing or realigning road segments 

that pass through sensitive resource areas, installing erosion control structures, increasing monitoring 

and treatment of weeds along road corridors, and posting signs marking all designated open roads. 

These actions would result in long-term, minor, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts to soils by 

decreasing erosion in sensitive areas that are currently affected. Overall we expect impacts from 

road management would be minor, direct, and adverse to habitats on a localized and long-term basis. 

Economic Effects 

Expenditures associated with 1,122 annual fishing days (excluding fishing at Big Spring Reservoir) 

have been found to constitute 1% of current contribution to the gross state product ($0.1 million). 

We anticipate these expenditures would continue to support two full-time jobs and contribute 

approximately $104,000 to the local economy. 

We also anticipate that sufficient water would be available in the future at Big Spring Reservoir to 

again support fishing. Based upon historical use (6,208 angler days reported in 1998), the economic 

contribution from future use would support 12 full-time jobs and contribute $550,000 to the local 

economy. When combined, the value of current and expected future sport fishing within Sheldon 

Refuge would surpass that from hunting (refer to Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS Table 6.2 and Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2010). 

Effects from Boating 

The use of non-motorized or electric-powered boats is allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip 

Reservoir, and the Dufurrena Ponds consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. The majority of boating occurs in 

conjunction with sport fishing, and while migratory bird hunting is not allowed on these waters, 

occasional and intermittent boating does occur in conjunction with other hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation, research, scientific 

collecting, and surveys. The amount of boating that occurs within Sheldon Refuge has not been 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-37 

quantified, but is considered low based upon angler participation and incidental observation by staff 

and volunteers. Boating generally occurs during summer months following the waterfowl nesting 

season (when the potential for bird disturbance or displacement impacts would be greatest) and 

following the beginning of trout fishing season, when there are higher water temperatures at 

Dufurrena Ponds, which provide better fishing success. Requirements for use of non-motorized 

boats or boats with electric motors would eliminate the potential for water pollution associated with 

use of outboard motors and would maintain opportunities for visitor solitude. Overall, the amount of 

boating associated with wildlife-dependent public uses is considered low, and adverse impacts are 

estimated to be short-term, intermittent, and negligible. 

Effects to Wilderness Character 

Naturalness: Existing vehicle routes would remain visible, and their designation for motorized use is 

not expected to result in any short-term impacts to naturalness. Over the long term, as public use 

continues to increase, we expect that additional signs, road maintenance, and other developments 

would be needed to ensure compatibility. Increased visitation to these areas would also increase the 

potential for introduction and spread of weeds and for the disturbance and displacement of wildlife. 

Weed treatments occurring on approximately 1,000 acres per year, primarily along road corridors, 

are expected to slow or possibly reverse the trend of weed spread and invasion into undeveloped and 

more natural areas of Sheldon Refuge, but would adversely affect natural character from the presence 

of dead vegetation and vehicle tracks. 

Untrammeled Conditions: Fishing would rely primarily on existing campgrounds, roads, and other 

facilities, which would result in little or no change to untrammeled conditions within Sheldon 

Refuge. 

Solitude: Since fishing is associated mainly with developed areas of the Refuge, we do not anticipate 

increased use of primitive campgrounds or overnight backcountry use by visitors participating in 

fishing. Opportunities for solitude would continue to be available throughout much of Sheldon 

Refuge during substantial portions of the year. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Management direction for designation of existing roads for 

public use of vehicles to access fishing areas would result in only minor impacts. These existing 

roads would remain in the current condition and level of maintenance. Management actions would 

also result in greater management presence and development, and regulation at the Virgin Valley, 

Catnip, and Big Spring campgrounds. Impacts to opportunities for primitive and unconfined 

recreation would be minor with vehicle use confined to existing campgrounds and roads where 

public use has been well established for many years. 

Cumulative Effects from Fishing

Impacts to fish populations and other public uses from sport fishing within Sheldon Refuge, 

including both direct and indirect impacts, are considered minor. Actions proposed to manage public 

uses within the refuge, including sport fishing, are expected to reduce impacts to fish, wildlife, and 

habitat and to maintain opportunities for high-quality wildlife-dependent public uses. Sport fishing 

has a negligible impact on refuge fisheries and habitat conditions when compared with past water 

development and refuge management actions to maintain wetland conditions. When considered with 

other existing and proposed public uses and management actions at Sheldon Refuge, sport fishing is 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-38 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

secondary and cumulative impacts would be negligible. Cumulative impacts from management of 

supporting uses such as camping would be minor and beneficial. It is anticipated the overall amount 

of refuge visitation associated with sport fishing would remain relatively stable and would not 

interfere with or detract from the quality of other refuge public uses. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This and other compatibility determinations were prepared concurrently with the Final CCP/EIS for 

the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (in press). Open houses were held, multiple planning updates 

were mailed, and written comments were solicited from the public during development of the Final 

CCP/EIS for the refuge. Appendix A of the Final CCP/EIS further details public involvement during 

development of the CCP. A summary of public comments received during review of the Draft 

CCP/EIS along with the Service’s response to those comments are included in Appendix N of the 

Final CCP/EIS. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Management direction is provided in the CCP for Sheldon Refuge. This directs monitoring of 

wildlife-dependent recreational fishing activities. Findings from these monitoring efforts would be 

used in determining what additional management actions, if any, are needed to ensure all fishing 

activities remain compatible with refuge purposes. Stipulations identified in this compatibility 

determination are expected to minimize impacts from fishing within Sheldon Refuge to fish, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats. 

1. The primary purpose for maintaining Catnip Reservoir and the associated Lahontan cutthroat 

trout fishery is to support Lahontan cutthroat reintroduction and recovery efforts elsewhere in the 

region (Sheldon CCP Objective 3d). Sport fishing at Catnip Reservoir would be allowed to 

continue to the extent the activity does not interfere with the implementation of this primary 

objective. 

2. The primary management objective for McGee Pond would be to provide sustainable fishing 

opportunities for individuals who are age 12 or under, age 65 or older, or disabled. 

3. Special State of Nevada sport fishing regulations apply to recreational fishing on Sheldon 

Refuge. Sheldon Refuge staff would continue to work cooperatively with the State’s regulatory 

process to maintain harvest regulations necessary and appropriate to minimize adverse impacts to 

fisheries resources. To minimize impacts on refuge lands and resources, law enforcement patrols 

would routinely be conducted in an effort to maximize compliance with applicable policies, rules, 

and/or regulations. 

4. Catnip Reservoir would continue to be stocked with Lahontan cutthroat trout, and Big Spring 

Reservoir would be stocked with Lahontan cutthroat, Alvord cutthroat, redband trout, or other 

trout indigenous to the region when sufficient water is available. Sport fishing at these reservoirs 

is considered secondary to other refuge management objectives. Therefore, the funding and 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-39 

staffing necessary for restocking these fisheries to maintain recreation opportunities would 

remain the responsibility of NDOW and the State of Nevada. To further restore biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health to Sheldon Refuge, all fish stocked or restocked to 

the Virgin Creek watershed, Catnip Reservoir, or Big Spring Reservoir would be regionally 

indigenous native fish species. Consistent with Refuge System policy (7 RM 10, 7 RM 12), 

restocking of fish to these locations may be allowed when and where determined necessary to 

maintain healthy populations but would not be conducted primarily to maintain or enhance 

recreation opportunity. 

5. All vehicles defined as off-road vehicles under 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 must be registered with 

the State of Nevada or Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge for use on lands administered by 

Sheldon Refuge. 

6. Vehicle use within Sheldon Refuge is allowed only on roads and routes that are designated 

“open” on Figure D.1 and that are signed or otherwise marked for such use. Off-road use is 

prohibited. 

7. Unless otherwise indicated by sign, permit, or regulation, the maximum number of consecutive 

nights any person or attended vehicle may remain at a designated Refuge campground is 14 

nights. 

8. Except for camping within campgrounds that are designated for such use on maps included in the 

Final Record of Decision for the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EIS and that are signed 

or otherwise marked for such use, no overnight use is allowed on lands administered by Sheldon 

Refuge unless expressly authorized by a valid Special Use Permit. 

9. Non-motorized boats or boats with electric motors are allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, 

Catnip Reservoir, and Dufurrena Ponds, consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. 

10. Open fires are allowed only at designated campgrounds and within constructed fire rings, subject 

to additional seasonal fire restrictions and/or closures. 

11. Pets must be leashed, except dogs used for hunting migratory or upland birds. Hunting dogs 

must be under strict voice control at all times. 

12. Riding or packing with horses and mules is allowed in all areas open to public use. All horses 

and mules must be haltered, branded, tagged, or otherwise visibly marked as a domestic animal 

and must be tied, hobbled, high-lined, corralled, or otherwise under direct control at all times. 

13. Grazing of domestic animals within Sheldon Refuge is not allowed. We encourage the use of 

certified weed-free hay, pellets, straw, and other livestock feed within Sheldon Refuge. The use 

of certified weed-free feed would become required if monitoring of stock use areas indicates the 

spread or introduction of noxious weeds from uncertified feed. 

Justification: 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (as amended) identifies 

recreational fishing as one of six priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. The law states 

that, when managed in accordance with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-40 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

administration, fishing and the other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses “have been and are 

expected to continue to be generally compatible uses.” The Act further states that these priority 

public uses should receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in refuge planning 

and management, and directs the USFWS to provide increased opportunities for the public to safely 

engage in traditional outdoor activities such as fishing and hunting. 

Management of sport fisheries and sport fishing opportunity are considered secondary to other 

management objectives and purposes for Sheldon Refuge. Management of the Dufurrena Ponds is 

primarily to benefit migratory birds and other wildlife, and management of Catnip Reservoir is 

primarily to aid in the recovery of the threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout. Impacts and costs 

associated with management and maintenance of the Dufurrena Ponds and Catnip Reservoir would 

occur regardless of any benefits or impacts to sport fishing opportunities. There are no plans to 

modify Big Spring Reservoir or the impoundment dam, but maintenance would continue to provide 

seasonal migratory bird habitat. 

Because fishing opportunities are made possible by constructed ponds and reservoirs, there is little 

associated wetland habitat, and aquatic ecosystems are not considered natural or fully intact. As a 

result, fish populations have little adverse impact. Allowing only non-motorized boats or boats with 

electric motors on Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip Reservoir, and Dufurrena Ponds would continue to 

eliminate the risk of pollution associated with use of internal combustion boat motors, and maintain 

opportunities for solitude. 

To reduce impacts to fishery resources and to provide the continued opportunity for recreational uses 

of these species by the American public, NDOW regularly adopts regulations in response to fish 

population levels and management needs. These regulations currently provide adequate protection 

for Sheldon Refuge’s fishery resources, continued recreation opportunities, and other refuge 

purposes. Requirements for future stocking by NDOW would ensure fisheries management remains 

consistent with Service policy. 

Although allowing fishing can result in disturbance to wildlife, disturbance would be intermittent and 

short-term and limited in time and space. There are more than adequate amounts of undisturbed 

habitat available to the majority of wildlife for escape and cover. 

It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find sufficient food resources and resting places such 

that their abundance and use of Sheldon Refuge would not be measurably lessened from fishing 

activities. The relatively limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to 

fishing would not cause wildlife populations to materially decline, the physiological condition and 

production of species would not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns would not 

be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare would not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing 

fishing to occur with stipulations will not materially detract from or interfere with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established or the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide year for “allowed” uses only) 

 2026 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-41 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Literature Cited: 

Andrews, K.M. and J.W. Gibbons. 2005. How do highways influence snake movement? Behavioral 

responses to roads and vehicles. Copeia 2005:772-782. 

Barton, D.C. and A.L. Holmes. 2007. Off-highway vehicle trail impacts on breeding songbirds in 

northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1617-1625. 

Carr, L.W. and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing 

vagility. Conservation Biology 15:1071-1078. 

Cole, D.N. 1981. Vegetational changes associated with recreational use and fire suppression in the 

Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon: some management implications. Biological Conservation 

20:247-270. 

Cole, D.N. 1985. Recreational trampling effects on six habitat types in western Montana. Research 

Paper INT-350. USDA Forest Service. 43 pp. 

Cole, D.N. 1989. Some principles to guide wilderness campsite management. Pages 181-187 in: 

D.W. Lime, ed. Campsite management and monitoring in wilderness. St. Paul, MN: 

Minnesota Extension Service and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of 

Minnesota. 

Cole, D.N. 1995. Experimental trampling of vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 32:215-224. 

Cole, D.N. 2004. Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review. Available at: 

http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs12/Ecotourism.pdf. Accessed January 

31, 2011. 

Eckert, R.E., Jr., M.K. Wood, W.H. Blackburn, and F.F. Peterson. 1979. Impacts of off-road 

vehicles on infiltration and sediment production of two desert soils. Journal of Range 

Management 32:394-397. 

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road network in the United 

States. Conservation Biology 14:31-35. 

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-42 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Gelbard, J.L. and S. Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: interactions 

with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications 13:404-415. 

Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010. Economic assessment in support of comprehensive conservation 

planning at Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Industrial Economics, Inc. Cambridge, MA. 

Iverson, R.M., B.S. Hinckley, R.M. Webb, and B. Hallet. 1981. Physical effects of vehicular 

disturbances on arid landscapes. Science 212:915-917. 

McGrann, M.C., G.R. Wright, R.J. Dial, and A.M. McGrann. 2006. Off-highway vehicle impact on 

the flat-tailed horned lizard, Phrynosoma mcallii, in the Colorado Desert of southern 

California. California Fish and Game 92:67-80. 

Monti, P. and E.E. Mackintosh. 1979. Effect of camping on surface soil properties in the boreal 

forest region of northwestern Ontario, Canada. Soil Science Society of America Journal

43:1024-1029. 

NDOW. 2009. Western Nevada angler guides. Available at: 

www.ndow.org/fish/where/waters/west.shtm. Accessed May 5, 2010. 

Rost, G.R. and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 43:634-641. 

Sverdrup Corporation. 1991. Advanced project planning for the repair of Catnip Dam at the 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge near Lakeview, Oregon. Prepared for Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 

Switalski, T.A, J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and 

impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:21-28. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. 

USFWS. Undated report. Camping use days Virgin Valley Campground Sheldon NWR. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Lakeview, OR. 

Webber, P.C. 1995. Report to the Board of Environmental Management on the Policy for Off-road 

Vehicle Use in Massachusetts Forests and Parks. Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 

Department of Environmental Management. Boston, MA. 

Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2006. Nevada wildlife action plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

Reno, NV. 

Williams, J.E., C.D. Williams, and C.E. Bond. 1980. Fishes of the Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge. Pages 1-58 in: R.A. Tubb, compiler. Survey of fishes, amphibians, and reptiles on 

the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and 

Wildlife. Corvallis, OR. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-43 

Vander Haegen, W.M., F.C. Dobler, and D.J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and 

landscape variables in Eastern Washington, USA. Conservation Biology 14:1145-1160. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-44 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Refuge Determination 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-45 

D.3 Compatibility Determination for Sport Hunting on Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Use(s): Hunting 

Supporting Uses: Camping, boating, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, and vehicle use 

Refuge Name: Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge 

City/County and State: Washoe County, Nevada; Humboldt County, Nevada; Lake County, 

Oregon 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

What is today known as the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge was initially established by Executive 

Order 5540 dated January 26, 1931, and later enlarged by Executive Order 7364 dated May 6, 1936, 

and Executive Order 7522 dated December 21, 1936. 

The authorities for nearly all Federal lands within Sheldon Refuge are the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r) and the National Wildlife 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). A small portion of Sheldon 

Refuge was acquired under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1231-1544). 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“...as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and birds...” Executive Order 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 ...” Executive 

Order 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) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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]). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-46 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Description of Use(s): 

Hunting considered in this compatibility determination is limited to the following specific animals or 

groups of animals as defined by state and Federal hunting regulations: pronghorn, mule deer, 

California bighorn sheep, chukar, California quail, Greater sage-grouse, geese, ducks, and coots. 

Hunting is allowed throughout much of Sheldon Refuge. However, all hunting is prohibited within 

the Dufurrena Ponds Closed Area, and within the Little Sheldon Closed Area (Figure D.1), and 

hunting of migratory birds is prohibited on Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs. Big-game hunting 

seasons, which vary by wildlife species and weapon type (archery, muzzleloading rifle, modern rifle, 

and shotgun) begin in early August and end in early November. Hunting seasons for upland game 

birds begin in mid- to late September and end in early February. It is estimated that slightly more 

than 4,000 visitors participate in hunting within Sheldon Refuge each year. 

Waterfowl/Waterbird Hunting 

Waterfowl/waterbird hunting for geese, ducks, and coots is permissible in accordance with NDOW 

regulations. Hunting seasons generally extend from mid-October through January. Harvest limits 

are reviewed annually and established through Service regulations, which establish Migratory Bird 

Hunting Frameworks, and state wildlife commissions. The majority of Sheldon Refuge is open to 

waterfowl hunting except Virgin Valley, the Little Sheldon area, Big Spring Reservoir, and Catnip 

Reservoir (Figure D.1). However, as a desert environment, few areas of Sheldon Refuge provide 

waterfowl hunting opportunities, and migratory bird hunting occurs primarily at the IXL-managed 

wetlands, which were reconstructed in partnership with Ducks Unlimited specifically to provide 

waterfowl resting habitat and hunting opportunity. Additional opportunities are available at various 

small ponds, water developments, and wetland areas scattered throughout other portions of Sheldon 

Refuge. 

Hunting for migratory waterfowl/waterbirds is authorized annually by the Secretary of the Interior 

through the Migratory Bird Frameworks and Federal regulation. The Migratory Bird Hunting 

Frameworks provide season dates, bag limits, and other options for states to select from that should 

result in the level of harvest determined to be appropriate based upon Service-prepared annual 

biological assessments detailing the status of migratory game bird populations. Wildlife 

commissions for Oregon, Nevada, and other states within the Pacific Flyway then select season dates, 

bag limits, shooting hours, and other options from the Pacific Flyway package. Their selections can 

be more restrictive, but cannot be more liberal than allowed by options in the Pacific Flyway 

package. Thus, the level of hunting opportunity afforded each state increases or decreases each year 

in accordance with the annual status of waterfowl populations. 

There are no data on the number of hunters who participate in waterfowl/waterbird hunting or the 

amount of waterfowl/waterbird harvest within Sheldon Refuge. Based upon staff observation and 

field reports, waterfowl/waterbird hunting within the refuge is intermittent, and we estimate not more 

than 100 hunter days each year. Considering the size of waterfowl/waterbird populations within the 

Pacific Flyway and the maximum estimated annual number of 100 hunter days within the refuge, we 

expect that the level of harvest occurring within the refuge is negligible and has no measurable 

impact on waterfowl/waterbird population numbers. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-47 

Upland Bird Hunting 

Most of Sheldon Refuge is open to upland game bird hunting except Virgin Valley and the Little 

Sheldon area (Figure D.1). Upland game birds open to hunting include Greater sage-grouse, chukar, 

and California quail. Hunting of upland game birds is largely controlled by state harvest limits. 

Hunting for upland birds often includes the use of dogs for pointing and retrieval of birds. 

Chukar Partridge and California Quail: The hunting seasons for chukar and quail generally open in 

late September and continue through early February. Hunting effort for these upland game birds is 

considered low, with 40 California quail and chukar hunters estimated in 2007, the most recent year 

for which information is available. California quail and chukar are introduced non-native species 

(Gullion and Christensen 1952). The impacts of these species to the environment are considered low. 

California quail have been released throughout northern Nevada and eastern Oregon; 130 quail were 

first noted within Sheldon Refuge in 1941, and hunting for these birds was first allowed within 

Sheldon Refuge in 1961, although populations are not considered large (Sheldon Refuge files). 

Chukar were first introduced to Sheldon Refuge in 1941, and harvest has been allowed since 1961 

(USFWS 1971). 

Twelve water catchments or “guzzlers” were constructed within the eastern portion of Sheldon 

Refuge and are maintained to provide additional sources of water for small game and to support 

hunting for chukar and California quail. Guzzlers collect precipitation and divert it into a water 

storage tank. Water in the tank is fed into a small drinking trough enclosed by a wire fence that small 

game and other wildlife can access. Guzzlers are the only facilities within Sheldon Refuge that 

specifically support upland bird hunting. 

Greater Sage-grouse: Hunting of Greater sage-grouse within Sheldon Refuge is allowed by permit 

issued from NDOW. Hunting of Greater sage-grouse provides recreation opportunity for up to 150 

hunters drawn by lottery from a pool of roughly 400 applicants each year. Hunting for sage-grouse 

within Sheldon Refuge is restricted to two separate two-day seasons in September. Seasons and 

harvest limits are coordinated by NDOW and Sheldon Refuge to maintain healthy populations and 

adequate data collection. Harvest levels are currently lower than in past years as a result of harvest 

and possession limits being reduced from three and six birds respectively in 2007. From 2002 

through 2010, a minimum of 1,296 Greater sage-grouse were harvested within Sheldon Refuge 

(based on the number of wings hunters provided). Harvest ranged from 75 birds in 2007 to 230 in 

2004, and averaged 144 birds per year (Collins 2010). The sage-grouse hunt is important for 

determining the success of reproduction for the year. Every hunter is required to deposit one wing 

from every grouse harvested into a collection barrel before leaving Sheldon Refuge. Wings are then 

examined each year during the annual NDOW wing bee to estimate population productivity and 

nesting success. It has been suggested that a minimum of 100 wings from harvested adult and 

yearling hens are needed to obtain reliable data (Autenrieth et al. 1982), and minimum sample sizes 

less than 100 wings to estimate productivity would result in confidence intervals that typically have 

low precision (Autenrieth 1981). However, it needs to be understood that the precision (±20%-33%) 

of the estimates acquired from a sample size of even 200 wings is considered mediocre (Hagen and 

Loughlin 2008). 

Wing collection barrels are the only facilities that specifically support hunting for Greater sagegrouse in the refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-48 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Big-game Hunting 

Big-game hunting is a very popular priority public use within Sheldon Refuge. Except for a small 

part within Oregon, Sheldon Refuge corresponds with Nevada Hunt Unit 033 and is open to biggame hunting, with the exception of Virgin Valley in the eastern portion of Sheldon Refuge and the 

Little Sheldon area in the western portion (Figure D.1). Big-game species open to hunting are mule 

deer, pronghorn, and California bighorn sheep in accordance with NDOW regulations. Hunting 

seasons begin in August and continue through September, October, and early November depending 

upon the species and the type of weapon used. Sheldon Refuge staff works closely with NDOW to 

set big-game tag numbers and season dates for the upcoming year. NDOW administers the hunt, 

including tag issuance, data collection, and the preparation of summary reports, which provide 

excellent hunt participation information for Sheldon Refuge. Ongoing coordination between NDOW 

and the Service is required to ensure the number of hunters and hunting regulations are consistent 

with refuge purposes, Service policies, and refuge goals and objectives. 

Hunting seasons and harvest levels are established in cooperation with both NDOW and Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). In Nevada, the season-setting process begins with the 

establishment of season dates on a biennial basis. Biologists craft recommendations in accordance 

with management program strategies. They are also guided by their own assessments of harvest data 

and population. After all County Advisory Boards have reviewed proposals and made 

recommendations, the State Board of Wildlife Commissioners convenes to consider public and 

agency recommendations to adopt hunting seasons and regulations. In the spring of each year, 

biologists again assess their data to prepare population estimates. These estimates are used to 

establish hunting objectives for that year only. Harvest data are reported by hunters to NDOW and 

ODFW, and season and bag limits are adjusted accordingly to ensure that overall populations of 

game species remain healthy into the future. Impacts would be monitored, and, if necessary, 

additional measures would be developed in coordination with NDOW and ODFW to protect refuge 

resources. 

Sheldon Refuge is managed to provide a quality big-game hunting experience consistent with the 

Sheldon Refuge management goal to 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. Sheldon Refuge is renowned for its 

big-game hunting, and hunters come from throughout Nevada as well as 10 or more additional states 

each year. Hunt quality is considered high, as measured by the number of animals seen; the quality 

and health of the animals; the opportunity to use a variety of weapons, hunting techniques, means of 

access, and modes of transportation; the opportunity for solitude with little crowding or competition 

with other hunters and a lack of interference from refuge users; scenic quality and natural settings 

characterized by few structures or evidence of people; and biological integrity of the areas visited 

while hunting. Sheldon Refuge has a reputation for producing exceptional trophies, and tags are 

highly sought after. 

Big-game hunting areas are established in cooperation with the NDOW and ODFW. Big-game 

hunting units within the Nevada portion of Sheldon Refuge include all of Hunt Unit 033. The 

relatively small portion of Sheldon Refuge within Oregon is within Wildlife Management Unit 70 

(Beaty’s Butte). Big-game hunting activities have remained relatively stable within Sheldon Refuge 

over the past 15 years due to the limited number of hunting tags issued. A lottery system is used to 

distribute a limited number of harvest tags for each pronghorn, mule deer, and bighorn hunting 

season, which occur from August through October. Harvest tags are limited to ensure healthy 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-49 

populations of wildlife are maintained, to maintain low hunting pressure and reduce hunting 

competition, to allow for non-overlapping bow, rifle, and muzzleloader seasons, and to reduce 

crowding at campgrounds. Tags are further distributed between seasons during different times of the 

year and for different methods of hunting, including seasons for archery, muzzleloading rifle, and 

modern rifle. The peak for big-game hunting within Sheldon Refuge occurred in 2007 with 337 tags 

issued (five California sheep, 89 pronghorn, and 243 mule deer tags), resulting in a harvest of 197 

animals. 

Mule Deer: In 2010 the State of Nevada issued 100 mule deer harvest tags for Hunt Unit 033 

(Sheldon Refuge), with a reported harvest of 43 deer. These numbers are reduced from 2006 when 

258 tags were issued for a reported harvest of 113 deer, and from 2003 when139 harvest tags were 

issued with a reported harvest of 72 deer. 

Fires within the past 20 years that have burned stands of mountain mahogany and bitterbrush in the 

Badger Mountain, Catnip Mountain, and Alkali Peak areas, combined with drought conditions during 

several more recent years and overgrazing by feral horses, have affected areas of important mule deer 

summer range within Sheldon Refuge. Declines in mule deer numbers and consequently mule deer 

hunting from 2007 through 2010 are largely attributed to drought conditions (NDOW 2011), but 

significant moisture in 2011 combined with continued reduction in the number of feral horses is 

expected to improve habitat conditions and should allow for herd growth. 

Pronghorn: In 2010 the State of Nevada issued 105 pronghorn harvest tags for Hunt Unit 033 

(Sheldon Refuge), with a reported harvest of 68 pronghorn. These numbers have steadily increased 

since 2003when 50 tags were issued for a reported harvest of 39 pronghorn. 

Annual numbers of pronghorn within Sheldon Refuge during the hunting season have remained static 

at about 1,500 pronghorn since 2005 (NDOW 2011). Buck ratios remain high and the quality of the 

hunting experience is considered excellent. 

California Bighorn Sheep: In 2010 the State of Nevada issued five California bighorn sheep harvest 

tags for Hunt Unit 033 (Sheldon Refuge), with a reported harvest of six bighorn sheep (one 

additional sheep was harvested under the special statewide Governor’s tag). These numbers have 

increased since 2003 when three tags were issued, but have remained stable from 2006 with five tags 

issued and five bighorn sheep harvested each year. 

Bighorn sheep numbers continue to slowly increase within Sheldon Refuge, particularly within the 

western portion of the Refuge. NDOW estimated about 220 sheep within the Refuge in 2011 

(NDOW 2011). 

Six water catchments or “guzzlers” within Sheldon Refuge were constructed and would be 

maintained to provide additional water sources and support hunting for big game, primarily bighorn 

sheep. Although use of water catchments continues to be a popular management tool in the western 

United States, the efficacy of such efforts has been questioned and their use is controversial, 

particularly within wilderness areas. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-50 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Supporting Uses 

Camping 

Camping itself is not a priority public use on Service lands, but because of the size, remoteness, and 

quality of roads within Sheldon Refuge, it is important in supporting priority uses including fishing, 

hunting, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. There are four types of camping 

opportunities currently provided within Sheldon Refuge: developed, semi-primitive, primitive, and 

backcountry/wilderness. 

Camping within Sheldon Refuge is allowed in 13 designated campgrounds and by Refuge Special 

Use Permit for backcountry camping. 

Developed Camping: Virgin Valley Campground located at Dufurrena is considered the only 

developed campground. Virgin Valley Campground is easily accessible year-round for all types of 

vehicles, including RVs, and it offers shade trees, potable water, two vault toilets, 16 picnic tables, 

24 fire rings, a meat-hanging pole, a bath-house, and a hot spring developed for swimming. 

Campground use is managed on a first-come, first-served basis without fees or designated sites. 

From 2005 through 2007 an average of 18 campsites were occupied per day during the days 

surveyed, for a seasonal average of 6,573 visitor use days (USFWS undated report). 

From mid-August through mid-November, the Virgin Valley Campground is heavily used by 

hunters. During peak seasons, overcrowding and user conflicts have been a concern as has overflow 

into upland areas adjacent to the campground, which can result in further environmental damage. 

There is also a private developed campground at the Royal Peacock Mine located in the Virgin 

Valley Mining District, which has RV hookups. 

Semi-primitive Camping: Five campgrounds (Catnip Reservoir, West Rock Spring, Fish Spring, 

Badger, and Big Spring Reservoir) are considered semi-primitive and include outhouses, fire rings, 

meat-hanging poles, and, in the case of Fish Spring and Badger campgrounds, horse corrals. These 

semi-primitive campgrounds are accessible from primary roads or improved secondary roads suitable 

for most types of vehicles and are primarily used by hunters. Sport anglers also use campgrounds at 

Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs. 

Additional facilities such as campsite amenities (i.e., picnic tables and accessible fire rings or 

barbeque grills), potable water, shade structures, kiosks, and dedicated volunteer sites are planned for 

Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds. These facilities would 

provide developed camping opportunities that are not commonly available within Sheldon Refuge or 

the region. However, these improved facilities would only be sustainable over the long term through 

campsite fees to support volunteers, maintenance, and replacement. 

The Service also proposes to allow public overnight use of some existing historic structures within 

Sheldon Refuge. The most likely structures are the Little Sheldon Overnight Cabin and Badger 

Cabin. 

Primitive Camping: Seven campgrounds (Little Catnip Spring, Gooch Spring, North Hell Creek, 

Wheeler Spring, Bateman Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Spring) are considered primitive 

campgrounds and have only fire rings or no improvements, are remote, and are accessible to fourwheel drive or high-clearance vehicles when road conditions are passable. These primitive 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-51 

campgrounds receive intermittent and low amounts of use, occurring mostly during the big-game 

hunting seasons (early August through October). All of these campgrounds are located immediately 

adjacent to, or include, wet meadows, spring, or springbrook habitats. Three primitive campgrounds 

(Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Spring) also include aspen woodland habitats. Impacts 

associated with primitive campgrounds were identified as an issue during the Sheldon CCP planning 

process. The impacts identified and stipulations for reducing or eliminating those impacts are 

addressed in subsequent sections of this compatibility determination. 

Backcountry/Wilderness Camping: Backcountry camping for up to 14 days is allowed by Refuge 

permit. Permits are not limited, but do stipulate visitors must camp at least 0.5 mile from open roads 

and at least 100 yards from water sources. The majority of backcountry camping permits are issued 

to hunters, but the amount of use is low and no adverse impacts have been observed. Backcountry 

use would continue to be monitored, and future management actions to reduce or eliminate any 

impacts would be implemented as necessary. 

Public Access 

Public access to areas within the Refuge is provided by a network of vehicle roads and informal 

backcountry routes and trails. Roads include one two-lane paved highway, maintained gravel roads, 

and numerous primitive and unmaintained dirt roads. Trails throughout the refuge backcountry and 

wilderness areas are primarily abandoned vehicle routes historically used for access to livestock 

developments and private inholdings later purchased by the Service. 

The most substantial changes to sport hunting are expected to result from the relocation and 

enlargement of the refuge visitor contact station, improvement of campground facilities, and 

improved signing of routes open to vehicle use. Improved gravel roads within Sheldon Refuge 

would be maintained more frequently and all routes open to the public use of vehicles would be 

adequately signed and marked. Visitors would be required to register all OHVs consistent with State 

of Nevada regulation or with Sheldon Refuge for use on refuge roads and routes designated open to 

vehicle use. These actions are intended to improve the quality of the transportation system and deter 

vehicle violations while requiring only minimal law enforcement presence. 

Maintained Public Roads: In preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, each route within the 

refuge was evaluated to assess impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, as well as benefits 

for public use and recreation opportunity. Following this evaluation, 300 miles of existing roads 

(including State Highway 140 and all maintained county roads) were designated for public vehicle 

use. The Service has determined the continued use and maintenance of these designated roads, 

including actions for re-routing or modification as proposed in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, would 

have minimal or no impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat and/or are subject to existing right-ofway. The unimproved roads within Sheldon Refuge are not regularly maintained, but are repaired on 

a site-by-site basis to keep them in usable condition or to prevent undue resource damage (i.e., 

excessive erosion). 

Trails and Backcountry Access: Hiking, horseback riding, use of pack stock, and other nonmechanical modes of access are allowed on trails, routes, and other areas of Sheldon Refuge open to 

the public. All vehicle use is restricted to designated open roads. Existing trails throughout Sheldon 

Refuge would remain, but would not be marked or maintained for public use. No adverse impacts 

have been observed from visitors using these routes for hiking, horseback riding, or use of pack 

stock. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-52 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Horseback Riding and Pack Stock Use: Horseback riding has been allowed as a recreation activity 

within Sheldon Refuge for many years. However, it is estimated fewer than 10 horseback visitors 

use Sheldon Refuge each year, and as a result, horseback riding is considered a low-impact activity. 

Horseback riding gives the public an opportunity to visit remote and undeveloped portions of 

Sheldon Refuge, and to enjoy the wildlife viewing, solitude, and expansive views that Sheldon 

Refuge is known for. 

There is a concern that the number of visitors engaging in horseback riding may increase, particularly 

with hunting guides and their clients, and that use of horses and pack stock within the Refuge would 

introduce invasive non-native plants. These impacts have not been observed, but monitoring would 

continue and the Service would take additional action as needed to maintain wilderness character and 

prevent the introduction of weeds to the refuge. 

The corrals at Badger and Fish Spring campgrounds are the only facilities that specifically support 

horseback riding and the use of pack stock. 

Boating: Refuge-specific regulations that apply to the use of non-motorized boats and boats with 

electric motors specifically apply to sport fishing and sport hunting, but are interpreted as applying to 

other compatible wildlife-dependent public uses as well. However, because migratory bird hunting is 

not allowed on these waters, the use of non-motorized boats and boats with electric motors in Big 

Spring Reservoir, Catnip Reservoir, and Dufurrena Ponds consistent with 50 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 32.47 is assumed to rarely occur in conjunction with hunting activities, but is 

considered a compatible activity that supports hunting within Sheldon Refuge. 

Commercial Guiding and Outfitting 

Commercial guiding and outfitting is permitted specifically to support hunting. This refuge 

economic use is addressed in detail in the compatibility determination for guiding within Sheldon 

Refuge. 

Availability of Resources: 

Most administration and management of hunting, including issuing of licenses, permits, and harvest 

tags, is conducted by NDOW and ODFW. Maintenance of guzzlers would be conducted primarily 

by NDOW and volunteers in cooperation with the Service. Maintenance of the IXL wetlands, 

campgrounds, access roads, and other supporting facilities and routine law enforcement patrols are 

conducted primarily by the Service. Sheldon Refuge currently has adequate funding and staff to 

administer this use. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-53 

Category and Itemization One-time Annual 

Administration and management (volunteer host site 

development, volunteer campground hosts, law 

enforcement patrols, fee collection and processing) 

$15,000 $5,000 

Maintenance $5,000 $500-$1,500 

Monitoring $500 $500 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements 

(campgrounds, docks, and access roads) 

$150,000 $500-$1,500 

Offsetting revenues3 $5,500 $5,500 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Effects from Hunting 

Both state and Federal wildlife biologists have determined that the current hunting seasons and levels 

of harvest are sustainable and are not expected to have any significant long-term adverse impacts on 

wildlife populations. In general we expect management objectives for the hunting program at 

Sheldon Refuge, which emphasize quality hunting experiences, to be characterized by less crowding, 

less competition, fewer conflicts between hunters, relatively undisturbed wildlife, greater hunter 

safety, and less interference from or dependence on mechanized aspects of the sport. The number of 

compatible facilities that accommodate hunting represent a lower threshold for compatibility and 

would be more limiting than game populations for hunting. Therefore, both direct and indirect 

impacts from current and projected amounts of hunting are expected to have only minor adverse 

impacts to game populations. 

Hunting, by its nature, results in the intentional take of individual animals, as well as wounding and 

disturbance (DeLong 2002). It can also alter behavior (e.g., foraging time), population structure, and 

distribution patterns of wildlife (Bartelt 1987; Cole and Knight 1990; MacArthur et al. 1979; 

Wehausen 1980). Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral 

changes including nest abandonment or change in food habits, physiological changes such as 

elevated heart rates due to flight, or even death (Knight and Cole 1995). The long-term effects are 

more difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity, or death of individuals; 

altered population abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community species 

composition and interactions. 

Impacts to other wildlife populations from sport hunting within Sheldon Refuge, including both 

direct and indirect impacts, are considered minor. In addition to the minor, adverse impacts to the 

                                                           

3

Anticipated campsite fee revenues for Catnip Reservoir, Big Spring Reservoir, and Virgin Valley campgrounds, if 

fee structure adopted as proposed in the CCP, is based on $5/site/day for 1,100 site-use days. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-54 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

species or population as a result of individual animal mortality (e.g., mule deer, pronghorn, bighorn 

sheep, and Greater sage-grouse), short-term, direct, adverse impacts (e.g., trampling of vegetation, 

wildlife displacement, disturbance of animal behavior) are expected from hunters shooting and 

moving throughout the Refuge while hunting. Impacts are expected to be minor and would likely be 

limited to specific areas scattered throughout Sheldon Refuge. 

Harvest data are reported by hunters to NDOW, and season and bag limits are adjusted accordingly 

to ensure that overall populations of game species remain healthy into the future. Sheldon Refuge 

staff would continue to cooperate with the State of Nevada to ensure protection and stability of 

wildlife populations. Hunting opportunities would be managed to maintain primitive and semiprimitive natural settings characterized by few developments or facilities and wildlife largely 

unaccustomed to people. In such a setting, hunters would encounter few other people, face little 

competition from other hunters, and have the opportunity to pursue game largely undisturbed. 

In its 2010 finding, the Service evaluated the impact of hunting on sage-grouse throughout their 

current range and determined that although the allowable harvest of sage-grouse through hunting was 

very high in past years, substantial reductions in harvest began during the 1990s, and harvest has 

continued to drop. Since approximately 2000, total mortality due to hunting has been lower than in 

the last 50 years (USFWS 2010). The present level of hunting mortality shows no sign of being a 

significant threat to the hunted species. However, in light of present and threatened habitat loss and 

other considerations (e.g., West Nile virus outbreaks in local populations), states and tribes would 

need to continue to carefully manage hunting mortality, including adjusting seasons and harvest 

levels and imposing emergency closures if needed. The Service concluded that the Greater sagegrouse is not threatened by overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes now or in the foreseeable future. The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA) recommends that where populations are hunted, harvest rates should be 10% or less than 

the estimated fall population to minimize negative effects on the subsequent year’s breeding 

population (Armentrout et al. 2004). 

In 2004, NDOW estimated that the sage-grouse population within Sheldon Refuge was 2,896 to 

3,475 birds, and the minimum harvest was 230 birds (calculated from wings provided by hunters), or 

7.9% to 6.6% of the population. In 2001, Sheldon Refuge fall population estimate was 3,652 birds 

and harvest was 180 birds, or 5% of the fall population (Collins 2010). Based upon these estimates, 

total harvest is likely less than 10% of the total sage-grouse population within Sheldon Refuge 

(which is the WAFWA guideline used by NDOW for Sheldon Refuge), and we anticipate continued 

hunting, as currently managed, would not pose a threat that would lead to the endangerment of the 

Refuge’s sage-grouse population or the species in the foreseeable future. Sage-grouse populations 

within Sheldon Refuge and population productivity estimates derived from wing analyses would 

continue to be evaluated and considered in future sage-grouse population management decisions and 

recovery efforts as appropriate to ensure overall harvest does not exceed 10% of the population and 

that wing data are appropriate and necessary for sage-grouse management within the refuge. 

A large proportion of visitation to Sheldon Refuge is day-use wildlife observation and photography, 

which occur in and around more developed areas of Sheldon Refuge such as the maintained gravel 

roads and Highway 140, and the Virgin Valley Campground and Dufurrena area. Disturbance and 

displacement of wildlife away from areas where hunting occurs can adversely impact opportunities 

for wildlife observation and photography. We estimate such impacts are relatively minor because the 

Virgin Valley area is closed to hunting, and wildlife observation and photography in remote portions 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-55 

of Sheldon Refuge away from maintained gravel roads and Highway 140 where the majority of 

hunting activities occur, is low. 

Effects from Camping and Campgrounds 

Use of campgrounds within Sheldon Refuge causes impacts to vegetation, soils, water quality, and 

cultural resources. During dry conditions, carelessness with campfires can lead to wildfires. 

Management and development of campgrounds is also expected to affect the type and quality of 

recreation opportunities available. 

Impacts to Vegetation, Soils, and Water Quality: Campgrounds and their use within Sheldon Refuge 

range from primitive sites with relatively low and only intermittent use to very developed sites with 

year-round and relatively high amount of use during summer months. Current impacts and expected 

future impacts associated with use and development of these campgrounds also vary widely. 

Because the most primitive campgrounds are currently the least impacted, we can expect these sites 

to exhibit the greatest amount of additional or potential impact with only slightly more use. 

Conversely, most impacts have already occurred at the most heavily used and developed 

campgrounds, and we can expect very little additional impact to vegetation, soils, or water quality 

even with relatively large increases in use at these campgrounds. 

The greatest difference in durability between vegetation types occurs at moderately low use levels 

(Cole 1985). Sites that are used frequently are likely to be highly impacted regardless of their 

fragility. Because vegetation loss usually occurs more rapidly than loss of organic soil horizons, sites 

with either no vegetation or resistant vegetation (e.g., grasses as opposed to forbs) recover more 

quickly and are less likely to be impacted by low levels of use, while sites with thick organic soil 

horizons are less susceptible to erosion and are more likely to withstand high amounts of use. 

Experimental studies suggest that there is an important difference between a site’s resistance (its 

ability to tolerate use without being damaged) and its resilience (its ability to recover from damage). 

Cole (1995) has shown, for groundcover plants, that resistance decreases with erectness and that 

broad-leaved herbs are typically less resistant than grass-like plants and shrubs. Low shrubs, such as 

heather, are relatively resistant to trampling stress but their resilience is low. Once damaged, they 

recover slowly. Grass-like plants are most tolerant of trampling (Cole 1989). The compaction of 

soils from campsite use reduces water infiltration and water holding capacity, which leads to 

increased runoff and erosion potential (Cole 2004; Monti and Mackintosh 1979). Impacts associated 

with use at primitive campgrounds can be readily observed and tend to occur rapidly, but these 

impacts are relatively inconsequential when considered in the context of the entire refuge. Impacts 

associated with campgrounds located within riparian areas or near water sources are of greater 

concern, but current impacts are not severe and vegetation, soils, and water quality at primitive 

campgrounds are expected to recover noticeably within a few years following campground 

relocation. This assessment is supported by Cole (1981) who noted that hiking and camping impacts 

on soil and vegetation, while severe when measured at small scales, are minimal at large spatial 

scales. This suggests that while recreation impacts can be serious for individual plants and animals 

and perhaps localized rare populations, they are generally of little significance to landscape integrity 

or regional biotic diversity. Moreover, unless much of a population is impacted by a single affected 

site, the intensity, size, and distribution of impacts are not relevant to the significance of impacts 

assessed at large spatial scales (Cole 1989). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-56 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Virgin Valley Campground is located at a site previously developed and used by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps in the late 1930s. Catnip Reservoir and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds are 

located immediately adjacent to artificial reservoirs. These three campgrounds receive the greatest 

amounts of use and exhibit the greatest amount of impact. The core areas of use at these 

campgrounds no longer support vegetation or vegetation diversity is substantially reduced, water 

infiltration is considered low due to soil compaction, and gravel has been placed in some areas to 

reduce erosion and rutting from vehicles. Non-native plants and animals in and around these three 

campgrounds were likely introduced by early ranching and development activities rather than 

campground visitors. Monitoring and control efforts would continue to detect and remove or 

eradicate small or new populations of invasive species. 

The remaining 10 campgrounds are all located immediately adjacent to or include aspen woodland, 

wet meadows, spring, and/or springbrook habitats. Most of these campgrounds have moderate 

amounts of vegetation loss and soil compaction, which is limited to parking areas, areas around fire 

rings, outhouses, and along connecting paths. These impacts are generally not continuous throughout 

the campground and are expected to remain stable with current amounts of intermittent use, which 

occurs during late summer and fall, after most annual and biannual plants have finished growing for 

the season and when soils are typically drier and more resistant to impact. Some primitive 

campgrounds have no visible bare ground, and where located in meadow habitats, vegetation is 

generally able to recover from the current amount of use. Some primitive campgrounds exhibit small 

areas of bare ground, generally a lack forbs, which are not resistant to trampling, and in the case of 

Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Springs, exhibit some impacts to aspen trees from 

trampling, soil compaction, root exposure, and cutting. Because these campgrounds receive little 

visitation or are located near frequently traveled gravel roads, impacts to wildlife from campground 

use are estimated to be minor or negligible. Due to the nature of these impacts and relatively low 

amount of use, we anticipate these campgrounds would exhibit the greatest amount of natural 

recovery compared to the three more developed and heavily used campgrounds if camping use were 

eliminated, but they would also exhibit the greatest amount of additional impact if camping use were 

to substantially increase. Aspen stands associated with the Devaney, Wheeler Spring, and East Rock 

Springs campgrounds are also expected to recover, but regeneration of the understory shrubs and 

younger trees would occur slowly and would likely require some active restoration and/or replanting. 

Up to nine semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds would be relocated away from sensitive 

riparian habitats and areas with cultural resources. It is anticipated actions to relocate campgrounds 

to alternative sites, protect sensitive habitats at each of these campgrounds, and confine use to 

designated campsites in heavily used campgrounds would minimize or avoid additional impacts 

altogether. 

We expect some primitive campgrounds to be consolidated with other existing campgrounds, which 

would need to be enlarged and have additional campsites constructed (the most likely candidates for 

enlargement include Catnip Reservoir, Big Spring Reservoir, Fish Spring, and West Rock Spring 

campgrounds). Consolidation would result in additional impacts from increased use of existing 

facilities and campsites and from designation and construction within existing campgrounds. Where 

camping already occurs, increased use of existing campsites and facilities is expected to have little or 

no measurable impact to vegetation or wildlife. Impacts to expanded portions of these campgrounds 

are expected to occur quickly as vegetation is trampled and soil compacted within the first two or 

three seasons of use, but would then stabilize over the long term. We expect enlargement of existing 

campgrounds would result in minor, site-specific, long-term, direct adverse impacts to plants and 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-57 

their habitat from removal of vegetation, soil compaction, and loss of organic soil horizon at these 

sites. 

Impacts from Wildfire: Campfires are allowed at designated campgrounds but are occasionally 

prohibited during periods of high fire danger. Wildfires have been started by refuge visitors in the 

past, and we expect some wildfires would occasionally start as a result of escaped campfires or 

misuse of stoves. Seasonal campfire restrictions and rapid fire suppression response would continue 

to minimize impacts. 

Impacts to Cultural Resources: Most of the 13 designated campgrounds are located within or 

adjacent to prehistoric cultural sites. While the majority of impacts occurred following the initial 

establishment and use of these campgrounds, some impacts continue due to ongoing soil disturbance 

and compaction within existing campsites, trampling and removal of vegetation, occasional use of 

previously unused areas adjacent to the campgrounds, and vehicle use outside designated areas. 

Limited fee use of the Little Sheldon Overnight Cabin or Badger Cabin is expected to increase public 

appreciation for historic resources and understanding for their protection and preservation. In 

addition, the use of these sites and the collection of fees would provide justification and funding for 

restoration work and continued maintenance. As a result, the integrity of sites eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places would be protected. Therefore, we anticipate use of these 

facilities to support sport hunting would have a major, long-term, beneficial impact on cultural 

resources. 

Impacts to Recreation Opportunity: Campsite registration, overnight fees, and the other 

improvements planned for the developed campgrounds would increase maintenance, increase visitor 

compliance with rules and regulations (by defining and designating campsites), and decrease 

competition for campsites. Campground management strategies are expected to result in moderate, 

indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts to the camping experience, in support of providing quality 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Effects from Public Access 

Adverse impacts are expected to continue as a result of the network of developed and undeveloped 

roads throughout Sheldon Refuge and their associated maintenance. Road development and use 

continues to adversely impact the biological integrity within Sheldon Refuge by contributing to the 

altered composition of plant communities, soil disturbance (Eckert et al. 1979; Iverson et al. 1981; 

Switalski et al. 2004), altered hydrology and stream sedimentation (Forman and Alexander 1998), 

facilitation of the spread of invasive vegetation, changes in the natural fire regimes, and habitat 

fragmentation. 

Many direct effects are obvious during construction, but other effects are permanent and can extend 

substantially beyond the actual road surface (road-effect zone; Forman 2000; Forman and Alexander 

1998). At the landscape scale, major ecological impacts of a road network include fragmentation, the 

disruption of landscape processes, and loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity declines as the road network 

impacts interior species (species cut off by roads), species with large home ranges, stream and 

wetland species, and rare native species (Forman and Alexander 1998). Fragmentation of previously 

extensive landscapes can influence the distribution and abundance of a host of wildlife species 

through redistribution of habitat types and through the pattern of habitat fragmentation, including 

characteristics such as decreased patch area and increased habitat edge (Vander Haegen et al. 2000). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-58 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Roads (including OHV trails) are commonly identified as important correlates or indicators of loss of 

ecological health and affect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in several general ways: 1) increased 

mortality from road construction; 2) increased mortality from collision with vehicles; 3) modification 

of animal behavior; 4) alteration of physical environment; 5) alteration of chemical environment; 6) 

spread of exotic species; and 7) increased alteration and use of habitats by humans (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000; Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

The ecological effect of road avoidance is likely related to traffic density and speed of travel, as well 

as traffic noise levels (Forman and Alexander 1998). Road-effect zones generally result in lower 

breeding densities and reduced species richness; species demonstrated to avoid or be negatively 

impacted by roads include arthropods, reptiles, small mammals, ungulates, and forest and grassland 

birds (Andrews and Gibbons 2005; Carr and Fahrig 2001; Forman and Alexander 1998; McGrann et 

al. 2006; Rost and Bailey 1979). For example, proximity to OHV trails (<1,000 meters [3,280 feet]) 

was found to have a direct correlation with reduced-quality habitat for nesting songbirds in 

sagebrush-steppe habitats, including nest desertion, nest predation, and abandonment (Barton and 

Holmes 2007). Behavioral disturbance from recreation, including that associated with trails and 

roads, may also have both immediate and long-term effects on wildlife (Taylor and Knight 2003). In 

one study of pronghorn, deer, and bison, individuals exhibited a 70% probability of flushing within 

1,000 meters (3,280 feet) on either side of a trail used by hikers and mountain bikers (Taylor and 

Knight 2003); presumably, responses are similar in the presence of vehicles such as OHVs. Road 

density can be used as an overall index to average patterns over an area. For example, road densities 

of approximately 1.0 mile per square mile have been recommended as the maximum for a naturally 

functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large predators (Forman and Alexander 

1998). However, the effects of road density are likely sensitive to road width or type, traffic density, 

network connectivity, and the frequency of spur roads into remote areas (Forman and Alexander 

1998). 

Within Sheldon Refuge, more than 50 introduced, non-native, and often noxious plant species have 

been documented (refer to Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS Appendix B). Invasive plants typically need 

transportation to spread to new areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000), and within Sheldon Refuge 

several methods are possible, including vehicles, people, wild and domestic animals, and firefighting 

equipment. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that habitats distant from roads may provide important 

refuge for native grassland species, and that this effect may be even more pronounced in 

predominately intact landscapes such as those in parts of the Great Basin (Gelbard and Harrison 

2003). Human access and disturbance effects on remote areas tend to increase with higher road 

densities, as well as human-caused fire ignitions (Forman and Alexander 1998). 

Sheldon Refuge proposes that various methods, including systematic inventory and monitoring for 

invasive plants, mowing, use of herbicides, and elimination of grading road shoulders, be used to 

detect new infestations, control and contain existing infestations, and treat up to 1,000 acres per year. 

Management strategies to combat invasive plants support the Service policy for biological integrity 

and diversity within Sheldon Refuge. With a more systematic approach for inventory of noxious 

weeds and other invasive plants, populations are more likely to be detected when they are small and 

more easily managed and controlled. Increased treatment and reduced soil disturbance along road 

corridors should reduce the spread of invasive plants already present and reduce the potential for new 

populations. As a result, we anticipate these actions would result in major, long-term, direct, 

beneficial impacts to all habitats. Implementing treatment strategies (e.g., mechanical removal of 

vegetation, application of herbicides) would likely eliminate or prevent the spread of noxious weed 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-59 

populations when detected and provide some conservation of native habitats, resulting in minor, sitespecific, short-term, direct, beneficial impacts to habitat on approximately 1,000 acres per year. 

In conjunction with preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, Refuge staff conducted an 

evaluation of existing routes and trails and identified known and potential resource impacts and 

public benefits and recreation opportunities associated with vehicle access. Route segments that 

were identified as causing substantial impacts to soils, riparian areas, and/or wildlife, were redundant 

with other routes, or provided very little or no access for wildlife-dependent uses were not identified 

for designation as open roads for public use of vehicles. To minimize or avoid lesser impacts from 

roads and vehicle use, the Service would implement a number of transportation management 

strategies including designating roads that are not duplicative, re-routing or realigning road segments 

that pass through sensitive resource areas, installing erosion control structures, increasing monitoring 

and treatment of weeds along road corridors, and posting signs marking all designated open roads. 

These actions would result in long-term, minor, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts to soils by 

decreasing erosion in sensitive areas that are currently affected. Overall we expect impacts from 

road management would be minor, direct, and adverse to habitats on a localized and long-term basis. 

Management of sport hunting supports Service policy by providing various opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined types of recreation throughout Sheldon Refuge. Hiking, horseback riding, 

and vehicle access are secondary uses that support wildlife-dependent recreational activities within 

Sheldon Refuge. Sheldon Refuge allows access on foot, by horseback, or by vehicle. However, all 

vehicle routes are open to both motorized and non-motorized vehicles, and there are no areas 

managed for non-motorized vehicle access (i.e., mountain bikes or game carts) or semi-primitive 

non-motorized recreation opportunity. In areas open to vehicle use, we assume impacts to nonmotorized vehicle users are asymmetrical (Webber 1995) and occur from conflict, noise, dust, 

competition with motorized users for recreation opportunity, and displacement to non-motorized 

areas outside the refuge (Adelman et al. 1982; Gambill 1996; Manning and Valliere 2002; Moore 

1994; Stokowski and LaPointe 2000). The somewhat narrow range of vehicle access for nonmotorized users provided within the refuge represents a direct, adverse, moderate, long-term impact 

to quality recreation opportunities. 

Effects from Water Guzzlers 

Although use of water guzzlers continues to be a popular management tool in the western United 

States, the efficacy of such efforts has been questioned and their use is controversial, particularly 

within wilderness areas (Cain et al. 2008). Water guzzlers intended to increase populations of small 

game (i.e., chukar), and big game (i.e., bighorn sheep) impound a relatively small percentage of 

rainfall within any particular drainage; water guzzlers have been shown to have little long-term effect 

on the target wildlife population levels or distribution. Therefore, guzzlers would continue to have 

negligible impact. 

Effects from Horseback Riding and Use of Pack Stock 

Because the number of visitors who ride horseback or use pack stock within Sheldon Refuge is 

estimated less than 10 per year and because little impact has been observed from such use, we expect 

future impacts from trampling and introduction of non-native weed would also be low and less than 

similar impacts associated with overnight camping and vehicle use. Stock use areas at Badger and 

Fish Spring campgrounds would continue to be monitored, particularly for new populations of non-
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-60 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

native plants, and additional actions such as requiring certified weed-free feed and weed removal 

would be implemented as necessary. 

Effects from Boating 

The use of non-motorized or electric-powered boats is allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip 

Reservoir, and the Dufurrena Ponds consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. The majority of boating occurs in 

conjunction with sport fishing, and while migratory bird hunting is not allowed on these waters, 

occasional and intermittent boating does occur in conjunction with other hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation, research, scientific 

collecting, and surveys. The amount of boating that occurs within Sheldon Refuge has not been 

quantified, but is considered low based upon angler participation and incidental observation by staff 

and volunteers. Boating generally occurs during summer months following the waterfowl nesting 

season (when the potential for bird disturbance or displacement impacts would be greatest) and 

following the beginning of trout fishing season, when there are higher water temperatures at 

Dufurrena Ponds, which provide better fishing success. Requirements for use of non-motorized 

boats or boats with electric motors would eliminate the potential for water pollution associated with 

use of outboard motors and would maintain opportunities for visitor solitude. Overall, the amount of 

boating associated with wildlife-dependent public uses is considered low, and adverse impacts are 

estimated to be short-term, intermittent, and negligible. 

Economic Effects 

Annual expenditures associated with 1,691 annual sport hunting days (associated with mule deer, 

pronghorn, and bighorn sheep hunting) have been found to constitute 5% of current contribution to 

the gross state product ($0.4 million). We anticipate these expenditures would continue to support 10 

full-time jobs and contribute approximately $428,000 to the local economy (refer to Sheldon Refuge 

CCP/EIS Table 6.2).

Effects to Wilderness Character 

Naturalness: Approximately 300 miles of existing vehicle routes would remain visible, and their 

designation for motorized use is not expected to result in any short-term impacts to naturalness. Over 

the long term, as public use continues to increase, we expect that additional signs, road maintenance, 

and other developments would be needed to ensure compatibility. Increased visitation to these areas 

would also increase the potential for introduction and spread of weeds and for the disturbance and 

displacement of wildlife. 

Guzzlers would continue to adversely impact undeveloped natural wilderness character. However, 

because these permanent structures are relatively small and unobtrusive, and because future repairs 

would make these structures blend more with natural surroundings, impacts are confined to specific 

locations and are minor. 

Weed treatments occurring on approximately 1,000 acres per year, primarily along road corridors, 

are expected to slow or possibly reverse the trend of weed spread and invasion into undeveloped and 

more natural areas of Sheldon Refuge, but would adversely affect natural character due to the 

presence of dead vegetation and vehicle tracks. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-61 

Untrammeled Conditions: Management of hunting would rely primarily on existing campgrounds, 

roads, guzzlers, and other facilities, which would result in little or no change to untrammeled 

conditions within Sheldon Refuge. 

Solitude: Due to the limited number of campsites available and the implementation of fees for use at 

the Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds, we anticipate some 

increased use of primitive campgrounds and some additional overnight backcountry use by hunters 

and other visitors who continue to seek opportunities for solitude. Such opportunities would 

continue to be available throughout much of Sheldon Refuge during substantial portions of the year. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Management direction for designation of 300 miles of existing 

roads for public use of vehicles would result in only minor impacts. These existing roads would 

remain in the current condition and level of maintenance, and use of unimproved dirt roads is 

expected to remain low and intermittent, with the majority of use occurring during the hunting 

seasons for access to more primitive and remote portions of Sheldon Refuge. Other routes would 

continue to be used for hiking, backpacking, and horseback riding, and occasionally by vehicle for 

administrative purposes. Management actions would also result in greater management presence, 

development, and regulation at the Virgin Valley, Catnip, and Big Spring campgrounds. Impacts to 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation would be minor, with vehicle use confined to 

existing campgrounds and roads where public use has been well established for many years. 

Cumulative Effects from Hunting 

Actions proposed to manage public uses within the refuge, including sport hunting, are expected to 

reduce impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat and to maintain opportunities for high-quality wildlifedependent public uses. When considered with other existing and proposed public uses and proposed 

management actions at Sheldon Refuge, cumulative impacts from sport hunting are expected to be 

minor, and cumulative impacts from management of supporting uses such as camping and vehicle 

access would likely be beneficial and minor to moderate. Continued monitoring of wildlife 

populations and coordination with NDOW and the ODFW would provide necessary information and 

management to ensure impacts to wildlife populations from sport hunting within the refuge remain 

minor. It is anticipated that the overall amount of refuge visitation associated with sport hunting 

would remain relatively stable and not interfere with or detract from the primary purposes for 

Sheldon Refuge or the quality of other refuge public uses. It is also important to note the very large 

landscape context within which hunting and other public use activities are occurring at Sheldon 

Refuge. Hunting and other public use activities occur on very small, scattered portions of the refuge. 

The large areas where hunting and public uses do not occur provide wildlife with ample sanctuary. 

Although public use activities can result in disturbance to wildlife and associated habitats, 

disturbance would be largely intermittent and short term when activities are conducted according to 

the stipulations described. It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find sufficient food 

resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the refuge would not be measurably 

reduced from allowing these activities to occur. The relatively limited number of individual animals 

and plants expected to be adversely affected would not cause wildlife populations to materially 

decline, the physiological condition and production of refuge species would not be impaired, their 

behavior and normal activity patterns would not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare 

would not be negatively impacted. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-62 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Public Review and Comment: 

This and other compatibility determinations were prepared concurrently with the Final CCP/EIS for 

the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (in press). Open houses were held, multiple planning updates 

were mailed, and written comments were solicited from the public during development of the Final 

CCP/EIS for the refuge. Appendix A of the Final CCP/EIS further details public involvement during 

development of the CCP. A summary of public comments received during review of the Draft 

CCP/EIS along with the Service’s response to those comments are included in Appendix N of the 

Final CCP/EIS. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Management direction is provided in the CCP for Sheldon Refuge. It directs monitoring of wildlifedependent recreational hunting activities. Findings from these monitoring efforts would be used in 

determining what additional management actions, if any, are needed to ensure all hunting activities 

remain compatible with refuge purposes. Stipulations that apply to hunting within Sheldon Refuge 

are as follows: 

1. Hunting within Sheldon Refuge, consistent with state and Federal regulations, may be allowed 

only for the following game animals: goose, duck, coot, quail, chukar, Greater sage-grouse, 

pronghorn, mule deer, and California bighorn sheep. 

2. Hunting would not be allowed in identified areas of Sheldon Refuge to ensure public safety, to 

provide sanctuary areas for wildlife, and to provide outstanding high-quality opportunities for 

other wildlife-dependent public uses. Identified areas include Dufurrena, lower Virgin Valley, 

and the area referred to as Little Sheldon (Figure D.1), which would remain closed to all hunting. 

Catnip Reservoir and Big Spring Reservoir would remain closed to migratory bird hunting. 

3. As a priority species for Sheldon Refuge and as a candidate species under the Endangered 

Species Act, Greater sage-grouse would be managed within Sheldon Refuge to ensure long-term 

population health and viability and to maintain or restore declining or extirpated populations 

(Sheldon Refuge CCP Objective 6d). In coordination with the NDOW, the refuge would 

continue to adjust hunting seasons adaptively at the population level, using the best available 

science and guidelines, current sage-grouse population data (e.g., lek counts, productivity 

estimates from wing data or brood counts, survival estimates from local radio-telemetry studies), 

and local circumstances that can change annually (e.g., West Nile virus, drought, or habitat loss 

due to wildfire). The biological implications of changes to harvest seasons, as well as 

implications for public use would be thoughtfully considered as hunting regulations are 

developed. In coordination with NDOW, we would critically evaluate harvest survey techniques 

and adjust accordingly to ensure results are sufficiently accurate and precise. The determination 

to close or modify sport hunting for Greater sage-grouse would be made in coordination with the 

NDOW and consideration of WAFWA guidelines currently used for determining the appropriate 

level of harvest for this species at a local level. If and when this species were to be listed under 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-63 

the Endangered Species Act, hunting would be discontinued unless provided for in the listing 

decision. 

4. Special Federal and State of Nevada hunting regulations apply to recreational hunting within 

Sheldon Refuge. Sheldon Refuge staff would continue to work cooperatively with the State’s 

regulatory process to maintain harvest regulations necessary and appropriate to minimize adverse 

impacts to wildlife resources. To minimize impacts on refuge lands and resources, law 

enforcement patrols would routinely be conducted in an effort to maximize compliance with 

applicable policies, rules, and/or regulations. 

5. Maintenance of guzzlers within Sheldon Refuge proposed wilderness areas would be conducted 

in accordance with the minimum requirements decision and analysis included in Appendix G of 

the Final Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

6. All vehicles defined as off-road vehicles under 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 must be registered with 

the State of Nevada or Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge for use on lands administered by 

Sheldon Refuge. 

7. Vehicle use within Sheldon Refuge is allowed only on roads and routes that are designated 

“open” on Figure D.1 and that are signed or otherwise marked for such use. Off-road use is 

prohibited. 

8. Unless otherwise indicated by sign, permit, or regulation, the maximum number of consecutive 

nights any person or attended vehicle may remain at a designated Refuge campground is 14 

nights. 

9. Except for camping within campgrounds that are designated for such use on maps included in the 

Final Record of Decision for the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EIS and that are signed 

or otherwise marked for such use, no overnight use is allowed on lands administered by Sheldon 

Refuge unless expressly authorized by a valid Special Use Permit. 

10. Non-motorized boats or boats with electric motors are allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, 

Catnip Reservoir, and Dufurrena Ponds consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. 

11. Open fires are allowed only at designated campgrounds and within constructed fire rings, subject 

to additional seasonal fire restrictions and/or closures. 

12. Pets must be leashed, except dogs used for hunting migratory or upland birds. Hunting dogs 

must be under strict voice control at all times. 

13. Riding or packing with horses and mules is allowed in all areas open to public use. All horses 

and mules must be haltered, branded, tagged, or otherwise visibly marked as a domestic animal 

and must be tied, hobbled, high-lined, corralled, or otherwise under direct control at all times. 

14. Grazing of domestic animals within Sheldon Refuge is not allowed. 

15. We encourage the use of certified weed-free hay, pellets, straw, and other livestock feed within 

Sheldon Refuge. The use of certified weed-free feed would be required if monitoring of stock 

use areas indicates the spread or introduction of noxious weeds from uncertified feed. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-64 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Justification: 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, identifies 

recreational hunting as one of six priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. The law states 

that, when managed in accordance with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and 

administration, hunting and the other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses “have been and are 

expected to continue to be generally compatible uses.” The Act further states that these priority 

public uses should receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in refuge planning 

and management, and directs the USFWS to provide increased opportunities for the public to safely 

engage in traditional outdoor activities such as fishing and hunting. 

Sport hunting does result in harm to individual animals and can result in additional disturbance or 

displacement of wildlife. Based on the number of hunting tags issued, and the average size of 

hunting groups during the hunting seasons, we estimate visitation associated with hunting is less than 

4,000 people per year, and the majority of visitors who engage in hunting stay in designated 

campgrounds and travel on roads throughout the refuge primarily by four-wheel drive truck or OHV. 

By designating approximately 300 miles of existing vehicles routes that are not duplicative, facilitate 

public access, and are not causing substantial adverse impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, we 

expect overall adverse impacts to wildlife from motorized vehicles and vehicle use during the 

hunting seasons would occur at a level that does not result in significant impact to fish, wildlife, or 

their habitats within Sheldon Refuge. Other requirements for the use of non-motorized boats and 

designated campgrounds, and requirements for backcountry camping permits would also minimize 

wildlife disturbance and displacement from important habitats while maintaining opportunities for 

solitude within proposed wilderness areas and wilderness study areas. Stipulations identified in this 

compatibility determination are expected to minimize impacts from hunting within Sheldon Refuge 

to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. 

Continued management of Virgin Valley, Little Sheldon, Big Spring Reservoir, and Catnip Reservoir 

would provide outstanding opportunities for other wildlife-dependent public uses and provide 

sanctuary for some big-game and game bird animals. 

To reduce impacts to wildlife resources and to provide the continued opportunity for recreational 

uses of these species by the American public, Sheldon Refuge, NDOW, and ODFW cooperatively 

conduct population surveys and studies and adopt regulations in response to wildlife population 

survey and study results and management needs. These regulations currently provide adequate 

protection for Sheldon Refuge’s wildlife resources, continued recreation opportunities, and other 

refuge purposes. 

In sum, although sport hunting does result in harm to individual animals and can result in additional 

disturbance or displacement of wildlife, the relatively limited number of individual animals and 

plants expected to be adversely affected would not cause wildlife populations to materially decline. 

The physiological condition and production of refuge species would not be impaired, their behavior 

and normal activity patterns would not be altered dramatically, and their overall welfare would not be 

negatively impacted. It is anticipated that wildlife populations would find sufficient food resources 

and resting places such that their abundance and use of the refuge would not be measurably reduced 

from allowing these activities to occur. Thus, allowing hunting to occur under the stipulations 

described above would not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the refuge was 

established or the refuge system’s mission. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-65 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide year for “allowed” uses only) 

 2026 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Literature Cited: 

Adelman, B., T. Heberlein, and T. Bonnicksen. 1982. Social psychological explanations for the 

persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences 5:45-61. 

Andrews, K.M. and J.W. Gibbons. 2005. How do highways influence snake movement? Behavioral 

responses to roads and vehicles. Copeia 2005:772-782. 

Armentrout, D.J., F.H. Hall, M. Dobel, and the Northeastern California Sage-Grouse Working 

Group. 2004. Conservation strategy for Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophansianus). Bureau 

of Land Management, Eagle Lake Field Office. Susanville, CA. 

Autenrieth, R.E. 1981. Sage grouse management in Idaho. Sage grouse. Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game, Boise, ID. 

Autenrieth, R.E., W. Molini, and C.E. Braun. 1982. Sage-grouse management practices. Western 

Sage-grouse Committee Technical Bulletin 1. Twin Falls, ID. 

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:517-522. 

Barton, D.C. and A.L. Holmes. 2007. Off-highway vehicle trail impacts on breeding songbirds in 

northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1617-1625. 

Cain, J.W., III, P.R. Krausman, J.R. Morgart, B.D. Jansen, and M.P. Pepper. 2008. Responses of 

desert bighorn sheep to removal of water sources. Wildlife Monograph 171. 

Carr, L.W. and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing 

vagility. Conservation Biology 15:1071-1078. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-66 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Cole, D.N. 1981. Vegetational changes associated with recreational use and fire suppression in the 

Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon: some management implications. Biological Conservation 

20:247-270. 

Cole, D.N. 1985. Recreational trampling effects on six habitat types in western Montana. Research 

Paper INT-350. USDA Forest Service. 43 pp. 

Cole, D.N. 1989. Some principles to guide wilderness campsite management. Pages 181-187 in: 

D.W. Lime, ed. Campsite management and monitoring in wilderness. St. Paul, MN: 

Minnesota Extension Service and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of 

Minnesota. 

Cole, D.N. 1995. Experimental trampling of vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 32:215-224. 

Cole, D.N. 2004. Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review. Available at: 

http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs12/Ecotourism.pdf. Accessed January 

31, 2011. 

Cole, D. N. and R. L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State 

University, Logan, UT. 

Collins, G.H. 2010. Status of population trend, harvest, and translocation activities of Greater sagegrouse populations on Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. February 

2010. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds. A literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures. Page 114 in: Appendix L, Stillwater National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision (Vol. II). Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

Eckert, R.E., Jr., M.K. Wood, W.H. Blackburn, and F.F. Peterson. 1979. Impacts of off-road 

vehicles on infiltration and sediment production of two desert soils. Journal of Range 

Management 32:394-397. 

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road network in the United 

States. Conservation Biology 14:31-35. 

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. 

Gambill, P. 1996. Multi-use trail management policy: user-group conflict and resource impact 

issues. Wheaton, IL: The Wheaton Center. 

Gelbard, J.L. and S. Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: interactions 

with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications 13:404-415. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-67 

Gullion, G.W. and G.C. Christensen. 1952. A review of the distribution of gallinaceous game birds 

in Nevada. Condor 59(4):128-138. 

Hagen, C.A. and T.M. Loughin. 2008. Productivity estimates from upland bird harvests: estimating 

variance and necessary sample sizes. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1369-1381. 

Iverson, R.M., B.S. Hinckley, R.M. Webb, and B. Hallet. 1981. Physical effects of vehicular 

disturbances on arid landscapes. Science 212:915-917. 

Knight, R. L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in: R.L. 

Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research. Washington, D.C: Island Press. 

MacArthur, R. A., R. H. Johnson, and V. Geist. 1979. Factors influencing heart rate in free ranging 

bighorn sheep: a physiological approach to the study of wildlife harassment. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 57:2010-2021. 

Manning, R. and W. Valliere. 2002. Coping in outdoor recreation: causes and consequences of 

crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research 33(4):410-

426. 

McGrann, M.C., G.R. Wright, R.J. Dial, and A.M. McGrann. 2006. Off-highway vehicle impact on 

the flat-tailed horned lizard, Phrynosoma mcallii, in the Colorado Desert of southern 

California. California Fish and Game 92:67-80. 

Monti, P. and E.E. Mackintosh. 1979. Effect of camping on surface soil properties in the boreal 

forest region of northwestern Ontario, Canada. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43, 

1024-1029. 

Moore, R.L. 1994. Conflicts on multiple-use trails: Synthesis of the literature and state of the 

practice, Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway 

Administration. 

NDOW. 2011. Nevada Department of Wildlife 2010- 2011 big game status. M. Cox, T. Wasley, L. 

Gibertson, M. Dobel, K. Gray, S. Kimble, and R. Woolstenhulme, eds. Nevada Department 

of Wildlife. Reno, NV. 

Rost, G.R. and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 43:634-641. 

Stokowski, P.A. and C.B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and social effects of ATVs and ORVs: 

An annotated bibliography and research assessment. School of Natural Resources, 

University of Vermont. 31 pp. Available at: 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/atv_nov20_final.pdf. 

Switalski, T.A, J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and 

impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:21-28. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-68 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. 

USFWS. 1971. Charles Sheldon Antelope Range unit resource analysis. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 2010. Proposed rule for 12-month finding for petitions to list the Greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. FWS-R6-ES-2010-0018. Federal 

Register Vol. 75, No. 55 published Tuesday, March 23, 2010. 

USFWS. Undated report. Camping use days Virgin Valley Campground Sheldon NWR. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Lakeview, OR. 

Vander Haegen, W.M., F.C. Dobler, and D.J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and 

landscape variables in Eastern Washington, USA. Conservation Biology 14:1145-1160. 

Webber, P.C. 1995. Report to the Board of Environmental Management on the policy for off-road 

vehicle use in Massachusetts forests and parks. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, 

MA: Department of Environmental Management. 

Wehausen, J.D. 1980. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep: history and population ecology. Ph.D 

Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 240 pp. 

Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2006. Nevada wildlife action plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

Reno, NV. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-69 

Refuge Determination 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-70 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

D.4 Compatibility Determination for Guiding on Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Use(s): Guiding (big-game hunting, upland bird hunting, and migratory bird hunting) 

Supporting Uses: Camping, boating, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, and vehicle use 

Refuge Name: Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge 

City/County and State: Washoe County, Nevada; Humboldt County, Nevada; Lake County, 

Oregon 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

What is today known as the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge was initially established by Executive 

Order 5540 dated January 26, 1931, and later enlarged by Executive Order 7364 dated May 6, 1936, 

and Executive Order 7522 dated December 21, 1936. 

The authorities for nearly all Federal lands within Sheldon Refuge are the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r) and the National Wildlife 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). A small portion of Sheldon 

Refuge was acquired under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1231-1544). 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“...as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and birds...” Executive Order 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...” Executive 

Order 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) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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]). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-71 

Description of Use(s): 

Guiding and outfitting considered in this compatibility determination are limited to commercial and 

economic activities related to transporting, assisting, and accompanying hunters within Sheldon 

Refuge. Sheldon Refuge issues approximately 10 Special Use Permits each year for guiding and 

outfitting hunters within Sheldon Refuge, nearly all of which are for guided big-game hunting. 

Professional guides are occasionally permitted to provide services in support of other recreational 

uses such as photography. However, the demand and number of requests for these permits are rare 

and typically issued on a case-by-case basis. 

Commercial outfitting and guiding generally occur throughout much of Sheldon Refuge and at the 

same times and locations as sport hunting. However, guides and outfitters often conduct trips within 

Sheldon Refuge prior to the hunting season to scout for and spot game and to transport equipment 

and supplies for temporary campsites. 

Guides and outfitters typically use designated campgrounds for short periods of less than 14 days 

throughout the hunting seasons or travel into Sheldon Refuge for day-use hunting. Access to hunting 

areas typically includes both motorized vehicle use along designated roads and routes, as well as 

hiking. Few guides or outfitters use boats or provide pack or saddle stock for access to wilderness 

and other backcountry areas of Sheldon Refuge. Guides who provide opportunities for hunting 

migratory or upland game birds often use trained dogs for finding and retrieving birds as allowed by 

state hunting regulations. 

Refuge policy allows commercial services within proposed wilderness to the extent they are 

necessary for activities that are proper for realizing the recreation or other wilderness purposes of the 

wilderness areas. Most big-game hunting opportunities are found within proposed wilderness areas, 

and it is assumed all commercial outfitters and guides would use portions of one or more proposed 

wilderness areas during any particular hunt. The types and amounts of commercial guiding and 

outfitting necessary for recreation opportunities within the eight proposed wilderness areas were 

evaluated in the Final Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS and are determined as part this compatibility 

determination. 

The Service would permit up to 10 operators to provide outfitting and guide services within Sheldon 

Refuge. Permits would be awarded through a competitive prospectus bid system through which 

guides and outfitters submit a detailed proposal to the Service for review. The Service would then 

select operators determined to be the most qualified and able to further the management goals and 

objectives for Sheldon Refuge based upon their proposals, client interviews, and known history (refer 

to Exhibit D.1 for prospectus details). 

Supporting Uses 

Camping

Camping itself is not a priority public use on Service lands, but because of the size, remoteness, and 

quality of roads within Sheldon Refuge, it is important in supporting priority uses including fishing, 

hunting, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography as well as non-priority public uses such as 

guiding. There are four types of camping opportunities currently provided within Sheldon Refuge: 

developed, semi-primitive, primitive, and backcountry/wilderness. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-72 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Camping within Sheldon Refuge is allowed in 13 designated campgrounds and by Refuge Special 

Use Permit for backcountry camping. 

Developed Camping: Virgin Valley Campground located at Dufurrena is considered the only 

developed campground. Virgin Valley Campground is easily accessible year-round for all types of 

vehicles, including RVs, and it offers shade trees, potable water, two vault toilets, 16 picnic tables, 

24 fire rings, a meat-hanging pole, a bath-house, and a hot spring developed for swimming. 

Campground use is managed on a first-come, first-served basis without fees or designated sites. 

From 2005 through 2007 an average of 18 campsites were occupied per day during the days 

surveyed, for a seasonal average of 6,573 visitor use days (USFWS undated report). 

From mid-August through mid-November, the Virgin Valley Campground is heavily used by 

hunters. During peak seasons, overcrowding and user conflicts have been a concern, as has overflow 

into upland areas adjacent to the campground, which can result in further environmental damage. 

There is also a private developed campground at the Royal Peacock Mine located in the Virgin 

Valley Mining District, which has RV hookups. 

Semi-primitive Camping: Five campgrounds (Catnip Reservoir, West Rock Spring, Fish Spring, 

Badger, and Big Spring Reservoir) are considered semi-primitive and include outhouses, fire rings, 

meat-hanging poles, and in the case of Fish Spring and Badger campgrounds, horse corrals. These 

semi-primitive campgrounds are accessible from primary roads or improved secondary roads suitable 

for most types of vehicles and are primarily used by hunters. Sport anglers also use campgrounds at 

Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs. 

Additional facilities such as campsite amenities (i.e., picnic tables and accessible fire rings or 

barbeque grills), potable water, shade structures, kiosks, and dedicated volunteer sites are planned for 

Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds. These facilities would 

provide developed camping opportunities that are not commonly available within Sheldon Refuge or 

the region. However, these improved facilities would only be sustainable over the long term through 

campsite fees to support volunteers, maintenance, and replacement. 

The Service also proposes to allow public overnight use of some existing historic structures within 

Sheldon Refuge. The most likely structures are the Little Sheldon Overnight Cabin and Badger 

Cabin. 

Primitive Camping: Seven campgrounds (Little Catnip Spring, Gooch Spring, North Hell Creek, 

Wheeler Spring, Bateman Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Spring) are considered primitive 

campgrounds and have only fire rings or no improvements, are remote, and are accessible to fourwheel drive or high-clearance vehicles when road conditions are passable. These primitive 

campgrounds receive intermittent and low amounts of use, occurring mostly during the big-game 

hunting seasons (early August through October). All of these campgrounds are located immediately 

adjacent to, or include, wet meadows, spring, or springbrook habitats. Three primitive campgrounds 

(Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Spring) also include aspen woodland habitats. Impacts 

associated with primitive campgrounds were identified as an issue during the Sheldon CCP planning 

process. The impacts identified and stipulations for reducing or eliminating those impacts are 

addressed in subsequent sections of this compatibility determination. 

Backcountry/Wilderness Camping: Backcountry camping for up to 14 days is allowed by refuge 

permit. Permits are not limited, but do stipulate visitors must camp at least 0.5 mile from open roads 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-73 

and at least 100 yards from water sources. The majority of backcountry camping permits are issued 

to hunters, but the amount of use is low and no adverse impacts have been observed. Backcountry 

use would continue to be monitored, and future management actions to reduce or eliminate any 

impacts would be implemented as necessary. 

Public Access 

Public access to areas within Sheldon Refuge is provided by a network of vehicle roads and informal 

backcountry routes and trails. Roads include one two-lane paved highway, maintained gravel roads, 

and numerous primitive and unmaintained dirt roads. Trails throughout the refuge backcountry and 

wilderness areas are primarily abandoned vehicle routes historically used for access to livestock 

developments and private inholdings later purchased by the Service. 

The most substantial changes to guiding are expected to result from the relocation and enlargement 

of the Refuge visitor contact station, improvement of campground facilities, and improved signing of 

routes open to vehicle use. Improved gravel roads within Sheldon Refuge would be maintained more 

frequently, and all routes open to the public use of vehicles would be adequately signed and marked. 

Visitors would be required to register all OHVs consistent with State of Nevada regulation or with 

Sheldon Refuge for use on refuge roads and routes designated open to vehicle use. These actions are 

intended to improve the quality of the transportation system and deter vehicle violations while 

requiring only minimal law enforcement presence. 

Maintained Public Roads: In preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, each route within the 

refuge was evaluated to assess impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, as well as benefits 

for public use and recreation opportunity. Following this evaluation, 300 miles of existing roads 

(including State Highway 140 and all maintained county roads) were designated for public vehicle 

use. The Service has determined that the continued use and maintenance of these designated roads, 

including actions for re-routing or modification as proposed in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, would 

have minimal or no impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat and/or are subject to existing right-ofway. The unimproved roads within Sheldon Refuge are not regularly maintained, but are repaired on 

a site-by-site basis to keep them in usable condition or to prevent undue resource damage (i.e., 

excessive erosion). 

Trails and Backcountry Access: Hiking, horseback riding, use of pack stock, and other nonmechanical modes of access are allowed on trails, routes, and other areas of Sheldon Refuge open to 

the public. All vehicle use is restricted to designated open roads. Existing trails throughout Sheldon 

Refuge would remain, but would not be marked or maintained for public use. No adverse impacts 

have been observed from visitors using these routes for hiking, horseback riding, or use of pack 

stock. 

Horseback Riding and Pack Stock Use: Horseback riding has been allowed as a recreation activity 

within Sheldon Refuge for many years. However, it is estimated fewer than 10 horseback visitors 

use Sheldon Refuge each year, and as a result, horseback riding is considered a low-impact activity. 

Horseback riding gives the public an opportunity to visit remote and undeveloped portions of 

Sheldon Refuge, and to enjoy the wildlife viewing, solitude, and expansive views that Sheldon 

Refuge is known for. 

There is a concern that the number of visitors engaging in horseback riding may increase, particularly 

with hunting guides and their clients, and that use of horses and pack stock within the Refuge would 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-74 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

introduce invasive non-native plants. These impacts have not been observed, but monitoring would 

continue and the Service would take additional action as needed to maintain wilderness character and 

prevent the introduction of weeds to the refuge. 

The corrals at Badger and Fish Spring campgrounds are the only facilities that specifically support 

horseback riding and the use of pack stock. 

Boating: Refuge-specific regulations that apply to the use of non-motorized boats and boats with 

electric motors specifically apply to sport fishing and sport hunting, but are interpreted as applying to 

other compatible wildlife-dependent public uses as well. While the use of non-motorized boats and 

boats with electric motors in Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip Reservoir, and Dufurrena Ponds consistent 

with 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 32.47 in conjunction with guiding and outfitting is 

considered rare and incidental, the use is considered a compatible activity that supports outfitting and 

guiding services within Sheldon Refuge. 

Availability of Resources: 

The primary cost to Sheldon Refuge of managing commercial guiding and outfitting is for the 

administration of Special Use Permits. Fees for permits and client use days typically cover the costs 

associated with issuing and administering the permits. However, if demand exceeds the limit of 10 

commercial permits available, the costs associated with reviewing and selecting permittees through a 

competitive bid process would not be offset or recovered through fees. 

Most administration and management of recreational hunting, including issuing of licenses, permits, 

and harvest tags is conducted by the NDOW and ODFW. Maintenance of the IXL wetlands, 

campgrounds, access roads, and other supporting facilities and routine law enforcement patrols are 

conducted by Sheldon Refuge primarily to provide quality wildlife-dependent public uses. The 

amount of use at these facilities by commercial guides and outfitters is considered negligible and 

does not represent an added cost for administration of this economic use. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-75 

Category and Itemization One-time Annual 

Administration and management (issuance and 

administration of Special Use Permits) 

$2,500 $2,500 

Maintenance 

Monitoring (law enforcement contacts and review of 

client-use reports) 

$1,000 $1,000 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements 

(campgrounds, docks, and access roads) 

 

Offsetting revenues4 $3,500 $3,500 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Effects from Guiding 

It is anticipated that commercial guiding and outfitting and associated public uses would have 

impacts similar to those described for sport hunting (refer to impacts discussed in the sport hunting 

compatibility determination in this appendix), but the conditions included in all Special Use Permits 

for guiding and outfitting within Sheldon Refuge (included later in this compatibility determination) 

should reduce the effects of these impacts. 

Proposed wilderness areas located within Sheldon Refuge provide remote isolated settings 

characterized by vast expanses of open sagebrush country, rugged terrain, highly variable weather 

and temperatures, and isolation. Safe travel and exploration of Sheldon Refuge demands visitors be 

prepared, knowledgeable, and experienced in wilderness and backcountry settings. Allowing a 

limited number of commercial outfitters and guides who possess adequate equipment, knowledge, 

and skills to operate within Sheldon Refuge would provide wilderness recreation opportunities for 

many people who otherwise would be unable or unwilling to visit. Because visitation within much of 

Sheldon Refuge is characterized as low or very low, the presence of outfitters or guides with small 

groups of clients is not expected to affect overall opportunities for wilderness solitude or natural 

character. Because most demand for outfitting and guiding is currently from a small proportion of 

the limited number of big-game hunting tag holders, there currently is no need to consider limits on 

the number of clients or client-use days to maintain wilderness character. 

Issuing up to 10 permits for commercial outfitting and guiding would be consistent with past use 

within Sheldon Refuge and is expected to supply an adequate number of choices and variety of 

services for the visiting public while maintaining a level of competition sufficient to ensure quality 

services are provided. 

                                                           

4 Anticipated Special Use Permit fees and revenues as proposed in the CCP are based on $250 annual fee and 10 

client-use days per permit. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-76 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Effects from Camping and Campgrounds 

Use of campgrounds within Sheldon Refuge causes impacts to vegetation, soils, water quality, and 

cultural resources. During dry conditions, carelessness with campfires can lead to wildfires. 

Management and development of campgrounds is also expected to affect the type and quality of 

recreation opportunities available. 

Impacts to Vegetation, Soils, and Water Quality: Campgrounds and their use within the refuge range 

from primitive sites with relatively low and only intermittent use to very developed sites with yearround and relatively high amount of use during summer months. Current impacts and expected 

future impacts associated with use and development of these campgrounds also vary widely. 

Because the most primitive campgrounds are currently the least impacted, we can expect these sites 

would exhibit the greatest amount of additional or potential impact with only slightly more use. 

Conversely, most impacts have already occurred at the most heavily used and developed 

campgrounds and we can expect very little additional impact to vegetation, soils, or water quality 

even with relatively large increases in use at these campgrounds. 

The greatest difference in durability between vegetation types occurs at moderately low use levels 

(Cole 1985). Sites that are used frequently are likely to be highly impacted regardless of their 

fragility. Because vegetation loss usually occurs more rapidly than loss of organic soil horizons, sites 

with either no vegetation or resistant vegetation (e.g., grasses as opposed to forbs) recover more 

quickly and are less likely to be impacted by low levels of use, while sites with thick organic soil 

horizons are less susceptible to erosion and are more likely to withstand high amounts of use. 

Experimental studies suggest that there is an important difference between a site’s resistance (its 

ability to tolerate use without being damaged) and its resilience (its ability to recover from damage). 

Cole (1995) has shown, for groundcover plants, that resistance decreases with erectness and that 

broad-leaved herbs are typically less resistant than grass-like plants and shrubs. Low shrubs, such as 

heather, are relatively resistant to trampling stress but their resilience is low. Once damaged, they 

recover slowly. Grass-like plants are most tolerant of trampling (Cole 1989). The compaction of 

soils from campsite use reduces water infiltration and water holding capacity, which leads to 

increased runoff and erosion potential (Cole 2004; Monti and Mackintosh 1979). Impacts associated 

with use at primitive campgrounds can be readily observed and tend to occur rapidly, but these 

impacts are relatively inconsequential when considered in the context of the entire refuge. Impacts 

associated with campgrounds located within riparian areas or near water sources are of greater 

concern, but current impacts are not severe, and vegetation, soils, and water quality at primitive 

campgrounds are expected to recover noticeably within a few years following campground 

relocation. This assessment is supported by Cole (1981) who noted that hiking and camping impacts 

on soil and vegetation, while severe when measured at small scales, are minimal at large spatial 

scales. This suggests that while recreation impacts can be serious for individual plants and animals 

and perhaps localized rare populations, they are generally of little significance to landscape integrity 

or regional biotic diversity. Moreover, unless much of a population is affected by a single impacted 

site, the intensity, size, and distribution of impacts are not relevant to the significance of impacts 

assessed at large spatial scales (Cole 1989). 

Virgin Valley Campground is located at a site previously developed and used by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps in the late 1930s. Catnip Reservoir and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds are 

located immediately adjacent to artificial reservoirs. These three campgrounds receive the greatest 

use and exhibit the greatest amount of impact. The core areas of use at these campgrounds no longer 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-77 

support vegetation or vegetation diversity is substantially reduced, water infiltration is considered 

low due to soil compaction, and gravel has been placed in some areas to reduce erosion and rutting 

from vehicles. Non-native plants and animals in and around these three campgrounds were likely 

introduced by early ranching and development activities rather than campground visitors. 

Monitoring and control efforts would continue to detect and remove or eradicate small or new 

populations of invasive species. 

The remaining 10 campgrounds are all located immediately adjacent to or include aspen woodland, 

wet meadows, spring, and/or springbrook habitats. Most of these campgrounds have moderate 

amounts of vegetation loss and soil compaction, which is limited to parking areas, areas around fire 

rings, outhouses, and along connecting paths. These impacts are generally not continuous throughout 

the campground and are expected to remain stable with current amounts of intermittent use, which 

occurs during late summer and fall after most annual and biannual plants have finished growing for 

the season and when soils are typically drier and more resistant to impact. Some primitive 

campgrounds have no visible bare ground, and where located in meadow habitats, vegetation is 

generally able to recover from the current amount of use. Some primitive campgrounds exhibit small 

areas of bare ground, generally a lack forbs, which are not resistant to trampling, and in the case of 

Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Springs, also exhibit some impacts to aspen trees from 

trampling, soil compaction, root exposure, and cutting. Because these campgrounds receive little 

visitation or are located near frequently traveled gravel roads, impacts to wildlife from campground 

use are estimated to be minor or negligible. Due to the nature of these impacts and relatively low 

amount of use, we anticipate these campgrounds would exhibit the greatest amount of natural 

recovery compared to the three more developed and heavily used campgrounds if camping use were 

eliminated, but would also experience the greatest amount of additional impact if camping use were 

to substantially increase. Aspen stands associated with the Devaney, Wheeler Spring, and East Rock 

Springs campgrounds are also expected to recover, but regeneration of the understory shrubs and 

younger trees would occur slowly and likely require some active restoration and/or replanting. 

Up to nine semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds would be relocated away from sensitive 

riparian habitats and areas with cultural resources. It is anticipated that actions to relocate 

campgrounds to alternative sites, protect sensitive habitats at each of these campgrounds, and confine 

use to designated campsites in heavily used campgrounds would minimize or avoid additional 

impacts altogether. 

We expect some primitive campgrounds to be consolidated with other existing campgrounds, which 

would need to be enlarged and have additional campsites constructed (the most likely candidates for 

enlargement are Catnip Reservoir, Big Spring Reservoir, Fish Spring, and West Rock Spring 

campgrounds). Consolidation would result in additional impacts from increased use of existing 

facilities and campsites and from the designation and construction within existing campgrounds. 

Where camping already occurs, increased use of existing campsites and facilities is expected to have 

little or no measurable impact to vegetation or wildlife. Impacts to expanded portions of these 

campgrounds are expected to occur quickly as vegetation is trampled and soil compacted within the 

first two or three seasons of use, but would then stabilize over the long term. We expect enlargement 

of existing campgrounds would result in minor, site-specific, long-term, direct adverse impacts to 

plants and their habitat from removal of vegetation, soil compaction, and loss of organic soil horizon 

at these sites. 

Impacts from Wildfire: Campfires are allowed at designated campgrounds but are occasionally 

prohibited during periods of high fire danger. Wildfires have been started by refuge visitors in the 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-78 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

past, and we expect some wildfires would occasionally start as a result of escaped campfires or 

misuse of stoves. Seasonal campfire restrictions and rapid fire suppression response would continue 

to minimize impacts. 

Impacts to Cultural Resources: Most of the 13 designated campgrounds are located within or 

adjacent to prehistoric cultural sites. While the majority of impacts occurred following the initial 

establishment and use of these campgrounds, some impacts continue due to ongoing soil disturbance 

and compaction within existing campsites, trampling and removal of vegetation, occasional use of 

previously unused areas adjacent to the campgrounds, and vehicle use outside designated areas. 

Limited fee use of the Little Sheldon Overnight Cabin or Badger Cabin is expected to increase public 

appreciation for historic resources and understanding for their protection and preservation. In 

addition, the use of these sites and the collection of fees would provide justification and funding for 

restoration work and continued maintenance. As a result, the integrity of sites eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places would be protected. Therefore, we anticipate use of these 

facilities to support sport hunting and guiding would have a major, long-term, beneficial impact on 

cultural resources. 

Impacts to Recreation Opportunity: Campsite registration, overnight fees, and the other 

improvements planned for the developed campgrounds would increase maintenance, increase visitor 

compliance with rules and regulations (by defining and designating campsites), and decrease 

competition for campsites. Campground management strategies are expected to result in moderate, 

indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts to the camping experience, in support of providing quality 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Effects from Public Access 

Adverse impacts are expected to continue as a result of the network of developed and undeveloped 

roads throughout Sheldon Refuge and their associated maintenance. Road development and use 

continues to adversely impact the biological integrity within Sheldon Refuge by contributing to the 

altered composition of plant communities, soil disturbance (Eckert et al. 1979; Iverson et al. 1981; 

Switalski et al. 2004), altered hydrology and stream sedimentation (Forman and Alexander 1998), 

facilitation of the spread of invasive vegetation, changes in the natural fire regimes, and habitat 

fragmentation. 

Many direct effects are obvious during construction, but other effects are permanent and can extend 

substantially beyond the actual road surface (road-effect zone; Forman 2000; Forman and Alexander 

1998). At the landscape scale, major ecological impacts of a road network include fragmentation, the 

disruption of landscape processes, and loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity declines as the road network 

impacts interior species (species cut off by roads), species with large home ranges, stream and 

wetland species, and rare native species (Forman and Alexander 1998). Fragmentation of previously 

extensive landscapes can influence the distribution and abundance of a host of wildlife species 

through redistribution of habitat types and through the pattern of habitat fragmentation, including 

characteristics such as decreased patch area and increased habitat edge (Vander Haegen et al. 2000). 

Roads (including OHV trails) are commonly identified as important correlates or indicators of loss of 

ecological health and affect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in several general ways: 1) increased 

mortality from road construction; 2) increased mortality from collision with vehicles; 3) modification 

of animal behavior; 4) alteration of physical environment; 5) alteration of chemical environment; 6) 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-79 

spread of exotic species; and 7) increased alteration and use of habitats by humans (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000; Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

The ecological effect of road avoidance is likely related to traffic density and speed of travel, as well 

as traffic noise levels (Forman and Alexander 1998). Road-effect zones generally result in lower 

breeding densities and reduced species richness; species demonstrated to avoid or be negatively 

impacted by roads include arthropods, reptiles, small mammals, ungulates, and forest and grassland 

birds (Andrews and Gibbons 2005; Carr and Fahrig 2001; Forman and Alexander 1998; McGrann et 

al. 2006; Rost and Bailey 1979). For example, proximity to OHV trails (<1,000 meters [3,280 feet]) 

was found to have a direct correlation with reduced-quality habitat for nesting songbirds in 

sagebrush-steppe habitats, including nest desertion, nest predation, and abandonment (Barton and 

Holmes 2007). Behavioral disturbance from recreation, including that associated with trails and 

roads, may also have both immediate and long-term effects on wildlife (Taylor and Knight 2003). In 

one study of pronghorn, deer, and bison, individuals exhibited a 70% probability of flushing within 

1,000 meters (3,280 feet) on either side of a trail used by hikers and mountain bikers (Taylor and 

Knight 2003); presumably, responses are similar in the presence of vehicles such as OHVs. Road 

density can be used as an overall index to average patterns over an area. For example, road densities 

of approximately 1.0 mile per square mile have been recommended as the maximum for a naturally 

functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large predators (Forman and Alexander 

1998). However, the effects of road density are likely sensitive to road width or type, traffic density, 

network connectivity, and the frequency of spur roads into remote areas (Forman and Alexander 

1998). 

Within Sheldon Refuge, more than 50 introduced, non-native, and often noxious plant species have 

been documented (refer to Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS Appendix B). Invasive plants typically need 

transportation to spread to new areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000), and within Sheldon Refuge 

several methods are possible, including vehicles, people, wild and domestic animals, and firefighting 

equipment. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that habitats distant from roads may provide important 

refuge for native grassland species, and that this effect may be even more pronounced in 

predominately intact landscapes such as those in parts of the Great Basin (Gelbard and Harrison 

2003). Human access and disturbance effects on remote areas tend to increase with higher road 

densities, as well as human-caused fire ignitions (Forman and Alexander 1998). 

Sheldon Refuge proposes that various methods, including systematic inventory and monitoring for 

invasive plants, mowing, use of herbicides, and elimination of grading road shoulders, be used to 

detect new infestations, control and contain existing infestations, and treat up to 1,000 acres per year. 

Management strategies to combat invasive plants support the Service policy for biological integrity 

and diversity within Sheldon Refuge. With a more systematic approach for inventory of noxious 

weeds and other invasive plants, populations are more likely to be detected when they are small and 

more easily managed and controlled. Increased treatment and reduced soil disturbance along road 

corridors should reduce the spread of invasive plants already present and reduce the potential for new 

populations. As a result, we anticipate these actions would result in major, long-term, direct, 

beneficial impacts to all habitats. Implementing treatment strategies (e.g., mechanical removal of 

vegetation, application of herbicides) would likely eliminate or prevent the spread of noxious weed 

populations when detected and provide some conservation of native habitats, resulting in minor, sitespecific, short-term, direct, beneficial impacts to habitat on approximately 1,000 acres per year. 

In conjunction with preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, Refuge staff conducted an 

evaluation of existing routes and trails and identified known and potential resource impacts and 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-80 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

public benefits and recreation opportunities associated with vehicle access. Route segments that 

were identified as causing substantial impacts to soils, riparian areas, and/or wildlife, were redundant 

with other routes, or provided very little or no access for wildlife-dependent uses were not identified 

for designation as open roads for public use of vehicles. To minimize or avoid lesser impacts from 

roads and vehicle use, the Service would implement a number of transportation management 

strategies including designating roads that are not duplicative, re-routing or realigning road segments 

that pass through sensitive resource areas, installing erosion control structures, increasing monitoring 

and treatment of weeds along road corridors, and posting signs marking all designated open roads. 

These actions would result in long-term, minor, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts to soils by 

decreasing erosion in sensitive areas that are currently affected. Overall, we expect impacts from 

road management would be minor, direct, and adverse to habitats on a localized and long-term basis. 

Management of guiding activities supports Service policy by providing various opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined types of recreation throughout Sheldon Refuge. Hiking, horseback riding, 

and vehicle access are secondary uses that support wildlife-dependent recreational activities within 

Sheldon Refuge. Sheldon Refuge allows access on foot, by horseback, or by vehicle. However, all 

vehicle routes are open to both motorized and non-motorized vehicles, and there are no areas 

managed for non-motorized vehicle access (i.e., mountain bikes or game carts) or semi-primitive 

non-motorized recreation opportunity. In areas open to vehicle use we assume impacts to nonmotorized vehicle users are asymmetrical (Webber 1995) and occur from conflict, noise, dust, 

competition with motorized users for recreation opportunity, and displacement to non-motorized 

areas outside the refuge (Adelman et al. 1982; Gambill 1996; Manning and Valliere 2002; Moore 

1994; Stokowski and LaPointe 2000). The somewhat narrow range of vehicle access for nonmotorized users provided within the refuge represents a direct, adverse, moderate, long-term impact 

to quality recreation opportunities. 

Effects from Horseback Riding and Use of Pack Stock 

Because the number of visitors who ride horseback or use pack stock within Sheldon Refuge is 

estimated to be less than 10 per year and because little impact has been observed from such use, we 

expect future impacts from trampling and introduction of non-native weed would also be low and 

less than similar impacts associated with overnight camping and vehicle use. Stock use areas at 

Badger and Fish Spring campgrounds would continue to be monitored, particularly for new 

populations of non-native plants, and additional action such as requiring certified weed-free feed and 

weed removal would be implemented as necessary. 

Effects from Boating 

The use of non-motorized or electric-powered boats is allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip 

Reservoir, and the Dufurrena Ponds consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. The majority of boating occurs in 

conjunction with sport fishing, and while migratory bird hunting is not allowed on these waters, 

occasional and intermittent boating does occur in conjunction with other hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation, research, scientific 

collecting, and surveys. The amount of boating that occurs within Sheldon Refuge has not been 

quantified, but is considered low based upon angler participation and incidental observation by staff 

and volunteers. Boating generally occurs during summer months following the waterfowl nesting 

season (when the potential for bird disturbance or displacement impacts would be greatest) and 

following the beginning of trout fishing season, when there are higher water temperatures at 

Dufurrena Ponds, which provide better fishing success. Requirements for use of non-motorized 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-81 

boats or boats with electric motors would eliminate the potential for water pollution associated with 

use of outboard motors and would maintain opportunities for visitor solitude. Overall, the amount of 

boating associated with wildlife-dependent public uses is considered low, and adverse impacts are 

estimated to be short-term, intermittent, and negligible. 

Economic Effects 

For the purposes of evaluating compatibility, outfitting and guiding are considered economic effects 

from hunting, and therefore are not considered to separately have an economic effect on the local 

economy. 

Effects to Wilderness Character 

Naturalness: Approximately 300 miles of existing vehicle routes would remain visible, and their 

designation for motorized use is not expected to result in any short-term impacts to naturalness. Over 

the long term, as public use continues to increase, we expect that additional signs, road maintenance, 

and other developments would be needed to ensure compatibility. Increased visitation to these areas 

would also increase the potential for introduction and spread of weeds and for the disturbance and 

displacement of wildlife. 

Weed treatments occurring on approximately 1,000 acres per year, primarily along road corridors, 

are expected to slow or possibly reverse the trend of weed spread and invasion into undeveloped and 

more natural areas of Sheldon Refuge, but would adversely affect natural character from the presence 

of dead vegetation and vehicle tracks. 

Untrammeled Conditions: Guides and outfitters rely primarily on existing campgrounds, roads, and 

other facilities, which would result in little or no change to untrammeled conditions within Sheldon 

Refuge. 

Solitude: Due to the limited number of campsites available and the implementation of fees for use at 

the Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds, we anticipate some 

increased use of primitive campgrounds and some additional overnight backcountry use by guides 

and outfitters who continue to seek opportunities for solitude. Such opportunities would continue to 

be available throughout much of Sheldon Refuge during substantial portions of the year. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Management direction for designation of 300 miles of existing 

roads for public use of vehicles would result in only minor impacts. These existing roads would 

remain in their current condition and level of maintenance, and use of unimproved dirt roads is 

expected to remain low and intermittent for access to more primitive and remote portions of Sheldon 

Refuge. Other routes would continue to be used for hiking, backpacking, and horseback riding, and 

occasionally by vehicle for administrative purposes. Management actions would also result in 

greater management presence, development, and regulation at the Virgin Valley, Catnip, and Big 

Spring campgrounds. Impacts to opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation would be 

minor, with vehicle use confined to existing campgrounds and roads where public use has been well 

established for many years. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-82 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Cumulative Effects from Guiding 

Impacts to wildlife populations and other public uses from commercial outfitting and guiding within 

the refuge, including both direct and indirect impacts, are considered minor. Actions proposed to 

manage commercial uses within the refuge, including big-game guiding and outfitting, are expected 

to have both adverse and beneficial impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat and to increase 

opportunities for high-quality wildlife-dependent public uses. When considered with other existing 

and proposed public uses and proposed management actions at Sheldon Refuge, cumulative impacts 

from outfitting and guiding and cumulative impacts from management of supporting uses such as 

camping and vehicle access would be beneficial and minor to moderate. Continued monitoring of 

public uses and outfitters and guides operating within the refuge and Special Use Permit conditions 

would provide necessary information and management to ensure the continued benefit of commercial 

services to the visiting public. It is anticipated the overall amount of refuge visitation associated with 

outfitting and guiding would remain relatively low and stable, and would not interfere with or detract 

from the quality of other refuge public uses. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This and other compatibility determinations were prepared concurrently with the Final CCP/EIS for 

the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (in press). Open houses were held, multiple planning updates 

were mailed, and written comments were solicited from the public during development of the Final 

CCP/EIS for the refuge. Appendix A of the CCP/EIS further details public involvement during 

development of the CCP. A summary of public comments received during review of the Draft 

CCP/EIS along with the Service’s response to those comments are included in Appendix N of the 

Final CCP/EIS. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Any guide or outfitter using lands managed by the Service within Sheldon Refuge while 

conducting or in support of his or her business must obtain a Refuge Special Use Permit. In 

addition to standard conditions and requirements that apply to all National Wildlife Refuge 

Special Use Permits, additional conditions and requirements apply to Special Use Permits issued 

by Sheldon Refuge and for all commercial outfitting and guiding activities conducted within 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. A list of these refuge-specific conditions and requirements is 

provided below. 

2. A maximum of 10 commercial outfitters or guides would be issued Special Use Permits to 

conduct activities within Sheldon Refuge at any given time. Each Special Use Permit would be 

issued for a period of 5 years. Such permits would only be issued after applicants are selected by 

the Complex Project Leader through a competitive prospectus bid process. Exhibit D-1 provides 

an example prospectus and request for proposal. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-83 

3. Special state regulations apply to all licensed hunting guides operating within the States of 

Oregon and Nevada. Additional Refuge Special Use Permit conditions are intended to increase 

the quality of recreation opportunities for clients and other members of the visiting public. These 

permit conditions are included as stipulations of this determination to ensure compatibility. Law 

enforcement patrols would routinely be conducted in an effort to maximize compliance with 

applicable policies, rules, and/or regulations. 

4. All vehicles defined as off-road vehicles under 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 must be registered with 

the State of Nevada or Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge for use on lands administered by 

Sheldon Refuge. 

5. Vehicle use within Sheldon Refuge is allowed only on roads and routes that are designated 

“open” on Figure D.1 and that are signed or otherwise marked for such use. Off-road use is 

prohibited. 

6. Unless otherwise indicated by sign, permit, or regulation, the maximum number of consecutive 

nights any person or attended vehicle may remain at a designated Refuge campground is 14 

nights. 

7. Except for camping within campgrounds that are designated for such use on maps included in the 

Final Record of Decision for the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EIS and that are signed 

or otherwise marked for such use, no overnight use is allowed on lands administered by Sheldon 

Refuge unless expressly authorized by a valid Special Use Permit. 

8. Non-motorized boats or boats with electric motors are allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, 

Catnip Reservoir, and Dufurrena Ponds consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. 

9. Open fires are allowed only at designated campgrounds and within constructed fire rings, subject 

to additional seasonal fire restrictions and/or closures. 

10. Pets must be leashed, except dogs used for hunting migratory or upland birds. Hunting dogs 

must be under strict voice control at all times. 

11. Riding or packing with horses and mules is allowed in all areas open to public use. All horses 

and mules must be haltered, branded, tagged, or otherwise visibly marked as a domestic animal 

and must be tied, hobbled, high-lined, corralled, or otherwise under direct control at all times. 

12. Grazing of domestic animals within Sheldon Refuge is not allowed. 

13. We encourage the use of certified weed-free hay, pellets, straw, and other livestock feed within 

Sheldon Refuge. The use of certified weed-free feed would be required if monitoring of stock 

use areas indicates the spread or introduction of noxious weeds from uncertified feed. 

National Special Use Permit Conditions and Requirements 

1. Responsibility of Permittee: The permittee by operating on the premises shall be considered to 

have accepted these premises with all facilities, fixtures, or improvements in their existing 

condition as of the date of this permit. At the end of the period specified or upon earlier 

termination, the permittee shall give up the premises in as good order and condition as when 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-84 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

received except for reasonable wear, tear, or damage occurring without fault or negligence. The 

permittee will fully repay the Service for any and all damage directly or indirectly resulting from 

negligence or failure on his/her part, or the part of anyone of his/her associates, to use reasonable 

care. 

2. Operating Rules and Laws: The permittee shall keep the premises in a neat and orderly condition 

at all times, and shall comply with all municipal, county, and State laws applicable to the 

operations under the permit as well as all Federal laws, rules, and regulations governing national 

wildlife refuges and the area described in this permit. The permittee shall comply with all 

instructions applicable to this permit issued by the refuge official in charge. The permittee shall 

take all reasonable precautions to prevent the escape of fires and to suppress fires and shall 

render all reasonable assistance in the suppression of refuge fires. 

3. Use Limitations: The permittee’s use of the described premises is limited to the purposed herein 

specified and does not, unless provided for in this permit, allow him/her to restrict other 

authorized entry on to his/her area; and permits the Service to carry on whatever activities are 

necessary for (1) protection and maintenance of the premises and adjacent lands administered by 

the Service; and (2) the management of wildlife and fish using the premises and other Service 

lands. 

4. Transfer of Privileges: This permit is not transferable, and no privileges herein mentioned may 

be sublet or made available to any person or interest not mentioned in this permit. No interest 

hereunder may accrue through lien or be transferred to a third party without the approval of the 

Regional Director of the Service and the permit shall not be used for speculative purposes. 

5. Compliance: The Service’s failure to require strict compliance with any of this permit’s terms, 

conditions, and requirements shall not constitute a waiver or be considered as a giving up of the 

Service’s right to thereafter enforce any of the permit’s terms or conditions. 

6. Conditions of Permit not Fulfilled: If the permittee fails to fulfill any of the conditions and 

requirements set forth herein, all money paid under this permit shall be retained by the 

Government to be used to satisfy as much of the permittee’s obligation as possible. 

7. Payments: All payment shall be made on or before the due date to the local representative of the 

Service by a postal money order or check made payable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

8. Termination Policy: At the termination of this permit the permittee shall immediately give up 

possession to the Service representative, reserving, however, the rights specified in paragraph 11. 

If he/she fails to do so, he/she will pay the Government, as liquidated damages, an amount double 

the rate specified in this permit for the entire time possession is withheld. Upon yielding 

possession, the permittee will still be allowed to re-enter as needed to remove his/her property as 

stated in paragraph 11. The acceptance of any fee for liquidated damages or any other act of 

administration relating to the continued tenancy is not to be considered as an affirmation of the 

permittees’ action nor shall it operate as a waiver of the Government’s right to terminate or 

cancel the permit for the breach of any specified condition or requirement. 

9. Revocation Policy: This permit may be revoked by the Regional Director of the Service without 

notice for noncompliance with the terms hereof or for violation of general and/or specific laws or 

regulations governing national wildlife refuges or for nonuse. It is at all times subject to 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-85 

discretionary revocation by the Director of the Service. Upon such revocation the Service, by 

and through any authorized representative, may take possession of the said premises for its own 

and sole use, or may enter and possess the premises as the agent of the permittee and for his/her 

account. 

10. Damages: The United States shall not be responsible for any loss or damage to property 

including, but not limited to, growing crops, animals, and machinery or injury to the permittee or 

his/her relatives, or to the officers, agents, employees, or any other who are on the premises from 

instructions or by the sufferance of wildlife or employees or representatives of the Government 

carrying out their official responsibilities. The permittee agrees to save the United States or any 

of its agencies harmless from any and all claims for damages or losses that may arise to be 

incident to the flooding of the premises resulting from any associated Government river and 

harbor, flood control, reclamation, or Tennessee Valley Authority activity. 

11. Removal of Permittee’s Property: Upon the expiration or termination of this permit, if all rental 

charges and/or damage claims due to the Government have been paid, the permittee may, within 

a reasonable period as stated in the permit or as determined by the refuge official in charge but 

not to exceed 60 days, remove all structures, machinery, and/or other equipment, etc., from the 

premises for which he/she is responsible. Within this period the permittee must also remove any 

other of his/her property including his/her acknowledged share of products or crops grown, cut, 

harvested, stored, or stacked on the premises. Upon failure to remove any of the above items 

within the aforesaid period, they shall become the property of the United States. 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Conditions 

1. A copy of this permit must be in the permittee’s possession at all times while exercising the 

privileges of this permit. 

2. All waste materials must be removed from the Refuge upon the permittee’s and/or clients’ 

departure. The permittee is responsible for removal of clients’ garbage. 

3. The landing of aircraft and use of helicopters is prohibited. 

4. All guides operating under a refuge Special Use Permit must accompany each client a minimum 

of one use day in the field while hunting. 

5. Management direction is provided in the CCP for Sheldon Refuge. This directs monitoring of 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities and other public uses. Findings from these monitoring 

efforts would be used in determining what additional management actions, if any, are needed to 

ensure public use activities remain compatible with refuge purposes. In addition to the 

stipulations listed here, all general public use stipulations included above, and all stipulations 

listed within compatibility determinations for all other public uses are hereby incorporated as 

stipulations of this compatibility determination and as special conditions of each commercial 

outfitter and guide SUPs unless otherwise specifically excluded by the Special Use Permit. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-86 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Additional Sheldon Refuge Special Use Permit Conditions for Commercial Guiding and 

Outfitting 

1. Failure to abide by any part of this Special Use Permit; violation of any refuge-related provision 

in Titles 43 (Part 36) or 50 (sub-chapters B and C) Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of 

any pertinent state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will, with due process, be considered 

grounds for immediate revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit 

requests for lands administered by the USFWS. This provision applies to all persons working 

under the authority of this permit (e.g., assistants). Appeals of decisions relative to permits are 

handled in accordance with Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 36.41. 

2. All guides operating under a refuge Special Use Permit must accompany each client a minimum 

of one use day in the field while hunting. 

3. The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, aircraft pilots, and 

any other persons working for the permittee and conducting activities allowed by this permit are 

familiar with and adhere to the conditions of this permit. 

4. The permittee may not sublet any part of the authorized use area and is prohibited from 

subcontracting clients with any other guide. 

5. The permittee and permittee’s clients do not have the exclusive use of the site(s) or lands covered 

by this permit, except for authorized camp facilities. 

6. This permit may be canceled or revised at any time by the refuge manager in case of emergency 

(e.g., high fire danger, flooding, unusual resource problems, etc.). 

7. The permittee shall notify the Refuge Manager during refuge working hours in person or by 

telephone before beginning and upon completion of annual activities allowed by this permit. 

8. Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the Refuge 

Manager with (1) proof of appropriate comprehensive general liability ($300,000 each 

occurrence, $500,000 aggregate), marine liability, and/or aviation passenger liability insurance 

covering all aspects of operations throughout the annual use period; (2) aircraft and other vehicle 

types to be used, with identification information, if different from the original permit or previous 

year; (3) changes in names of assistant guides and other employees; and (4) any other changes in 

information provided in the original permit/proposed operations plan. 

9. The permittee is responsible for accurate recordkeeping and will provide the Refuge Manager 

with a comprehensive summary report of the number of clients, and number of client days per 

activity type by December 31 for all uses during that calendar year unless stated otherwise in the 

permit. A legible copy of the State’s “Hunt Record” for each client will be required in addition 

to the summary report. 

10. Failure to report the actual number of client use days per type of authorized activity by December 

31 of each calendar year and annually pay the Service’s established fees (client-use day and 

reserved land site) within 30 days after receiving a bill for collection will be grounds for 

revocation of this permit. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-87 

11. In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa), the removal 

or disturbance of archaeological or historic artifacts is prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, 

collection, or purchase of historical or archaeological specimens or artifacts on refuge lands are 

prohibited. 

12. Permittees shall maintain their use areas in a neat and sanitary condition. Latrines, seepage pits, 

etc., associated with permitted use areas or campsites must be located at least 100 feet, measured 

horizontally, to the nearest edge of the mean annual high water level of lakes, rivers, streams, 

springs, sloughs, or other body of surface water. No privies are to be installed in areas subject 

(no less than 4 feet to maximum water table elevation) to flooding. All property of the permittee 

must be removed from refuge lands upon completion of permitted activities. 

13. The use of off-road vehicles is prohibited unless specifically authorized in writing in this permit. 

14. The operation of aircraft at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, harassment, 

hazing, or driving of wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft maintain a 

minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground level. 

15. All aircraft being used in a commercial guiding operation must have 12-inch identification 

numbers in contrasting colors which are readily visible. 

16. Construction of any permanent structure is prohibited. 

17. Any action by a permittee or the permittee’s employees that unduly interferes with or harasses 

other refuge visitors or impedes access to any site is strictly prohibited. Examples of prohibited 

acts include, but are not limited to, low flights over camps or persons at less than 500 feet. 

18. The permittee’s operations plan, as amended and accepted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

is hereby incorporated in its entirety as a special condition. All deviations from the operations 

plan must receive prior written approval by the Refuge Manager or his/her designee. 

Justification: 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (as amended) identifies 

recreational hunting as one of six priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. The law states 

that, when managed in accordance with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and 

administration, hunting and the other priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses “have been and are 

expected to continue to be generally compatible uses.” The Act further states that these priority 

public uses should receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in refuge planning 

and management, and directs the USFWS to provide increased opportunities for the public to safety 

engage in traditional outdoor activities such as fishing and hunting. 

The services provided by outfitters and guides increase hunting quality and in some cases enable 

hunters to visit and experience Sheldon Refuge who would otherwise be unwilling or unable to do so. 

The remoteness, rugged terrain, and limited hunting seasons make experience, skill, and first-hand 

knowledge important for a safe, enjoyable, and productive hunt. In the case of bighorn sheep, 

hunters who are awarded a hunting tag must wait 10 years to reapply. For these rare and highly 

sought-after hunting opportunities, the services of an experienced guide often ensure a successful 

hunting experience. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-88 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

To reduce impacts to wildlife resources and to provide the continued opportunity for recreational 

uses of these species by the American public, Sheldon Refuge, NDOW, and ODFW cooperatively 

conduct population surveys and studies and adopt regulations in response to wildlife population 

survey and study results and management needs. These regulations currently provide adequate 

protection for Sheldon Refuge’s wildlife resources, continued recreation opportunities, and other 

refuge purposes. 

Allowing outfitting and guiding as a private economic use contributes to the quality of compatible 

wildlife-dependent uses within Sheldon Refuge. The maximum number of 10 operators that would 

be permitted is slightly higher than the average number of operators permitted over the past several 

years. This number was determined by considering public use goals and wilderness management 

direction for Sheldon Refuge, the number of potential hunters at any given time given the current 

number of harvest tags issued, the remoteness and size of Sheldon Refuge, and the Service’s desire to 

provide hunters a range of operators to choose from and the opportunity for one-on-one guide 

services, which facilitate a high-quality hunting experience. The competitive prospectus selection 

process in conjunction with numerous Special Use Permit stipulations would ensure commercial 

outfitters and guides conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats within Sheldon Refuge while 

providing high-quality service and recreation experiences to the visiting public. 

Together, the use proposal and stipulations herein would result in a set of actions that generate minor 

adverse effects and modest beneficial effects. On net, the proposed use would contribute to 

achievement of Sheldon Refuge’s purposes and the Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide year for “allowed” uses only) 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 2021 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Literature Cited: 

Adelman, B., T. Heberlein, and T. Bonnicksen. 1982. Social psychological explanations for the 

persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences 5:45-61. 

Andrews, K.M. and J.W. Gibbons. 2005. How do highways influence snake movement? Behavioral 

responses to roads and vehicles. Copeia 2005:772-782. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-89 

Barton, D.C. and A.L. Holmes. 2007. Off-highway vehicle trail impacts on breeding songbirds in 

northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1617-1625. 

Carr, L.W. and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing 

vagility. Conservation Biology 15:1071-1078. 

Cole, D.N. 1981. Vegetational changes associated with recreational use and fire suppression in the 

Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon: some management implications. Biological Conservation 

20:247-270. 

Cole, D.N. 1985. Recreational trampling effects on six habitat types in western Montana. Research 

Paper INT-350. USDA Forest Service. 43 pp. 

Cole, D.N. 1989. Some principles to guide wilderness campsite management. Pages 181-187 in: 

D.W. Lime, ed. Campsite management and monitoring in wilderness. St. Paul, MN: 

Minnesota Extension Service and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of 

Minnesota. 

Cole, D.N. 1995. Experimental trampling of vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 32:215-224. 

Cole, D.N. 2004. Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review. Available at: 

http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs12/Ecotourism.pdf. Accessed January 

31, 2011. 

Eckert, R.E., Jr., M.K. Wood, W.H. Blackburn, and F.F. Peterson. 1979. Impacts of off-road 

vehicles on infiltration and sediment production of two desert soils. Journal of Range 

Management 32:394-397. 

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road network in the United 

States. Conservation Biology 14:31-35. 

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. 

Gambill, P. 1996. Multi-use trail management policy: user-group conflict and resource impact 

issues. Wheaton, IL: The Wheaton Center. 

Gelbard, J.L. and S. Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: interactions 

with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications 13:404-415. 

Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010. Economic assessment in support of comprehensive conservation 

planning at Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Industrial Economics, Inc. Cambridge, MA. 

Iverson, R.M., B.S. Hinckley, R.M. Webb, and B. Hallet. 1981. Physical effects of vehicular 

disturbances on arid landscapes. Science 212:915-917. 

Manning, R. and W. Valliere. 2002. Coping in outdoor recreation: causes and consequences of 

crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research 33(4):410-

426. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-90 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

McGrann, M.C., G.R. Wright, R.J. Dial, and A.M. McGrann. 2006. Off-highway vehicle impact on 

the flat-tailed horned lizard, Phrynosoma mcallii, in the Colorado Desert of southern 

California. California Fish and Game 92:67-80. 

Monti, P. and E.E. Mackintosh. 1979. Effect of camping on surface soil properties in the boreal 

forest region of northwestern Ontario, Canada. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43, 

1024-1029. 

Moore, R.L. 1994. Conflicts on multiple-use trails: Synthesis of the literature and state of the 

practice. Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Rost, G.R. and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 43:634-641. 

Stokowski, P.A. and C.B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and social effects of ATVs and ORVs: 

An annotated bibliography and research assessment. School of Natural Resources, 

University of Vermont. 31 pp. Available at: 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/atv_nov20_final.pdf. 

Switalski, T.A, J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and 

impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:21-28. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. 

USFWS. Undated report. Camping use days Virgin Valley Campground Sheldon NWR. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Lakeview, OR. 

Webber, P.C. 1995. Report to the Board of Environmental Management on the Policy for Off-road 

Vehicle Use in Massachusetts Forests and Parks. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, 

MA: Department of Environmental Management. 

Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2006. Nevada wildlife action plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

Reno, NV. 

Vander Haegen, W.M., F.C. Dobler, and D.J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and 

landscape variables in Eastern Washington, USA. Conservation Biology 14:1145-1160. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-91 

Refuge Determination 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

 ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-92 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

D.5 Compatibility Determination for Rock Collecting on Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Use(s): Rock Collecting 

Supporting Uses: Camping, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, and OHV use 

Refuge Name: Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge 

City/County and State: Washoe County, Nevada; Humboldt County, Nevada; Lake County, 

Oregon 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

What is today known as the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge was initially established by Executive 

Order 5540 dated January 26, 1931, and later enlarged by Executive Order 7364 dated May 6, 1936, 

and Executive Order 7522 dated December 21, 1936. 

The authorities for nearly all Federal lands within Sheldon Refuge are the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r) and the National Wildlife 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). A small portion of Sheldon 

Refuge was acquired under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1231-1544). 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“...as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and birds...” Executive Order 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...” Executive 

Order 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) 

Consistent with Service Policy (601 FW 2), proposed wilderness areas are to be managed as 

designated wilderness. The Wilderness Act of 1964 creates additional purposes within and 

supplemental to other refuge purposes. Proposed wilderness areas are to be managed for the 

purposes of securing an enduring resource of wilderness, protecting and preserving wilderness 

character, and providing opportunities for public use and enjoyment and for “solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation” in ways that will leave the wilderness unimpaired for future use 

and enjoyment as wilderness. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-93 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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]). 

Description of Use(s): 

Rock collecting is a non-priority public use that occurs throughout Sheldon Refuge, but it is 

concentrated within Virgin Valley, at abandoned mining claims and prospect pits, and other areas 

located primarily in the southern portion of Sheldon Refuge along improved roads, and unimproved 

vehicle routes. Mining on established claims within the Virgin Valley Mining District is not 

considered rock collecting. Commercial operators provide fee-based recreation rock collecting and 

mining opportunities for precious opal on private lands and patented mining claims in the Virgin 

Valley area within Sheldon Refuge. No digging or excavation is allowed on areas of Sheldon Refuge 

withdrawn from mineral entry. 

Visitors seek primarily precious and semi-precious opals, petrified wood, and other common variety 

rocks and minerals. Currently each visitor is authorized to surface collect up to seven pounds of rock 

or mineral per day from public lands. 

Rock collecting opportunities within Sheldon Refuge are widely known, and many visitors see the 

area as a destination for rock collecting both on public lands and on private mining claims within 

Sheldon Refuge. Visitation to the Virgin Valley portion of Sheldon Refuge occurs between May and 

August and constitutes the greatest amount of annual public use within Sheldon Refuge. Most 

visitors to Virgin Valley collect and dig for precious black opal on private mining claims, with an 

unknown number of visitors collecting from public lands. Other known locations are popular and 

consistently used throughout the summer months. Secondary uses of Sheldon Refuge that support 

rock collecting include camping, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, and OHV use. Overnight 

camping in support of the use occurs primarily at the Virgin Valley Campground, with much smaller 

amounts of use occurring at the 11 other designated campgrounds and by permit in backcountry 

areas. 

Supporting Uses 

Camping

Camping itself is not a priority public use on Service lands, but because of the size, remoteness, and 

quality of roads within Sheldon Refuge, it is important in supporting priority uses including fishing, 

hunting, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography as well as non-priority public uses such as 

rock collecting. There are four types of camping opportunities currently provided within Sheldon 

Refuge: developed, semi-primitive, primitive, and backcountry/wilderness. 

Camping within Sheldon Refuge is allowed in 13 designated campgrounds and by Refuge Special 

Use Permit for backcountry camping. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-94 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Developed Camping: Virgin Valley Campground located at Dufurrena is considered the only 

developed campground. Virgin Valley Campground is easily accessible year-round by all types of 

vehicles, including RVs, and it offers shade trees, potable water, two vault toilets, 16 picnic tables, 

24 fire rings, a meat-hanging pole, a bath-house, and a hot spring developed for swimming. 

Campground use is managed on a first-come, first-served basis without fees or designated sites. 

From 2005 through 2007 an average of 18 campsites were occupied per day during the days 

surveyed, for a seasonal average of 6,573 visitor use days (USFWS undated report). 

From mid-August through mid-November, the Virgin Valley Campground is heavily used by 

hunters. During peak seasons, overcrowding and user conflicts have been a concern as has overflow 

into upland areas adjacent to the campground, which can result in further environmental damage. 

There is also a private developed campground at the Royal Peacock Mine located in the Virgin 

Valley Mining District, which has RV hookups. 

Semi-primitive Camping: Five campgrounds (Catnip Reservoir, West Rock Spring, Fish Spring, 

Badger, and Big Spring Reservoir) are considered semi-primitive and include outhouses, fire rings, 

meat-hanging poles, and in the case of Fish Spring and Badger campgrounds, horse corrals. These 

semi-primitive campgrounds are accessible from primary roads or improved secondary roads suitable 

for most types of vehicles and are primarily used by hunters. Sport anglers also use campgrounds at 

Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs. 

Additional facilities such as campsite amenities (i.e., picnic tables and accessible fire rings or 

barbeque grills), potable water, shade structures, kiosks, and dedicated volunteer sites are planned for 

Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds. These facilities would 

provide developed camping opportunities that are not commonly available within Sheldon Refuge or 

the region. However, these improved facilities would only be sustainable over the long term through 

campsite fees to support volunteers, maintenance, and replacement. 

The Service also proposes to allow public overnight use of some existing historic structures within 

Sheldon Refuge. The most likely structures are the Little Sheldon Overnight Cabin and Badger 

Cabin. 

Primitive Camping: Seven campgrounds (Little Catnip Spring, Gooch Spring, North Hell Creek, 

Wheeler Spring, Bateman Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Spring) are considered primitive 

campgrounds and have only fire rings or no improvements, are remote, and are accessible by fourwheel drive or high-clearance vehicles when road conditions are passable. These primitive 

campgrounds receive intermittent and low amounts of use, occurring mostly during the big-game 

hunting seasons (early August through October). All of these campgrounds are located immediately 

adjacent to, or include, wet meadows, spring, or springbrook habitats. Three primitive campgrounds 

(Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Spring) also include aspen woodland habitats. Impacts 

associated with primitive campgrounds were identified as an issue during the Sheldon CCP planning 

process. The impacts identified and stipulations for reducing or eliminating those impacts are 

addressed in subsequent sections of this compatibility determination. 

Backcountry/Wilderness Camping: Backcountry camping for up to 14 days is allowed by refuge 

permit. Permits are not limited, but do stipulate visitors must camp at least 0.5 mile from open roads 

and at least 100 yards from water sources. The majority of backcountry camping permits are issued 

to hunters, but the amount of use is low and no adverse impacts have been observed. Backcountry 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-95 

use would continue to be monitored, and future management actions to reduce or eliminate any 

impacts would be implemented as necessary. 

Public Access 

Public access to areas within the Refuge is provided by a network of vehicle roads and informal 

backcountry routes and trails. Roads include one two-lane paved highway, maintained gravel roads, 

and numerous primitive and unmaintained dirt roads. Trails throughout the Refuge backcountry and 

wilderness areas are primarily abandoned vehicle routes historically used for access to livestock 

developments and private inholdings later purchased by the Service. 

The most substantial changes to rock collecting are expected to result from the relocation and 

enlargement of the Refuge visitor contact station, improvement of campground facilities, and 

improved signing of routes open to vehicle use. Improved gravel roads within Sheldon Refuge 

would be maintained more frequently, and all routes open to the public use of vehicles would be 

adequately signed and marked. Visitors would be required to register all OHVs consistent with State 

of Nevada regulation or with Sheldon Refuge for use on refuge roads and routes designated open to 

vehicle use. These actions are intended to improve the quality of the transportation system and deter 

vehicle violations while requiring only minimal law enforcement presence. 

Maintained Public Roads: In preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, each route within the 

refuge was evaluated to assess impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, as well as benefits 

for public use and recreation opportunity. Following this evaluation, 300 miles of existing roads 

(including State Highway 140 and all maintained county roads) were designated for public vehicle 

use. The Service has determined the continued use and maintenance of these designated roads, 

including actions for re-routing or modification as proposed in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, would 

have minimal or no impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat and/or are subject to existing right-ofway. The unimproved roads within Sheldon Refuge are not regularly maintained, but are repaired on 

a site-by-site basis to keep them in usable condition or to prevent undue resource damage (i.e., 

excessive erosion). 

Trails and Backcountry Access: Hiking, horseback riding, use of pack stock, and other nonmechanical modes of access are allowed on trails, routes, and other areas of Sheldon Refuge open to 

the public. All vehicle use is restricted to designated open roads. Existing trails throughout Sheldon 

Refuge would remain, but would not be marked or maintained for public use. No adverse impacts 

have been observed from visitors using these routes for hiking, horseback riding, or use of pack 

stock. 

Horseback Riding and Pack Stock Use: Horseback riding has been allowed as a recreation activity 

within Sheldon Refuge for many years. However, it is estimated that fewer than 10 horseback 

visitors use Sheldon Refuge each year, and as a result, horseback riding is considered a low-impact 

activity. Horseback riding gives the public an opportunity to visit remote and undeveloped portions 

of Sheldon Refuge, and to enjoy the wildlife viewing, solitude, and expansive views that Sheldon 

Refuge is known for. 

There is a concern that the number of visitors engaging in horseback riding may increase, particularly 

with hunting guides and their clients, and that use of horses and pack stock within the Refuge would 

introduce invasive non-native plants. These impacts have not been observed, but monitoring would 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-96 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

continue and the Service would take additional action as needed to maintain wilderness character and 

prevent the introduction of weeds to the Refuge. 

The corrals at Badger and Fish Spring campgrounds are the only facilities that specifically support 

horseback riding and the use of pack stock. 

Availability of Resources: 

Administration and management of rock collecting is very limited. Information kiosks at Sheldon 

Refuge entrances, the Sheldon Refuge website, brochures, and leaflets provide general information 

about Sheldon Refuge. Private companies and individuals with mining claims provide additional 

signs, websites, brochures, and other information about rock collecting within Sheldon Refuge. 

Maintenance of the campgrounds, access roads, and other supporting facilities and routine law 

enforcement patrols are also conducted by Sheldon Refuge. 

Category and Itemization One-time Annual 

Administration and management (volunteer host site 

development, volunteer campground hosts, law 

enforcement patrols, backcountry use permits, fee 

collection and processing) 

$15,000 $5,000 

Maintenance $1,500 $500-$1,500 

Monitoring $500 $500 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements 

(campgrounds and access roads) 

$150,000 $500-$1,500 

Offsetting revenues5 $8,000 $8,000 

As part of a 2001 memorandum of agreement with Sheldon Refuge, Humboldt County, Nevada, 

provides approximately $2,500 per year to support volunteer staffing, maintenance, and 

administration of the Virgin Valley Campground and associated public facilities. When adjusted for 

inflation, the 2001 funding amount has the purchasing power of approximately $1,850 dollars today 

(2010). If inflation continues at this rate, the funding amount would have the purchasing power of 

about $1,370 in 2021. As a result, the continued maintenance of the Virgin Valley Campground and 

associated public facilities would require increased funding and support. Volunteer organizations 

provide additional support for the maintenance and administration of facilities that support rock 

collecting within Sheldon Refuge. We anticipate current funding and volunteer support when 

combined with campground use fees would be adequate for management of the Virgin Valley 

Campground over the next 10 to 15 years. 

                                                           

5

 Anticipated campsite fee revenues as proposed in the CCP based on $5/site/day for 1,100 site-use days and $2,500 

from Humboldt County, Nevada. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-97 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Effects from Rock Collecting 

Rock collecting is a non-priority public use that represents the majority of summer public use within 

Sheldon Refuge, and in particular the Virgin Valley area. Because most rock collecting occurs 

during late spring and early summer, there is little competition with visitors engaged in wildlifedependent uses that either occur at other locations or later in the year. Therefore, the use does not 

currently conflict with priority public uses within Sheldon Refuge and is not anticipated to conflict 

with these uses within the 10-year timeframe of this compatibility determination. If the Refuge 

Manager determines such conflicts occur, the Refuge Manager may allocate rock collecting activities 

in time and/or space to reduce or eliminate conflicts among users of the refuge. If this cannot be 

done, the Refuge Manager may need to terminate or disallow rock collecting within Sheldon Refuge. 

Rock collecting is supported by 13 designated campgrounds. The 13 campgrounds are located near 

water and partially within riparian habitats and several prehistoric cultural sites. While the majority 

of impacts occurred following the initial establishment of these campgrounds, some impacts continue 

due to continued soil disturbance and compaction within existing campsites, occasional use of 

previously unused areas adjacent to the campgrounds, and vehicle use outside designated areas. It is 

anticipated that actions to define each of these campgrounds and confine use to designated campsites 

would mitigate or avoid additional impacts altogether. 

Access for rock collecting is provided by approximately 300 miles of motorized vehicle routes and 

several established routes and trails in the refuge backcountry. Roads and vehicle use can cause a 

number of impacts to soils, water, habitat, fish, and wildlife. Vehicle use is allowed on routes within 

the refuge where these impacts are anticipated to be minimal, or where planned management actions 

such as re-routing, realignment, and seasonal closures would acceptably minimize impacts. Route 

segments identified for re-routing, realignment, or other action were identified in the Draft Sheldon 

Refuge CCP/EIS preferred alternative. 

Rock collecting activities have both direct and indirect impacts on wildlife distribution, behavior, and 

habitats. The most frequent impacts are disturbance to large birds and mammals from people 

approaching too close and from vehicle presence. These impacts are most severe during periods of 

mating, nesting, lambing, and fawning. However, because the number of people participating in rock 

collecting is small and visitors generally do not venture far from roads and campgrounds, impacts 

from rock collectors are only a portion of the overall wildlife disturbance. 

Rock collecting can cause impact through removal of interesting or unique specimens that could 

otherwise be enjoyed by future visitors. We expect these impacts are minor due to the likelihood that 

most valuable or unique specimens within the Virgin Valley have been or would be collected through 

mining activities and due to the common nature of most rocks collected outside the Virgin Valley 

area. 

Monitoring of public use and law enforcement at identified sensitive cultural resource sites, known 

fossil deposits, and areas with large specimens of petrified wood are conducted to determine if either 

intentional or unintentional illegal collection are impacting these resources. While violations 

associated with rock collecting are suspected to occur on Sheldon Refuge, it is unknown how many 

violations occur or if a sufficient number are inadvertent or unintentional that violations could 

effectively be reduced through additional regulation or permit. An adaptive management strategy 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-98 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

would be used to more accurately document where and why violations occur and adjust refuge 

outreach efforts accordingly. If it is determined violations are inadvertent or unintentional and 

proposed outreach and education methods prove ineffective, compatibility of this use would be reevaluated. 

Effects from Camping and Campgrounds 

Use of campgrounds within Sheldon Refuge causes impacts to vegetation, soils, water quality, and 

cultural resources. During dry conditions, carelessness with campfires can lead to wildfires. 

Management and development of campground is also expected to affect the type and quality of 

recreation opportunities available. 

Impacts to Vegetation, Soils, and Water Quality: Campgrounds and their use within the Refuge range 

from primitive sites with relatively low and only intermittent use to very developed sites with yearround and relatively high amount of use during summer months. Current impacts and expected 

future impacts associated with use and development of these campgrounds also vary widely. 

Because the most primitive campgrounds are currently the least impacted, we can expect these sites 

would exhibit the greatest amount of additional or potential impact with only slightly more use. 

Conversely, most impacts have already occurred at the most heavily used and developed 

campgrounds, and we can expect very little additional impact to vegetation, soils, or water quality 

even with relatively large increases in use at these campgrounds. 

The greatest difference in durability between vegetation types occurs at moderately low use levels 

(Cole 1985). Sites that are used frequently are likely to be highly impacted regardless of their 

fragility. Because vegetation loss usually occurs more rapidly than loss of organic soil horizons, sites 

with either no vegetation or resistant vegetation (e.g., grasses as opposed to forbs) recover more 

quickly and are less likely to be impacted by low levels of use, while sites with thick organic soil 

horizons are less susceptible to erosion and are more likely to withstand high amounts of use. 

Experimental studies suggest that there is an important difference between a site’s resistance (its 

ability to tolerate use without being damaged) and its resilience (its ability to recover from damage). 

Cole (1995) has shown, for groundcover plants, that resistance decreases with erectness and that 

broad-leaved herbs are typically less resistant than grass-like plants and shrubs. Low shrubs, such as 

heather, are relatively resistant to trampling stress but their resilience is low. Once damaged, they 

recover slowly. Grass-like plants are most tolerant of trampling (Cole 1989). The compaction of 

soils from campsite use reduces water infiltration and water holding capacity, which leads to 

increased runoff and erosion potential (Cole 2004; Monti and Mackintosh 1979). Impacts associated 

with use at primitive campgrounds can be readily observed and tend to occur rapidly, but these 

impacts are relatively inconsequential when considered in the context of the entire Refuge. Impacts 

associated with campgrounds located within riparian areas or near water sources are of greater 

concern, but current impacts are not severe, and vegetation, soils, and water quality at primitive 

campgrounds are expected to recover noticeably within a few years following campground 

relocation. This assessment is supported by Cole (1981) who noted that hiking and camping impacts 

on soil and vegetation, while severe when measured at small scales, are minimal at large spatial 

scales. This suggests that while recreation impacts can be serious for individual plants and animals 

and perhaps localized rare populations, they are generally of little significance to landscape integrity 

or regional biotic diversity. Moreover, unless much of a population is impacted by a single impacted 

site, the intensity, size, and distribution of impacts are not relevant to the significance of impacts 

assessed at large spatial scales (Cole 1989). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-99 

Virgin Valley Campground is located at a site previously developed and used by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps in the late 1930s. Catnip Reservoir and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds are 

located immediately adjacent to artificial reservoirs. These three campgrounds receive the greatest 

amounts of use and exhibit the greatest amount of impact. The core areas of use at these 

campgrounds no longer support vegetation, or vegetation diversity is substantially reduced, water 

infiltration is considered low due to soil compaction, and gravel has been placed in some areas to 

reduce erosion and rutting from vehicles. Non-native plants and animals in and around these three 

campgrounds were likely introduced by early ranching and development activities rather than 

campground visitors. Monitoring and control efforts would continue to detect and remove or 

eradicate small or new populations of invasive species. 

The remaining 10 campgrounds are all located immediately adjacent to or include aspen woodland, 

wet meadows, spring, and/or springbrook habitats. Most of these campgrounds have moderate 

amounts of vegetation loss and soil compaction, which is limited to parking areas, areas around fire 

rings, outhouses, and along connecting paths. These impacts are generally not continuous throughout 

the campground and are expected to remain stable with current amounts of intermittent use, which 

occurs during late summer and fall, after most annual and biannual plants have finished growing for 

the season and when soils are typically drier and more resistant to impact. Some primitive 

campgrounds have no visible bare ground, and where located in meadow habitats, vegetation is 

generally able to recover from the current amount of use. Some primitive campgrounds exhibit small 

areas of bare ground, generally a lack forbs, which are not resistant to trampling, and in the case of 

Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Springs, exhibit some impacts to aspen trees from 

trampling, soil compaction, root exposure, and cutting. Because these campgrounds receive little 

visitation or are located near frequently traveled gravel roads, impacts to wildlife from campground 

use are estimated to be minor or negligible. Due to the nature of these impacts and relatively low 

amount of use, we anticipate these campgrounds would exhibit the greatest amount of natural 

recovery compared to the three more developed and heavily used campgrounds if camping use were 

eliminated, but they would also exhibit the greatest amount of additional impact if camping use were 

to substantially increase. Aspen stands associated with the Devaney, Wheeler Spring, and East Rock 

Springs campgrounds are also expected to recover, but regeneration of the understory shrubs and 

younger trees would occur slowly and would likely require some active restoration and/or replanting. 

Up to nine semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds would be relocated away from sensitive 

riparian habitats and areas with cultural resources. It is anticipated actions to relocate campgrounds 

to alternative sites, protect sensitive habitats at each of these campgrounds, and confine use to 

designated campsites in heavily used campgrounds would minimize or avoid additional impacts 

altogether. 

We expect some primitive campgrounds to be consolidated with other existing campgrounds, which 

would need to be enlarged and have additional campsites constructed (the most likely candidates for 

enlargement include Catnip Reservoir, Big Spring Reservoir, Fish Spring, and West Rock Spring 

campgrounds). Consolidation would result in additional impacts from increased use of existing 

facilities and campsites and from the designation and construction within existing campgrounds. 

Where camping already occurs, increased use of existing campsites and facilities is expected to have 

little or no measurable impact to vegetation or wildlife. Impacts to expanded portions of these 

campgrounds are expected to occur quickly as vegetation is trampled and soil compacted within the 

first two or three seasons of use, but would then stabilize over the long term. We expect enlargement 

of existing campgrounds would result in minor, site-specific, long-term, direct adverse impacts to 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-100 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

plants and their habitat from removal of vegetation, soil compaction, and loss of organic soil horizon 

at these sites. 

Impacts from Wildfire: Campfires are allowed at designated campgrounds but are occasionally 

prohibited during periods of high fire danger. Wildfires have been started by refuge visitors in the 

past, and we expect some wildfires would occasionally start as a result of escaped campfires or 

misuse of stoves. Seasonal campfire restrictions and rapid fire suppression response would continue 

to minimize impacts. 

Impacts to Cultural Resources: Most of the 13 designated campgrounds are located within or 

adjacent to prehistoric cultural sites. While the majority of impacts occurred following the initial 

establishment and use of these campgrounds, some impacts continue due to ongoing soil disturbance 

and compaction within existing campsites, trampling and removal of vegetation, occasional use of 

previously unused areas adjacent to the campgrounds, and vehicle use outside designated areas. 

Limited fee use of the Little Sheldon Overnight Cabin or Badger Cabin is expected to increase public 

appreciation for historic resources and understanding for their protection and preservation. In 

addition, the use of these sites and the collection of fees would provide justification and funding for 

restoration work and continued maintenance. As a result, the integrity of sites eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places would be protected. Therefore, we anticipate use of these 

facilities to support sport hunting would have a major, long-term, beneficial impact on cultural 

resources. 

Impacts to Recreation Opportunity: Campsite registration, overnight fees, and the other 

improvements planned for the developed campgrounds would increase maintenance, increase visitor 

compliance with rules and regulations (by defining and designating campsites), and decrease 

competition for campsites. Campground management strategies are expected to result in moderate, 

indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts to the camping experience, in support of providing quality 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Effects from Public Access 

Adverse impacts are expected to continue as a result of the network of developed and undeveloped 

roads throughout Sheldon Refuge and associated maintenance. Road development and use continues 

to adversely impact the biological integrity within Sheldon Refuge by contributing to the altered 

composition of plant communities, soil disturbance (Eckert et al. 1979; Iverson et al. 1981; Switalski 

et al. 2004), altered hydrology and stream sedimentation (Forman and Alexander 1998), facilitation 

of the spread of invasive vegetation, changes in the natural fire regimes, and habitat fragmentation. 

Many direct effects are obvious during construction, but other effects are permanent and can extend 

substantially beyond the actual road surface (road-effect zone; Forman 2000; Forman and Alexander 

1998). At the landscape scale, major ecological impacts of a road network include fragmentation, the 

disruption of landscape processes, and loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity declines as the road network 

impacts interior species (species cut off by roads), species with large home ranges, stream and 

wetland species, and rare native species (Forman and Alexander 1998). Fragmentation of previously 

extensive landscapes can influence the distribution and abundance of a host of wildlife species 

through redistribution of habitat types and through the pattern of habitat fragmentation, including 

characteristics such as decreased patch area and increased habitat edge (Vander Haegen et al. 2000). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-101 

Roads (including OHV trails) are commonly identified as important correlates or indicators of loss of 

ecological health and affect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in several general ways: 1) increased 

mortality from road construction; 2) increased mortality from collision with vehicles; 3) modification 

of animal behavior; 4) alteration of physical environment; 5) alteration of chemical environment; 6) 

spread of exotic species; and 7) increased alteration and use of habitats by humans (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000; Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

The ecological effect of road avoidance is likely related to traffic density and speed of travel, as well 

as traffic noise levels (Forman and Alexander 1998). Road-effect zones generally result in lower 

breeding densities and reduced species richness; species demonstrated to avoid or be negatively 

impacted by roads include arthropods, reptiles, small mammals, ungulates, and forest and grassland 

birds (Andrews and Gibbons 2005; Carr and Fahrig 2001; Forman and Alexander 1998; McGrann et 

al. 2006; Rost and Bailey 1979). For example, proximity to OHV trails (<1,000 meters [3,280 feet]) 

was found to have a direct correlation with reduced-quality habitat for nesting songbirds in 

sagebrush-steppe habitats, including nest desertion, nest predation, and abandonment (Barton and 

Holmes 2007). Behavioral disturbance from recreation, including that associated with trails and 

roads, may also have both immediate and long-term effects on wildlife (Taylor and Knight 2003). In 

one study of pronghorn, deer, and bison, individuals exhibited a 70% probability of flushing within 

1,000 meters (3,280 feet) on either side of a trail used by hikers and mountain bikers (Taylor and 

Knight 2003); presumably, responses are similar in the presence of vehicles such as OHVs. Road 

density can be used as an overall index to average patterns over an area. For example, road densities 

of approximately 1.0 mile per square mile have been recommended as the maximum for a naturally 

functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large predators (Forman and Alexander 

1998). However, the effects of road density are likely sensitive to road width or type, traffic density, 

network connectivity, and the frequency of spur roads into remote areas (Forman and Alexander 

1998). 

Within Sheldon Refuge, more than 50 introduced, non-native, and often noxious plant species have 

been documented (refer to Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS Appendix B). Invasive plants typically need 

transportation to spread to new areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000); within Sheldon Refuge several 

methods are possible, including vehicles, people, wild and domestic animals, and firefighting 

equipment. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that habitats distant from roads may provide important 

refuge for native grassland species, and that this effect may be even more pronounced in 

predominately intact landscapes such as those in parts of the Great Basin (Gelbard and Harrison 

2003). Human access and disturbance effects on remote areas tend to increase with higher road 

densities, as well as human-caused fire ignitions (Forman and Alexander 1998). 

Sheldon Refuge proposes various methods, including systematic inventory and monitoring for 

invasive plants, mowing, use of herbicides, and elimination of grading road shoulders, that would be 

used to detect new infestations, control and contain existing infestations, and treat up to 1,000 acres 

per year. Management strategies to combat invasive plants support the Service policy for biological 

integrity and diversity within Sheldon Refuge. With a more systematic approach for inventory of 

noxious weeds and other invasive plants, populations are more likely to be detected when they are 

small and more easily managed and controlled. Increased treatment and reduced soil disturbance 

along road corridors should reduce the spread of invasive plants already present and reduce the 

potential for new populations. As a result, we anticipate these actions would result in major, longterm, direct, beneficial impacts to all habitats. Implementing treatment strategies (e.g., mechanical 

removal of vegetation, application of herbicides) would likely eliminate or prevent the spread of 

noxious weed populations when detected and provide some conservation of native habitats, resulting 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-102 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

in minor, site-specific, short-term, direct, beneficial impacts to habitat on approximately 1,000 acres 

per year. 

In conjunction with preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, Refuge staff conducted an 

evaluation of existing routes and trails and identified known and potential resource impacts and 

public benefits and recreation opportunities associated with vehicle access. Route segments that 

were identified as causing substantial impacts to soils, riparian areas, and/or wildlife, were redundant 

with other routes, or provided very little or no access for wildlife-dependent uses were not identified 

for designation as open roads for public use of vehicles. To minimize or avoid lesser impacts from 

roads and vehicle use, the Service would implement a number of transportation management 

strategies including designating roads that are not duplicative, re-routing or realigning road segments 

that pass through sensitive resource areas, installing erosion control structures, increasing monitoring 

and treatment of weeds along road corridors, and posting signs marking all designated open roads. 

These actions would result in long-term, minor, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts to soils by 

decreasing erosion in sensitive areas that are currently affected. Overall we expect impacts from 

road management would be minor, direct, and adverse to habitats on a localized and long-term basis. 

Management of rock collecting supports Service policy by providing various opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined types of recreation throughout Sheldon Refuge. Hiking, horseback riding, 

and vehicle access are secondary uses that support wildlife-dependent recreational activities within 

Sheldon Refuge. Sheldon Refuge allows access on foot, by horseback, or by vehicle. However, all 

vehicle routes are open to both motorized and non-motorized vehicles and there are no areas 

managed for non-motorized vehicle access (i.e., mountain bikes or game carts) or semi-primitive 

non-motorized recreation opportunity. In areas open to vehicle use we assume impacts to nonmotorized vehicle users are asymmetrical (Webber 1995) and occur from conflict, noise, dust, 

competition with motorized users for recreation opportunity, and displacement to non-motorized 

areas outside the refuge (Adelman et al. 1982; Gambill 1996; Manning and Valliere 2002; Moore 

1994; Stokowski and LaPointe 2000). The somewhat narrow range of vehicle access for nonmotorized users provided within the refuge represents a direct, adverse, moderate, long-term impact 

to quality recreation opportunities. 

Effects from Horseback Riding and Use of Pack Stock 

Because the number of visitors who ride horseback or use pack stock within Sheldon Refuge is 

estimated to be less than 10 per year and because little impact has been observed from such use, we 

expect future impacts from trampling and introduction of non-native weed would also be low and 

less than similar impacts associated with overnight camping and vehicle use. Stock use areas at 

Badger and Fish Spring campgrounds would continue to be monitored, particularly for new 

populations of non-native plants, and additional actions such as requiring certified weed-free feed 

and weed removal would be implemented as necessary. 

Economic Effects 

The majority of visitors who pursue opportunities for rock collection with Sheldon Refuge use 

mining claims and private lands in Virgin Valley. These activities are considered mining, are subject 

to different rules and regulations, and are not included in the evaluation of rock collecting as a refuge 

activity. Rock collecting occurs on other lands within Virgin Valley and opportunistically 

throughout Sheldon Refuge, and we expect some valuable specimens of opal are occasionally 

collected outside of mining claims and private lands. However, the overall participation and 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-103 

economic value of these activities and the specimens collected are estimated to be negligible in 

comparison to the value of wildlife-dependent uses occurring within Sheldon Refuge.

Effects to Wilderness Character 

Naturalness: Approximately 300 miles of existing vehicle routes would remain visible, and their 

designation for motorized use is not expected to result in any short-term impacts to naturalness. Over 

the long term, as public use continues to increase, we expect that there would be a need for additional 

signs, road maintenance, and other developments to ensure compatibility. Increased visitation to 

these areas would also increase the potential for introduction and spread of weeds and for the 

disturbance and displacement of wildlife. 

Weed treatments occurring on approximately 1,000 acres per year, primarily along road corridors, 

are expected to slow or possibly reverse the trend of weed spread and invasion into undeveloped and 

more natural areas of Sheldon Refuge, but would adversely affect natural character due to the 

presence of dead vegetation and vehicle tracks. 

Untrammeled Conditions: Rock collecting would rely primarily on existing campgrounds, roads, and 

other facilities, which would result in little or no change to untrammeled conditions within Sheldon 

Refuge. 

Solitude: Due to the limited number of campsites available and the implementation of fees for use at 

the Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds, we anticipate some 

increased use of primitive campgrounds and some additional overnight backcountry use by visitors 

participating in rock collecting who continue to seek opportunities for solitude. Such opportunities 

would continue to be available throughout much of Sheldon Refuge during substantial portions of the 

year. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Management direction for designation of 300 miles of existing 

roads for public use of vehicles would result in only minor impacts. These existing roads would 

remain in their current condition and level of maintenance, and use of unimproved dirt roads is 

expected to remain low and intermittent for access to more primitive and remote portions of Sheldon 

Refuge. Other routes would continue to be used for hiking, backpacking, and horseback riding and 

occasionally by vehicle for administrative purposes. Management actions would also result in 

greater management presence, development, and regulation at the Virgin Valley, Catnip, and Big 

Spring campgrounds. Impacts to opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation would be 

minor, with vehicle use confined to existing campgrounds and roads where public use has been well 

established for many years.

Cumulative Effects from Rock Collecting 

Impacts to refuge resources and other public uses from rock collecting are suspected, but not well 

understood or documented. Actions proposed to manage rock collecting within the refuge, including 

development of targeted outreach and education programs, and additional rules and regulations for 

use of the Virgin Valley Campground are expected to minimize or reduce impacts. The majority of 

rock collecting occurs within the Virgin Valley. When considered with other existing and proposed 

public uses and proposed management actions, including management of mining claims within 

Virgin Valley, cumulative impacts from the surface collection of common variety rocks and 

minerals, when conducted according to applicable refuge rules and regulations, are negligible. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-104 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Public Review and Comment: 

This and other compatibility determinations were prepared concurrently with the Final CCP/EIS for 

the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (in press). Open houses were held, multiple planning updates 

were mailed, and written comments were solicited from the public during development of the Final 

CCP/EIS for the refuge. Appendix A of the CCP/EIS further details public involvement during 

development of the CCP. A summary of public comments received during review of the Draft 

CCP/EIS along with the Service’s response to those comments are included in Appendix N of the 

Final CCP/EIS. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The following stipulations are included in the management direction provided in the Sheldon Refuge 

CCP and are required to ensure rock collecting remains compatible with priority wildlife-dependent 

public uses and purposes for Sheldon Refuge. 

1. Surface disturbance or the use of any tool, equipment, or other device would not be allowed for 

the location or collection of rocks or minerals. 

2. Each visitor would be authorized to collect no more than seven pounds of rock or minerals per 

day. 

3. Sheldon Refuge would document all violations committed on refuge lands related to the 

collection of cultural resources (e.g., prehistoric stone tools and projectiles), vertebrate fossils, 

surface disturbance, or collection of more than seven pounds per person per day. 

4. The number of violations in item three above committed by persons engaged in collection 

activities shall not exceed five violations per year in two years of any five-year period. If this 

compatibility threshold is exceeded, refuge compatibility for rock collecting would be reevaluated. 

5. Sheldon Refuge would regulate occupancy and length-of-stay at the Virgin Valley Campground, 

and other designated campgrounds as necessary, to ensure adequate camping opportunities are 

available to support priority wildlife-dependent public uses and avoid conflict with such uses. 

6. Fees would be collected for overnight use of Virgin Valley Campground to provide necessary 

funding for maintenance, rock collecting outreach and education programs, resident volunteers, 

and campground administration. 

7. All vehicles defined as off-road vehicles under 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 must be registered with 

the State of Nevada or Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge for use on lands administered by 

Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-105 

8. Vehicle use within Sheldon Refuge is allowed only on roads and routes that are designated 

“open” on Figure D.1 and that are signed or otherwise marked for such use. Off-road use is 

prohibited. 

9. Unless otherwise indicated by sign, permit, or regulation, the maximum number of consecutive 

nights any person or attended vehicle may remain at a designated Refuge campground is 14 

nights. 

10. Except for camping within campgrounds that are designated for such use on maps included in the 

Final Record of Decision for the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EIS and that are signed 

or otherwise marked for such use, no overnight use is allowed on lands administered by Sheldon 

Refuge unless expressly authorized by a valid Special Use Permit. 

11. Non-motorized boats or boats with electric motors are allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, 

Catnip Reservoir, and Dufurrena Ponds, consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. 

12. Open fires are allowed only at designated campgrounds and within constructed fire rings, subject 

to additional seasonal fire restrictions and/or closures. 

13. Pets must be leashed, except dogs used for hunting migratory or upland birds. Hunting dogs 

must be under strict voice control at all times. 

14. Riding or packing with horses and mules is allowed in all areas open to public use. All horses 

and mules must be haltered, branded, tagged, or otherwise visibly marked as a domestic animal 

and must be tied, hobbled, high-lined, corralled, or otherwise under direct control at all times. 

15. Grazing of domestic animals within Sheldon Refuge is not allowed. 

16. We encourage the use of certified weed-free hay, pellets, straw, and other livestock feed within 

Sheldon Refuge. The use of certified weed-free feed would be required if monitoring of stock 

use areas indicates the spread or introduction of noxious weeds from uncertified feed. 

Justification: 

Rock collecting is a long-standing and well-established public use within Sheldon Refuge. Rock 

collecting occurred within the area prior to establishment of the Refuge and has consistently been 

found compatible with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge and other priority wildlife-dependent public 

uses. 

In finding rock collecting to be an appropriate use within Sheldon Refuge, the Refuge Manager 

determined the use does not conflict with priority wildlife-dependent public uses, that funding and 

staffing are available to currently manage the use, and that the use increases public understanding 

and appreciation of the Refuge’s natural resources. 

Thresholds for campground use and the number of violations related to collection of cultural artifacts 

and vertebrate fossils, which are included as stipulations within this compatibility determination, 

would address the primary management concern related to the use and would ensure rock collection 

does not result in additional conflict with Sheldon Refuge purposes, management responsibilities, 

management goals and objectives, or with priority wildlife-dependent public uses. Targeted outreach 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-106 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

and education would increase public understanding and appreciation of both natural and cultural 

resources within Sheldon Refuge. If it is determined violations are inadvertent or unintentional and 

proposed outreach and education methods prove ineffective, compatibility of this use would be reevaluated prior to the mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date. 

In sum, although rock collecting may result in disturbance or displacement of wildlife, the relatively 

limited number of individual animals and plants expected to be adversely affected would not cause 

wildlife populations to materially decline. The physiological condition and production of refuge 

species would not be impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns would not be altered 

dramatically, and their overall welfare would not be negatively impacted. It is anticipated that 

wildlife populations would find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance 

and use of the refuge would not be measurably reduced from allowing these activities to occur. 

Thus, allowing rock collecting to occur under the stipulations described above would not materially 

detract or interfere with the purposes for which Sheldon Refuge was established or the Refuge 

System’s mission. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide year for “allowed” uses only) 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 2021 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Literature Cited: 

Adelman, B., T. Heberlein, and T. Bonnicksen. 1982. Social psychological explanations for the 

persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences 5:45-61. 

Andrews, K.M. and J.W. Gibbons. 2005. How do highways influence snake movement? Behavioral 

responses to roads and vehicles. Copeia 2005:772-782. 

Barton, D.C. and A.L. Holmes. 2007. Off-highway vehicle trail impacts on breeding songbirds in 

northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1617-1625. 

Carr, L.W. and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing 

vagility. Conservation Biology 15:1071-1078. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-107 

Cole, D.N. 1981. Vegetational changes associated with recreational use and fire suppression in the 

Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon: some management implications. Biological Conservation 

20:247-270. 

Cole, D.N. 1985. Recreational trampling effects on six habitat types in western Montana. Research 

Paper INT-350. USDA Forest Service. 43 pp. 

Cole, D.N. 1989. Some principles to guide wilderness campsite management. Pages 181-187 in: 

D.W. Lime, ed. Campsite management and monitoring in wilderness. St. Paul, MN: 

Minnesota Extension Service and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of 

Minnesota. 

Cole, D.N. 1995. Experimental trampling of vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 32:215-224. 

Cole, D.N. 2004. Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review. Available at: 

http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs12/Ecotourism.pdf. Accessed January 

31, 2011. 

Eckert, R.E., Jr., M.K. Wood, W.H. Blackburn, and F.F. Peterson. 1979. Impacts of off-road 

vehicles on infiltration and sediment production of two desert soils. Journal of Range 

Management 32:394-397. 

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road network in the United 

States. Conservation Biology 14:31-35. 

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. 

Gambill, P. 1996. Multi-use trail management policy: user-group conflict and resource impact 

issues. Wheaton, IL: The Wheaton Center. 

Gelbard, J.L. and S. Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: interactions 

with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications 13:404-415. 

Iverson, R.M., B.S. Hinckley, R.M. Webb, and B. Hallet. 1981. Physical effects of vehicular 

disturbances on arid landscapes. Science 212:915-917. 

Manning, R. and W. Valliere. 2002. Coping in outdoor recreation: causes and consequences of 

crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research 33(4):410-

426. 

McGrann, M.C., G.R. Wright, R.J. Dial, and A.M. McGrann. 2006. Off-highway vehicle impact on 

the flat-tailed horned lizard, Phrynosoma mcallii, in the Colorado Desert of southern 

California. California Fish and Game 92:67-80. 

Monti, P. and E.E. Mackintosh. 1979. Effect of camping on surface soil properties in the boreal 

forest region of northwestern Ontario, Canada. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43: 

1024-1029. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-108 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Moore, R.L. 1994. Conflicts on multiple-use trails: Synthesis of the literature and state of the 

practice, Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Rost, G.R. and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 43:634-641. 

Stokowski, P.A. and C.B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and social effects of ATVs and ORVs: an 

annotated bibliography and research assessment. School of Natural Resources, University of 

Vermont. 31 pp. Available at: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/atv_nov20_final.pdf. 

Switalski, T.A, J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and 

impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:21-28. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. 

USFWS. Undated report. Camping use days Virgin Valley Campground Sheldon NWR. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Lakeview, OR. 

Webber, P.C. 1995. Report to the board of environmental management on the policy for off-road 

vehicle use in Massachusetts forests and parks. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, 

MA: Department of Environmental Management. 

Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2006. Nevada wildlife action plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

Reno, NV. 

Vander Haegen, W.M., F.C. Dobler, and D.J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and 

landscape variables in Eastern Washington, USA. Conservation Biology 14:1145-1160. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-109 

Refuge Determination 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-110 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

D.6 Compatibility Determination for Research on Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Use: Research, scientific collecting, and surveys 

Supporting Uses: Camping, boating, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, OHV use, and landing 

of aircraft 

Refuge Name(s): Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: Washoe County, Nevada; Humboldt County, Nevada; Lake County, Oregon 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): 

What is today known as the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge was initially established by Executive 

Order 5540 dated January 26, 1931, and later enlarged by Executive Order 7364 dated May 6, 1936, 

and Executive Order 7522 dated December 21, 1936. 

The authorities for nearly all Federal lands within Sheldon Refuge are the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r) and the National Wildlife 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). A small portion of Sheldon 

Refuge was acquired under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1231-1544). 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

“...as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and birds...” Executive Order 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...” Executive 

Order 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) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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]. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-111 

Description of Use(s): 

Sheldon Refuge staff receives periodic requests (fewer than six per year) from non-Service entities 

(e.g., universities, state agencies, other Federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations) to 

conduct planned, organized, and systematic investigations of a scientific nature (i.e., research); to 

gather refuge natural resources or cultural artifacts for scientific purposes (i.e., scientific collecting); 

and to conduct scientific inventory or monitoring (i.e., surveys) on refuge lands. These activities 

have previously been found appropriate and compatible with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge and 

are not considered to be wildlife-dependent public uses or economic refuge uses. 

The activities can address a wide range of natural and cultural resources as well as public-use 

management issues including habitat use and life history requirements for specific species/species 

groups, practical methods for habitat restoration, extent and severity of environmental contaminants, 

techniques to control or eradicate pest species, effects of climate change on environmental conditions 

and associated habitat/wildlife response, identification and analyses of paleontological specimens, 

wilderness character, quality of wildlife-dependent recreation, modeling of wildlife populations, and 

assessing response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. Projects may be speciesspecific, use-specific, or refuge-specific, or may evaluate the relative contribution of Sheldon Refuge 

to larger landscape (e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, national, international) issues and trends. 

Research, scientific collection, and surveys typically employ a wide variety of methodologies, 

techniques, and tools as dictated by specific information needs, research questions, and hypotheses. 

It is anticipated that research, scientific collecting, and surveys within Sheldon Refuge would 

continue to use direct observation of fish, wildlife, and their habitats; the temporary installation of 

facilities and specialized monitoring and measuring instruments; both non-lethal and lethal collection 

of fish, wildlife, and plant specimens; excavation of small areas, disturbance and/or removal of 

cultural artifacts and paleontological specimens; and interaction with refuge visitors. 

Activities are expected to occur during all seasons and in all habitat types but would continue to 

occur primarily in sagebrush habitat types during the spring, summer, and fall seasons. Sheldon 

Refuge anticipates multiple requests to conduct research, scientific collection, or surveys would be 

authorized each year. Most activities would occur within Sheldon Refuge for short periods of time, 

but some temporary facilities or instruments may remain for several months and in rare instances, 

longer than one year. 

Potential means of access and transportation include hiking, horseback, motorized vehicles, fixedwing aircraft, helicopters, and non-motorized boats or boats with electric motors. Activities may also 

require short-term use of Sheldon Refuge campgrounds, use of temporary campsites in backcountry 

areas, or landing of helicopters. 

Authorizations for all activities and forms of access included in this compatibility determination 

within proposed wilderness areas are subject to a minimum requirements analysis (MRA). 

The Service’s Research and Management Studies (4 RM 6) and Appropriate Refuge Uses policies 

(603 FW1.10D(4)) indicate priority for scientific investigatory studies that contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their 

habitat as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to refuge-specific and/or wilderness 

management, where applicable, would be given a higher priority over other requests. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-112 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Supporting Uses 

Camping

Camping itself is not a priority public use on Service lands, but because of the size, remoteness, and 

quality of roads within Sheldon Refuge, it is important in supporting priority uses including fishing, 

hunting, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography as well as non-priority public uses such as 

research. There are four types of camping opportunities currently provided within Sheldon Refuge: 

developed, semi-primitive, primitive, and backcountry/wilderness. 

Camping within Sheldon Refuge is allowed in 13 designated campgrounds by Refuge Special Use 

Permit for backcountry camping. 

Developed Camping: Virgin Valley Campground located at Dufurrena is considered the only 

developed campground. Virgin Valley Campground is easily accessible year-round for all types of 

vehicles, including RVs, and it offers shade trees, potable water, two vault toilets, 16 picnic tables, 

24 fire rings, a meat-hanging pole, a bath-house, and a hot spring developed for swimming. 

Campground use is managed on a first-come, first-served basis without fees or designated sites. 

From 2005 through 2007 an average of 18 campsites were occupied per day during the days 

surveyed, for a seasonal average of 6,573 visitor-use days (USFWS undated report). 

From mid-August through mid-November, the Virgin Valley Campground is heavily used by 

hunters. During peak seasons, overcrowding and user conflicts have been a concern, as has overflow 

into upland areas adjacent to the campground, which can result in further environmental damage. 

There is also a private developed campground at the Royal Peacock Mine, located in the Virgin 

Valley Mining District, which has RV hookups. 

Semi-primitive Camping: Five campgrounds (Catnip Reservoir, West Rock Spring, Fish Spring, 

Badger, and Big Spring Reservoir) are considered semi-primitive and include outhouses, fire rings, 

meat-hanging poles, and in the case of Fish Spring and Badger campgrounds, horse corrals. These 

semi-primitive campgrounds are accessible from primary roads or improved secondary roads suitable 

for most types of vehicles and are primarily used by hunters. Sport anglers also use campgrounds at 

Catnip and Big Spring reservoirs. 

Additional facilities such as campsite amenities (i.e., picnic tables and accessible fire rings or 

barbeque grills), potable water, shade structures, kiosks, and dedicated volunteer sites are planned for 

Virgin Valley, Catnip Reservoir, and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds. These facilities would 

provide developed camping opportunities that are not commonly available within Sheldon Refuge or 

the region. However, these improved facilities would only be sustainable over the long term through 

campsite fees to support volunteers, maintenance, and replacement. 

The Service also proposes to allow public overnight use of some existing historic structures within 

Sheldon Refuge. The most likely structures are the Little Sheldon Overnight Cabin and Badger 

Cabin. 

Primitive Camping: Seven campgrounds (Little Catnip Spring, Gooch Spring, North Hell Creek, 

Wheeler Spring, Bateman Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Spring) are considered primitive 

campgrounds and have only fire rings or no improvements, are remote, and are accessible to fourwheel drive or high-clearance vehicles when road conditions are passable. These primitive 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-113 

campgrounds receive intermittent and low amounts of use, occurring mostly during the big-game 

hunting seasons (early August through October). All of these campgrounds are located immediately 

adjacent to, or include wet meadows, spring, or springbrook habitats. Three primitive campgrounds 

(Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Spring) also include aspen woodland habitats. Impacts 

associated with primitive campgrounds were identified as an issue during the Sheldon CCP planning 

process. The impacts identified and stipulations for reducing or eliminating those impacts are 

addressed in subsequent sections of this compatibility determination. 

Backcountry/Wilderness Camping: Backcountry camping for up to 14 days is allowed by Refuge 

permit. Permits are not limited, but do stipulate visitors must camp at least 0.5 mile from open roads 

and at least 100 yards from water sources. The majority of backcountry camping permits are issued 

to hunters, but the amount of use is low and no adverse impacts have been observed. Backcountry 

use would continue to be monitored, and future management actions to reduce or eliminate any 

impacts would be implemented as necessary. 

Public Access 

Public access to areas within the refuge is provided by a network of vehicle roads and informal 

backcountry routes and trails. Roads include one two-lane paved highway, maintained gravel roads, 

and numerous primitive and unmaintained dirt roads. Trails throughout the refuge backcountry and 

wilderness areas are primarily abandoned vehicle routes historically used for access to livestock 

developments and private inholdings later purchased by the Service. 

The most substantial changes to research are expected to result from the relocation and enlargement 

of the Refuge visitor contact station, improvement of campground facilities, and improved signing of 

routes open to vehicle use. Improved gravel roads within Sheldon Refuge would be maintained more 

frequently, and all routes open to the public use of vehicles would be adequately signed and marked. 

Visitors would be required to register all OHVs consistent with State of Nevada regulation or with 

Sheldon Refuge for use on refuge roads and routes designated open to vehicle use. These actions are 

intended to improve the quality of the transportation system and deter vehicle violations while 

requiring only minimal law enforcement presence. 

Maintained Public Roads: In preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, each route within the 

refuge was evaluated to assess impacts to fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats, as well as benefits 

for public use and recreation opportunity. Following this evaluation, 300 miles of existing roads 

(including State Highway 140 and all maintained county roads) were designated for public vehicle 

use. The Service has determined the continued use and maintenance of these designated roads, 

including actions for re-routing or modification as proposed in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, would 

have minimal or no impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat and/or are subject to existing right-ofway. The unimproved roads within Sheldon Refuge are not regularly maintained, but are repaired on 

a site-by-site basis to keep them in usable condition or to prevent undue resource damage (i.e., 

excessive erosion). 

Trails and Backcountry Access: Hiking, horseback riding, use of pack stock, and other nonmechanical modes of access are allowed on trails, routes, and other areas of Sheldon Refuge open to 

the public. All vehicle use is restricted to designated open roads. Existing trails throughout Sheldon 

Refuge would remain, but would not be marked or maintained for public use. No adverse impacts 

have been observed from visitors using these routes for hiking, horseback riding, or use of pack 

stock. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-114 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Horseback Riding and Pack Stock Use: Horseback riding has been allowed as a recreation activity 

within Sheldon for many years. However, it is estimated fewer than 10 horseback visitors use 

Sheldon Refuge each year, and as a result, horseback riding is considered a low-impact activity. 

Horseback riding gives the public an opportunity to visit remote and undeveloped portions of 

Sheldon Refuge, and to enjoy the wildlife viewing, solitude, and expansive views that Sheldon 

Refuge is known for. 

There is a concern that the number of visitors engaging in horseback riding may increase, particularly 

with hunting guides and their clients, and that use of horses and pack stock within the Refuge would 

introduce invasive non-native plants. These impacts have not been observed, but monitoring would 

continue and the Service would take additional action as needed to maintain wilderness character and 

prevent the introduction of weeds to the Refuge. 

The corrals at Badger and Fish Spring campgrounds are the only facilities that specifically support 

horseback riding and the use of pack stock. 

Boating: Refuge-specific regulations that apply to the use of non-motorized boats and boats with 

electric motors specifically apply to sport fishing and sport hunting, but are interpreted as applying to 

other uses such as research, scientific collecting, and surveys as well. In particular, the use of nonmotorized boats and boats with electric motors in Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip Reservoir, and 

Dufurrena Ponds consistent with 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 32.47 is considered a 

compatible activity that supports research, scientific collecting, and surveys. 

Availability of Resources: 

Refuge staff responsibilities for projects by non-Service entities would be primarily be limited to the 

following: review and approval of proposals, preparation of Special Use Permits and other 

requirements (e.g., Section 7, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), and monitoring 

of project implementation to ensure that impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels 

(compatibility) over time. Additional administrative, logistical, and operational support may also be 

provided depending on each specific request. Estimated costs for one-time (e.g., preparation of 

Special Use Permits) and annually re-occurring tasks by Refuge staff and other Service employees 

would be determined for each project. Sufficient funding in the general operating budget of Sheldon 

Refuge must be available to cover expenses for these projects. The terms and conditions for funding 

necessary to administer each project on Sheldon Refuge would be clearly stated in the Special Use 

Permit. 

The Service has the following staffing and funding to administratively support and monitor research 

that is currently taking place on Refuge lands. Any substantial increase in the number of projects 

would create a need for additional resources to oversee the administration and monitoring of the 

investigators and their projects. Any substantial additional costs above those itemized below would 

result in finding a project not compatible unless expenses are offset by the investigator(s) or a 

sponsoring agency or organization. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-115 

Itemized costs in the previous table are current estimates, calculated using estimated costs associated 

with processing and administering past research, scientific collecting, and survey activities within 

Sheldon Refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Effects from Research 

A number of factors such as target species or resources, timing and duration of activities, number of 

researchers and modes, and frequency of access would determine the extent of impacts within 

Sheldon Refuge. Impacts on fish and wildlife resources, other refuge resources (e.g., water quality, 

soil, vegetation), and other refuge users are expected to be project- and site-specific, but are not 

anticipated to be significant or unacceptable because of the limited scope, Special Use Permit and 

compatibility stipulations, and administrative oversight of activities proposed. 

Data collection techniques would generally result in negligible animal mortality or disturbance, 

negligible habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, and no introduction of nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or 

animals) or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection would have short-term 

impacts. Impacts would be reduced by authorizing collection of the minimum number of samples 

(e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) necessary for 

identification and/or experimentation and statistical analysis as identified in project proposals 

submitted. 

                                                           

6

 Anticipated Special Use Permit fees and revenues as proposed in the CCP are based on a $250 annual fee, which 

typically is waived for research, scientific collection, and surveys that further the purposes for the refuge and/or 

provide a benefit to the refuge. 

Category and Itemization One-time Annual 

Administration and management $5,000

Maintenance $500

Monitoring $2,000

Special equipment, facilities, or improvement $100

Offsetting revenues6 N/A
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-116 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Impacts from the spread or introduction of invasive species would be minimized or mitigated through 

monitoring for early detection and rapid response and conditions described in the stipulations section 

of this compatibility determination. 

There could also be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Some level of disturbance is expected with these 

projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the public and collect samples or handle 

wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered behavior) would be localized and 

temporary in nature. 

Effects from Camping and Campgrounds 

Use of campgrounds within Sheldon Refuge causes impacts to vegetation, soils, water quality, and 

cultural resources. During dry conditions, carelessness with campfires can lead to wildfires. 

Management and development of campgrounds is also expected to affect the type and quality of 

recreation opportunities available. 

Impacts to Vegetation, Soils, and Water Quality: Campgrounds and their use within the refuge range 

from primitive sites with relatively low and only intermittent use to very developed sites with yearround and relatively high amount of use during summer months. Current impacts and expected 

future impacts associated with use and development of these campgrounds also vary widely. 

Because the most primitive campgrounds are currently the least impacted, we can expect that these 

sites would exhibit the greatest amount of additional or potential impact with only slightly more use. 

Conversely, most impacts have already occurred at the most heavily used and developed 

campgrounds, and we can expect very little additional impact to vegetation, soils, or water quality 

even with relatively large increases in use at these campgrounds. 

The greatest difference in durability between vegetation types occurs at moderately low use levels 

(Cole 1985). Sites that are used frequently are likely to be highly impacted regardless of their 

fragility. Because vegetation loss usually occurs more rapidly than loss of organic soil horizons, sites 

with either no vegetation or resistant vegetation (e.g., grasses as opposed to forbs) recover more 

quickly and are less likely to be impacted by low levels of use, while sites with thick organic soil 

horizons are less susceptible to erosion and are more likely to withstand high amounts of use. 

Experimental studies suggest that there is an important difference between a site’s resistance (its 

ability to tolerate use without being damaged) and its resilience (its ability to recover from damage). 

Cole (1995) has shown, for groundcover plants, that resistance decreases with erectness and that 

broad-leaved herbs are typically less resistant than grass-like plants and shrubs. Low shrubs, such as 

heather, are relatively resistant to trampling stress but their resilience is low. Once damaged, they 

recover slowly. Grass-like plants are most tolerant of trampling (Cole 1989). The compaction of 

soils from campsite use reduces water infiltration and water holding capacity, which leads to 

increased runoff and erosion potential (Cole 2004; Monti and Mackintosh 1979). Impacts associated 

with use at primitive campgrounds can be readily observed and tend to occur rapidly, but these 

impacts are relatively inconsequential when considered in the context of the entire refuge. Impacts 

associated with campgrounds located within riparian areas or near water sources are of greater 

concern, but current impacts are not severe and vegetation, soils, and water quality at primitive 

campgrounds are expected to recover noticeably within a few years following campground 

relocation. This assessment is supported by Cole (1981) who noted that hiking and camping impacts 

on soil and vegetation, while severe when measured at small scales, are minimal at large spatial 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-117 

scales. This suggests that while recreation impacts can be serious for individual plants and animals 

and perhaps localized rare populations, they are generally of little significance to landscape integrity 

or regional biotic diversity. Moreover, unless much of a population is affected by a single impacted 

site, the intensity, size, and distribution of impacts are not relevant to the significance of impacts 

assessed at large spatial scales (Cole 1989). 

Virgin Valley Campground is located at a site previously developed and used by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps in the late 1930s. Catnip Reservoir and Big Spring Reservoir campgrounds are 

located immediately adjacent to artificial reservoirs. These three campgrounds receive the greatest 

amounts of use and exhibit the greatest amount of impact. The core areas of use at these 

campgrounds no longer support vegetation or vegetation diversity is substantially reduced, water 

infiltration is considered low due to soil compaction, and gravel has been placed in some areas to 

reduce erosion and rutting from vehicles. Non-native plants and animals in and around these three 

campgrounds were likely introduced by early ranching and development activities rather than 

campground visitors. Monitoring and control efforts would continue to detect and remove or 

eradicate small or new populations of invasive species. 

The remaining 10 campgrounds are all located immediately adjacent to or include aspen woodland, 

wet meadows, spring, and/or springbrook habitats. Most of these campgrounds have moderate 

amounts of vegetation loss and soil compaction, which is limited to parking areas, areas around fire 

rings, outhouses, and along connecting paths. These impacts are generally not continuous throughout 

the campground and are expected to remain stable with current amounts of intermittent use, which 

occurs during late summer and fall after most annual and biannual plants have finished growing for 

the season and when soils are typically drier and more resistant to impact. Some primitive 

campgrounds have no visible bare ground, and where located in meadow habitats, vegetation is 

generally able to recover from the current amount of use. Some primitive campgrounds exhibit small 

areas of bare ground, generally a lack forbs, which are not resistant to trampling, and in the case of 

Wheeler Spring, Devaney, and East Rock Springs, also exhibit some impacts to aspen trees from 

trampling, soil compaction, root exposure, and cutting. Because these campgrounds receive little 

visitation or are located near frequently traveled gravel roads, impacts to wildlife from campground 

use are estimated to be minor or negligible. Due to the nature of these impacts and relatively low 

amount of use, we anticipate these campgrounds would exhibit the greatest amount of natural 

recovery compared to the three more developed and heavily used campgrounds if camping use were 

eliminated, but they would also exhibit the greatest amount of additional impact if camping use were 

to substantially increase. Aspen stands associated with the Devaney, Wheeler Spring, and East Rock 

Springs campgrounds are also expected to recover, but regeneration of the understory shrubs and 

younger trees would occur slowly and would likely require some active restoration and/or replanting. 

Up to nine semi-primitive and primitive campgrounds would be relocated away from sensitive 

riparian habitats and areas with cultural resources. It is anticipated actions to relocate campgrounds 

to alternative sites, protect sensitive habitats at each of these campgrounds, and confine use to 

designated campsites in heavily used campgrounds would minimize or avoid additional impacts 

altogether. 

We expect some primitive campgrounds to be consolidated with other existing campgrounds that 

would need to be enlarged and have additional campsites constructed (the most likely candidates for 

enlargement are Catnip Reservoir, Big Spring Reservoir, Fish Spring, and West Rock Spring 

campgrounds). Consolidation would result in additional impacts from increased use of existing 

facilities and campsites and from the designation and construction within existing campgrounds. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-118 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Where camping already occurs, increased use of existing campsites and facilities is expected to have 

little or no measurable impact to vegetation or wildlife. Impacts to expanded portions of these 

campgrounds are expected to occur quickly as vegetation is trampled and soil compacted within the 

first two or three seasons of use, but would then stabilize over the long term. We expect enlargement 

of existing campgrounds would result in minor, site-specific, long-term, direct adverse impacts to 

plants and their habitat from removal of vegetation, soil compaction, and loss of organic soil horizon 

at these sites. 

Impacts from Wildfire: Campfires are allowed at designated campgrounds but are occasionally 

prohibited during periods of high fire danger. Wildfires have been started by refuge visitors in the 

past, and we expect some wildfires would occasionally start as a result of escaped campfires or 

misuse of stoves. Seasonal campfire restrictions and rapid fire suppression response would continue 

to minimize impacts. 

Impacts to Cultural Resources: Most of the 13 designated campgrounds are located within or 

adjacent to prehistoric cultural sites. While the majority of impacts occurred following the initial 

establishment and use of these campgrounds, some impacts continue due to ongoing soil disturbance 

and compaction within existing campsites, trampling and removal of vegetation, occasional use of 

previously unused areas adjacent to the campgrounds, and vehicle use outside designated areas. 

Limited fee use of the Little Sheldon Overnight Cabin or Badger Cabin is expected to increase public 

appreciation for historic resources and understanding for their protection and preservation. In 

addition, the use of these sites and the collection of fees would provide justification and funding for 

restoration work and continued maintenance. As a result, the integrity of sites eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places would be protected. Therefore, we anticipate use of these 

facilities to support research would have a major, long-term, beneficial impact on cultural resources. 

Impacts to Recreation Opportunity: Campsite registration, overnight fees, and the other 

improvements planned for the developed campgrounds would increase maintenance, increase visitor 

compliance with rules and regulations (by defining and designating campsites), and decrease 

competition for campsites. Campground management strategies are expected to result in moderate, 

indirect, long-term, beneficial impacts to the camping experience, in support of providing quality 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Effects from Public Access 

Adverse impacts are expected to continue as a result of the network of developed and undeveloped 

roads throughout Sheldon Refuge and their associated maintenance. Road development and use 

continues to adversely impact the biological integrity within Sheldon Refuge by contributing to the 

altered composition of plant communities, soil disturbance (Eckert et al. 1979; Iverson et al. 1981; 

Switalski et al. 2004), altered hydrology and stream sedimentation (Forman and Alexander 1998), 

facilitation of the spread of invasive vegetation, changes in the natural fire regimes, and habitat 

fragmentation. 

Many direct effects are obvious during construction, but other effects are permanent and can extend 

substantially beyond the actual road surface (road-effect zone; Forman 2000; Forman and Alexander 

1998). At the landscape scale, major ecological impacts of a road network include fragmentation, the 

disruption of landscape processes, and loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity declines as the road network 

impacts interior species (species cut off by roads), species with large home ranges, stream and 

wetland species, and rare native species (Forman and Alexander 1998). Fragmentation of previously 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-119 

extensive landscapes can influence the distribution and abundance of a host of wildlife species 

through redistribution of habitat types and through the pattern of habitat fragmentation, including 

characteristics such as decreased patch area and increased habitat edge (Vander Haegen et al. 2000). 

Roads (including OHV trails) are commonly identified as important correlates or indicators of loss of 

ecological health and affect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in several general ways: 1) increased 

mortality from road construction; 2) increased mortality from collision with vehicles; 3) modification 

of animal behavior; 4) alteration of physical environment; 5) alteration of chemical environment; 6) 

spread of exotic species; and 7) increased alteration and use of habitats by humans (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000; Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006). 

The ecological effect of road avoidance is likely related to traffic density and speed of travel, as well 

as traffic noise levels (Forman and Alexander 1998). Road-effect zones generally result in lower 

breeding densities and reduced species richness; species demonstrated to avoid or be negatively 

impacted by roads include arthropods, reptiles, small mammals, ungulates, and forest and grassland 

birds (Andrews and Gibbons 2005; Carr and Fahrig 2001; Forman and Alexander 1998; McGrann et 

al. 2006; Rost and Bailey 1979). For example, proximity to OHV trails (<1,000 meters [3,280 feet]) 

was found to have a direct correlation with reduced-quality habitat for nesting songbirds in 

sagebrush-steppe habitats, including nest desertion, nest predation, and abandonment (Barton and 

Holmes 2007). Behavioral disturbance from recreation, including that associated with trails and 

roads, may also have both immediate and long-term effects on wildlife (Taylor and Knight 2003). In 

one study of pronghorn, deer, and bison, individuals exhibited a 70% probability of flushing within 

1,000 meters (3,280 feet) on either side of a trail used by hikers and mountain bikers (Taylor and 

Knight 2003); presumably, responses are similar in the presence of vehicles such as OHVs. Road 

density can be used as an overall index to average patterns over an area. For example, road densities 

of approximately 1.0 mile per square mile have been recommended as the maximum for a naturally 

functioning landscape containing sustained populations of large predators (Forman and Alexander 

1998). However, the effects of road density are likely sensitive to road width or type, traffic density, 

network connectivity, and the frequency of spur roads into remote areas (Forman and Alexander 

1998). 

Within Sheldon Refuge, more than 50 introduced, non-native, and often noxious plant species have 

been documented (refer to Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS Appendix B). Invasive plants typically need 

transportation to spread to new areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000), and within Sheldon Refuge 

several methods are possible, including vehicles, people, wild and domestic animals, and firefighting 

equipment. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that habitats distant from roads may provide important 

refuge for native grassland species, and that this effect may be even more pronounced in 

predominately intact landscapes such as those in parts of the Great Basin (Gelbard and Harrison 

2003). Human access and disturbance effects on remote areas tend to increase with higher road 

densities, as well as human-caused fire ignitions (Forman and Alexander 1998). 

Sheldon Refuge proposes that various methods, including systematic inventory and monitoring for 

invasive plants, mowing, use of herbicides, and elimination of grading road shoulders, be used to 

detect new infestations, control and contain existing infestations, and treat up to 1,000 acres per year. 

Management strategies to combat invasive plants support the Service policy for biological integrity 

and diversity within Sheldon Refuge. With a more systematic approach for inventory of noxious 

weeds and other invasive plants, populations are more likely to be detected when they are small and 

more easily managed and controlled. Increased treatment and reduced soil disturbance along road 

corridors should reduce the spread of invasive plants already present and reduce the potential for new 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-120 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

populations. As a result, we anticipate these actions would result in major, long-term, direct, 

beneficial impacts to all habitats. Implementing treatment strategies (e.g., mechanical removal of 

vegetation, application of herbicides) would likely eliminate or prevent the spread of noxious weed 

populations when detected and provide some conservation of native habitats, resulting in minor, sitespecific, short-term, direct, beneficial impacts to habitat on approximately 1,000 acres per year. 

In conjunction with preparation of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, Refuge staff conducted an 

evaluation of existing routes and trails and identified known and potential resource impacts and 

public benefits and recreation opportunities associated with vehicle access. Route segments that 

were identified as causing substantial impacts to soils, riparian areas, and/or wildlife, were redundant 

with other routes, or provided very little or no access for wildlife-dependent uses were not identified 

for designation as open roads for public use of vehicles. To minimize or avoid lesser impacts from 

roads and vehicle use, the Service would implement a number of transportation management 

strategies including designating roads that are not duplicative, re-routing or realigning road segments 

that pass through sensitive resource areas, installing erosion control structures, increased monitoring 

and treatment of weeds along road corridors, and posting signs marking all designated open roads. 

These actions would result in long-term, minor, direct and indirect, beneficial impacts to soils by 

decreasing erosion in sensitive areas that are currently affected. Overall we expect impacts from 

road management would be minor, direct, and adverse to habitats on a localized and long-term basis. 

Research activities are appropriate and compatible with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge although 

they are not considered to be a wildlife-dependent public use or economic refuge use. Hiking, 

horseback riding, and vehicle access are secondary uses that support research activities within 

Sheldon Refuge. Sheldon Refuge allows access on foot, by horseback, or by vehicle. However, all 

vehicle routes are open to both motorized and non-motorized vehicles, and there are no areas 

managed for non-motorized vehicle access (i.e., mountain bikes or game carts) or semi-primitive 

non-motorized recreation opportunity. In areas open to vehicle use we assume impacts to nonmotorized vehicle users are asymmetrical (Webber 1995) and occur from conflict, noise, dust, 

competition with motorized users for recreation opportunity, and displacement to non-motorized 

areas outside the refuge (Adelman et al. 1982; Gambill 1996; Manning and Valliere 2002; Moore 

1994; Stokowski and LaPointe 2000). The somewhat narrow range of vehicle access for nonmotorized users provided within the refuge represents a direct, adverse, moderate, long-term impact 

to quality recreation opportunities. 

Effects from Horseback Riding and Use of Pack Stock 

Because the number of visitors who ride horseback or use pack stock within Sheldon Refuge is 

estimated at less than 10 per year and because little impact has been observed from such use, we 

expect future impacts from trampling and introduction of non-native weed would also be low and 

less than similar impacts associated with overnight camping and vehicle use. Stock use areas at 

Badger and Fish Spring campgrounds would continue to be monitored, particularly for new 

populations of non-native plants, and additional actions such as requiring certified weed-free feed 

and weed removal would be implemented as necessary. 

Effects from Boating 

The use of non-motorized or electric-powered boats is allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, Catnip 

Reservoir, and the Dufurrena Ponds consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. The majority of boating occurs in 

conjunction with sport fishing, and while migratory bird hunting is not allowed on these waters, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-121 

occasional and intermittent boating does occur in conjunction with other hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, interpretation, research, scientific 

collecting, and surveys. The amount of boating that occurs within Sheldon Refuge has not been 

quantified, but is considered low based upon angler participation and incidental observation by staff 

and volunteers. Boating generally occurs during summer months following the waterfowl nesting 

season (when the potential for bird disturbance or displacement impacts would be greatest) and 

following the beginning of trout fishing season, or when there are higher water temperatures at 

Dufurrena Ponds, which provide better fishing success. Requirements for use of non-motorized 

boats or boats with electric motors would eliminate the potential for water pollution associated with 

use of outboard motors and would maintain opportunities for visitor solitude. Overall, the amount of 

boating associated with wildlife-dependent public uses is considered low, and adverse impacts are 

estimated to be short-term, intermittent, and negligible. 

Economic Effects 

Research, scientific collection, and surveys allowed by Special Use Permit within Sheldon Refuge 

occur periodically. Such activities typically involve few individuals for short periods of time. The 

value of these activities to the local economy is therefore estimated to be negligible when compared 

to wildlife-dependent uses within Sheldon Refuge. 

Effects to Wilderness Character 

Naturalness: Approximately 300 miles of existing vehicle routes would remain visible, and their 

designation for motorized use is not expected to result in any short-term impacts to naturalness. Over 

the long term, as public use continues to increase, we expect that additional signs, road maintenance, 

and other developments would be needed to ensure compatibility. Increased visitation to these areas 

would also increase the potential for introduction and spread of weeds and for the disturbance and 

displacement of wildlife. 

Weed treatments occurring on approximately 1,000 acres per year, primarily along road corridors, 

are expected to slow or possibly reverse the trend of weed spread and invasion into undeveloped and 

more natural areas of Sheldon Refuge, but would adversely affect natural character due to the 

presence of dead vegetation and vehicle tracks. 

Untrammeled Conditions: Research activities would rely primarily on existing campgrounds, roads, 

and other facilities, which would result in little or no change to untrammeled conditions within 

Sheldon Refuge. 

Solitude: Due to the limited number of campsites available, we anticipate some increased use of 

primitive campgrounds, and some additional overnight backcountry use by visitors participating in 

research activities. Opportunities for those who seek opportunities for solitude would continue to be 

available throughout much of Sheldon Refuge during substantial portions of the year. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Management direction for designation of 300 miles of existing 

roads for public use of vehicles would result in only minor impacts. These existing roads would 

remain in their current condition and level of maintenance, and use of unimproved dirt roads is 

expected to remain low and intermittent for access to more primitive and remote portions of Sheldon 

Refuge. Other routes would continue to be used for hiking, backpacking, and horseback riding, and 

occasionally by vehicle for administrative purposes. Management actions would also result in 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-122 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

greater management presence, development, and regulation at the Virgin Valley, Catnip, and Big 

Spring campgrounds. Impacts to opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation would be 

minor with vehicle use confined to existing campgrounds and roads where public use has been well 

established for many years. 

Cumulative Effects from Research 

When considered with other existing and proposed public uses and proposed management actions, 

cumulative impacts from research when conducted according to applicable refuge rules and 

regulations are negligible. Research projects expected to result in unavoidable long-term or 

substantial cumulative adverse effects would not be authorized. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This and other compatibility determinations were prepared concurrently with the Final CCP/EIS for 

the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (in press). Open houses were held, multiple planning updates 

were mailed, and written comments were solicited from the public during development of the Final 

CCP/EIS for the refuge. Appendix A of the Final CCP/EIS further details public involvement during 

development of the CCP. A summary of public comments received during review of the Draft 

CCP/EIS along with the Service’s response to those comments are included in Appendix N of the 

Final CCP/EIS. 

Determination: (check one below) 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Only requests that demonstrate scientific validity and/or benefit to Sheldon Refuge may be 

approved. 

2. In order for Refuge staff and others, as needed, to identify unacceptable impacts to Refuge 

resources, all proposals and requests to conduct research, scientific collecting, or surveys must be 

submitted in writing to the Refuge Manager at least 90 days prior to project initiation. 

Continuation of existing projects would require approval by the Complex Project Leader and 

inclusion of the permit stipulations discussed in this section. 

3. Projects would adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available 

and applicable. A Special Use Permit or Cooperative Agreement would not be issued for any 

final project proposal or request that the Refuge Manager determines is likely to cause 

unacceptable impacts to Refuge resources. 

4. Unless specifically waived by the Project Leader, any project proposal that includes the capture 

and handling of wildlife within Sheldon Refuge must be accompanied by written review from an 

accredited Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee as defined by Section 13(b) of the 

Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2143). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-123 

5. Unless otherwise stated in a valid Special Use Permit, all items collected on Refuge lands are the 

property of the USFWS even while in the possession of the investigator(s). Any future work 

with previously collected samples not clearly identified in the project proposal would require 

submission of a subsequent proposal for review and approval. In addition, a new Special Use 

Permit would be required for additional project work. For samples or specimens to be stored at 

other facilities (e.g., museums), a signed copy of the memorandum of understanding must be 

provided before the Special Use Permit would be issued. 

6. For all projects proposed within a designated or proposed wilderness area, an MRA would be 

submitted by the permittee for Refuge Manager approval and would be included as part of the 

decision process. An MRA is a two-step process to decide if a proposed activity is necessary in 

wilderness, and if so, to determine the minimum tool needed to accomplish the project. Although 

required for all administrative activities, including issuing Special Use Permits, an MRA cannot 

be used to authorize prohibited activities in designated wilderness by the public. 

7. Each project would require a Special Use Permit or Cooperative Agreement, which would 

typically be issued for a period of one year or less. Some permits may be renewed annually or 

issued for longer periods if needed to allow completion of a project. However, no Special Use 

Permit or Cooperative Agreement would be issued or renewed for a period longer than five years. 

8. Refuge staff would monitor all research, scientific collection, and surveys being conducted on 

Sheldon Refuge. Findings from these monitoring efforts would be used to determine what 

additional management actions, if any, are needed to ensure that research activities remain 

compatible with refuge purposes. 

9. Monitoring of all authorized research, scientific collection, and survey activities would be 

continued to ensure compliance with specific terms and conditions tailored for each research 

project’s permit as well stipulations incorporated into all research permits to minimize impacts on 

refuge lands and resources. 

10. Management direction is provided in the CCP for Sheldon Refuge. This directs monitoring of 

public uses and refuge special uses including research, scientific collecting, and surveys. 

Findings from these monitoring efforts would be used in determining what additional 

management actions, if any, are needed to ensure activities remain compatible with refuge 

purposes. Any or all of the following stipulations would be included as conditions and 

requirements of Refuge Special Use Permits for research, scientific collecting, and surveys as 

appropriate. Additional conditions may be included as necessary or appropriate for the specific 

operations or activities that are proposed. 

11. All vehicles defined as off-road vehicles under 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 must be registered with 

the State of Nevada or Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge for use on lands administered by 

Sheldon Refuge. 

12. Vehicle use within Sheldon Refuge is allowed only on roads and routes that are designated 

“open” on Figure D.1 and that are signed or otherwise marked for such use. Off-road use is 

prohibited. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-124 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

13. Unless otherwise indicated by sign, permit, or regulation, the maximum number of consecutive 

nights any person or attended vehicle may remain at a designated refuge campground is 14 

nights. 

14. Except for camping within campgrounds that are designated for such use on maps included in the 

Final Record of Decision for the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EIS and that are signed 

or otherwise marked for such use, no overnight use is allowed on lands administered by Sheldon 

Refuge unless expressly authorized by a valid Special Use Permit. 

15. Non-motorized boats or boats with electric motors are allowed only in Big Spring Reservoir, 

Catnip Reservoir, and Dufurrena Ponds, consistent with 50 CFR 32.47. 

16. Open fires are allowed only at designated campgrounds and within constructed fire rings, subject 

to additional seasonal fire restrictions and/or closures. 

17. Pets must be leashed, except dogs used for hunting migratory or upland birds. Hunting dogs 

must be under strict voice control at all times. 

18. Riding or packing with horses and mules is allowed in all areas open to public use. All horses 

and mules must be haltered, branded, tagged, or otherwise visibly marked as a domestic animal 

and must be tied, hobbled, high-lined, corralled, or otherwise under direct control at all times. 

19. Grazing of domestic animals within Sheldon Refuge is not allowed. 

20. The use of certified weed-free hay, pellets, straw, and other livestock feed within Sheldon Refuge 

is encouraged. The use of certified weed-free feed would be required if monitoring of stock use 

areas indicates the spread or introduction of noxious weeds from uncertified feed. 

The following conditions and requirements would be included as part of all Refuge Special Use 

Permits for research, scientific collecting, and surveys. 

National Special Use Permit Conditions and Requirements 

1. Responsibility of Permittee: The permittee by operating on the premises shall be considered to 

have accepted these premises with all facilities, fixtures, or improvements in their existing 

condition as of the date of this permit. At the end of the period specified or upon earlier 

termination, the permittee shall give up the premises in as good order and condition as when 

received except for reasonable wear, tear, or damage occurring without fault or negligence. The 

permittee will fully repay the Service for any and all damage directly or indirectly resulting from 

negligence or failure on his/her part, or the part of anyone of his/her associates, to use reasonable 

care. 

2. Operating Rules and Laws: The permittee shall keep the premises in a neat and orderly condition 

at all times, and shall comply with all municipal, county, and State laws applicable to the 

operations under the permit as well as all Federal laws, rules, and regulations governing national 

wildlife refuges and the area described in this permit. The permittee shall comply with all 

instructions applicable to this permit issued by the refuge official in charge. The permittee shall 

take all reasonable precautions to prevent the escape of fires and to suppress fires and shall 

render all reasonable assistance in the suppression of refuge fires. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-125 

3. Use Limitations: The permittee’s use of the described premises is limited to the purposed herein 

specified and does not, unless provided for in this permit, allow him/her to restrict other 

authorized entry on to his/her area; and permits the Service to carry on whatever activities are 

necessary for (1) protection and maintenance of the premises and adjacent lands administered by 

the Service; and (2) the management of wildlife and fish using the premises and other Service 

lands. 

4. Transfer of Privileges: This permit is not transferable, and no privileges herein mentioned may 

be sublet or made available to any person or interest not mentioned in this permit. No interest 

hereunder may accrue through lien or be transferred to a third party without the approval of the 

Regional Director of the Service and the permit shall not be used for speculative purposes. 

5. Compliance: The Service’s failure to require strict compliance with any of this permit’s terms, 

conditions, and requirements shall not constitute a waiver or be considered as a giving up of the 

Service’s right to thereafter enforce any of the permit’s terms or conditions. 

6. Conditions of Permit not Fulfilled: If the permittee fails to fulfill any of the conditions and 

requirements set forth herein, all money paid under this permit shall be retained by the 

Government to be used to satisfy as much of the permittee’s obligation as possible. 

7. Payments: All payment shall be made on or before the due date to the local representative of the 

Service by a postal money order or check made payable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

8. Termination Policy: At the termination of this permit the permittee shall immediately give up 

possession to the Service representative, reserving, however, the rights specified in paragraph 11. 

If he/she fails to do so, he/she will pay the Government, as liquidated damages, an amount double 

the rate specified in this permit for the entire time possession is withheld. Upon yielding 

possession, the permittee will still be allowed to re-enter as needed to remove his/her property as 

stated in paragraph 11. The acceptance of any fee for liquidated damages or any other act of 

administration relating to the continued tenancy is not to be considered as an affirmation of the 

permittees’ action nor shall it operate as a waiver of the Government’s right to terminate or 

cancel the permit for the breach of any specified condition or requirement. 

9. Revocation Policy: This permit may be revoked by the Regional Director of the Service without 

notice for noncompliance with the terms hereof or for violation of general and/or specific laws or 

regulations governing national wildlife refuges or for nonuse. It is at all times subject to 

discretionary revocation by the Director of the Service. Upon such revocation the Service, by 

and through any authorized representative, may take possession of the said premises for its own 

and sole use, or may enter and possess the premises as the agent of the permittee and for his/her 

account. 

10. Damages: The United States shall not be responsible for any loss or damage to property 

including, but not limited to, growing crops, animals, and machinery or injury to the permittee or 

his/her relatives, or to the officers, agents, employees, or any other who are on the premises from 

instructions or by the sufferance of wildlife or employees or representatives of the Government 

carrying out their official responsibilities. The permittee agrees to save the United States or any 

of its agencies harmless from any and all claims for damages or losses that may arise to be 

incident to the flooding of the premises resulting from any associated Government river and 

harbor, flood control, reclamation, or Tennessee Valley Authority activity. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-126 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

11. Removal of Permittee’s Property: Upon the expiration or termination of this permit, if all rental 

charges and/or damage claims due to the Government have been paid, the permittee may, within 

a reasonable period as stated in the permit or as determined by the refuge official in charge but 

not to exceed 60 days, remove all structures, machinery, and/or other equipment, etc., from the 

premises for which he/she is responsible. Within this period the permittee must also remove any 

other of his/her property including his/her acknowledged share of products or crops grown, cut, 

harvested, stored, or stacked on the premises. Upon failure to remove any of the above items 

within the aforesaid period, they shall become the property of the United States. 

12. Collected Specimens: You may use specimens collected under this permit, any components of 

any specimens (including natural organisms, enzymes, genetic materials or seeds), and research 

results derived from collected specimens for scientific or educational purposes only, and not for 

commercial purposes unless you have entered into a Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement (CRADA) with us. We prohibit the sale of collected research specimens or other 

transfers to third parties. Breach of any of the terms of this permit will be grounds for revocation 

of this permit and denial of future permits. Furthermore, if you sell or otherwise transfer 

collected specimens of any components without a CRADA, you will pay us a royalty rate of 20 

percent of the gross revenue from such sales. In addition to such royalty, we may seek other 

damages and injunctive relief against you.

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Conditions 

1. A copy of this permit must be in the permittee’s or field party chief’s possession at all times 

while exercising the privileges of this permit. A copy of the permit must be shown to any 

USFWS employee or Federal law enforcement officer upon request. 

2. All waste materials must be removed from the Refuge upon the permittee’s and/or clients’ 

departure. The permittee is responsible for removal of clients’ garbage. 

3. The landing of aircraft and use of helicopters is prohibited. 

4. Collected Specimens: Researchers may use specimens collected under permits, any components 

of any specimens (including natural organisms, enzymes, genetic materials, or seeds), and 

research results derived from collected specimens for scientific or educational purposes only, and 

not for commercial purposes unless they have entered into a Cooperative Research and 

Development Agreement (CRADA) with Sheldon Refuge. The Refuge prohibits the sale of 

collected research specimens or other transfers to third parties. Furthermore, if researchers sell or 

otherwise transfer collected specimens or any components without a CRADA, they will pay the 

Refuge a royalty rate of 20 percent of gross revenue from such sales. In addition to such royalty, 

the Refuge may seek other damages and injunctive relief against the researchers. 

5. Failure to abide by any part of this Special Use Permit; violation of any refuge-related provision 

in Titles 43 (Part 36) or 50 (sub-chapters B and C), Code of Federal Regulations; or violation of 

any pertinent state regulation (e.g., fish or game violation) will, with due process, be considered 

grounds for revocation of this permit and could result in denial of future permit requests for lands 

administered by the USFWS. This provision applies to all persons working under the authority 

of this permit. Appeals of decisions relative to permits are handled in accordance with Title 50 

Code of Federal Regulations Part 36.41. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-127 

6. The permittee and all others conducting activities under this permit are required to follow all 

refuge-specific regulations unless specific exemptions are included in the Special Use Permit. 

7. The permittee is responsible for obtaining, possessing, and complying with all other appropriate 

state and Federal permits required for their projects, including appropriate collection permits 

from the State of Nevada and/or ODFW, for research involving fish and wildlife. 

8. For each instance, the permittee or party chief shall notify the Refuge Manager during refuge 

working hours before beginning and upon completion of activities allowed by this permit. 

9. Prior to beginning any activities allowed by this permit, the permittee shall provide the Refuge 

Manager with the following: (1) name and method of contact for the field party chief or 

supervisor; aircraft and other vehicle types to be used, identification information for these 

vehicles; and names of assistants (2) any changes in information provided in the original permit 

application. 

10. The Project Leader or appointed representative, upon request, shall be afforded the opportunity 

and logistical support to accompany the permittee for the purpose of inspection and monitoring 

permittee activities. A final inspection trip provided by the permittee of the areas of use may be 

required by the project leader to determine compliance with the terms of this permit. 

11. Unless otherwise stated in this Special Use Permit, all items collected on refuge lands remain the 

property of the USFWS. 

12. The permittee shall provide the Refuge Manager with a report of activities under this permit 

within 30 days of permit expiration, unless otherwise negotiated with the Project Leader. 

13. The Project Leader will be provided copies of all raw data in electronic database format (unless 

otherwise stipulated in this permit) and a final report within one year of completion of the 

project. 

14. The Project Leader will be given adequate opportunity to review draft manuscript(s) from the 

project before being submitted to a scientific journal(s) for consideration of publication. 

15. The Project Leader will be provided with at least three copies (reprints) of all publications 

resulting from activities authorized by this permit. 

16. Sheldon Refuge staff and other Service personnel will be appropriately cited and acknowledged 

in all written and oral presentations resulting from projects on refuge lands. 

Justification: 

Research, scientific collecting, and surveys on refuge lands are inherently valuable to the Service 

because they expand scientific information available for resource management decisions. In 

addition, only projects that directly or indirectly contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, 

preservation, and management of refuge wildlife populations and their habitats generally would be 

authorized on refuge lands. Research, scientific collection, and surveys conducted by other agencies, 

universities, non-profit organizations, and individuals can provide information and data related to 

Sheldon Refuge that would otherwise not be available. In many cases, the information and data 

provided address important management issues and improve the ability of the Service to fulfill the 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-128 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

purposes for Sheldon Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. Furthermore, the uses 

contribute to the scientific and educational values of the eight proposed wilderness areas 

encompassing more than half of Sheldon Refuge. By allowing the use to occur under the stipulations 

included as part of this compatibility determination, it is anticipated the use would not result in any 

unacceptable or irreversible adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, or to wildlifedependent public uses. As a result, these projects would not materially interfere with or detract from 

fulfilling refuge purpose(s); contributing to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and 

maintaining the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of Sheldon Refuge. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: (provide year for “allowed” uses only) 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (wildlife-dependent public uses) 

 2021 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (uses other than wildlife-dependent public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below) 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 X Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Literature Cited: 

Adelman, B., T. Heberlein, and T. Bonnicksen. 1982. Social psychological explanations for the 

persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences 5:45-61. 

Andrews, K.M. and J.W. Gibbons. 2005. How do highways influence snake movement? Behavioral 

responses to roads and vehicles. Copeia 2005:772-782. 

Barton, D.C. and A.L. Holmes. 2007. Off-highway vehicle trail impacts on breeding songbirds in 

northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1617-1625. 

Carr, L.W. and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing 

vagility. Conservation Biology 15:1071-1078. 

Cole, D.N. 1981. Vegetational changes associated with recreational use and fire suppression in the 

Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon: some management implications. Biological Conservation 

20:247-270. 

Cole, D.N. 1985. Recreational trampling effects on six habitat types in western Montana. Research 

Paper INT-350. USDA Forest Service. 43 pp. 

Cole, D.N. 1989. Some principles to guide wilderness campsite management. Pages 181-187 in: 

D.W. Lime, ed. Campsite management and monitoring in wilderness. St. Paul, MN: 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-129 

Minnesota Extension Service and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of 

Minnesota. 

Cole, D.N. 1995. Experimental trampling of vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 32:215-224. 

Cole, D.N. 2004. Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review. Available at: 

http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs12/Ecotourism.pdf. Accessed January 

31, 2011. 

Eckert, R.E., Jr., M.K. Wood, W.H. Blackburn, and F.F. Peterson. 1979. Impacts of off-road 

vehicles on infiltration and sediment production of two desert soils. Journal of Range 

Management 32:394-397. 

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road network in the United 

States. Conservation Biology 14:31-35. 

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. 

Gambill, P. 1996. Multi-use trail management policy: user-group conflict and resource impact 

issues. Wheaton, IL: The Wheaton Center. 

Gelbard, J.L. and S. Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: interactions 

with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications 13:404-415. 

Iverson, R.M., B.S. Hinckley, R.M. Webb, and B. Hallet. 1981. Physical effects of vehicular 

disturbances on arid landscapes. Science 212:915-917. 

Manning, R., and W. Valliere. 2002. Coping in outdoor recreation: causes and consequences of 

crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research 33(4):410-

426. 

McGrann, M.C., G.R. Wright, R.J. Dial, and A.M. McGrann. 2006. Off-highway vehicle impact on 

the flat-tailed horned lizard, Phrynosoma mcallii, in the Colorado Desert of southern 

California. California Fish and Game 92:67-80. 

Monti, P. and E.E. Mackintosh. 1979. Effect of camping on surface soil properties in the boreal 

forest region of northwestern Ontario, Canada. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43, 

1024-1029. 

Moore, R.L. 1994. Conflicts on multiple-use trails: Synthesis of the literature and state of the 

practice, Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Rost, G.R. and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 43:634-641. 

Stokowski, P.A. and C.B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and social effects of ATVs and ORVs: 

An annotated bibliography and research assessment. School of Natural Resources, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-130 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

University of Vermont. 31 pp. Available at: 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/atv_nov20_final.pdf. 

Switalski, T.A, J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and 

impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:21-28. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. 

USFWS. Undated report. Camping use days Virgin Valley Campground Sheldon NWR. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Lakeview, OR. 

Webber, P.C. 1995. Report to the Board of Environmental Management on the Policy for Off-road 

Vehicle Use in Massachusetts Forests and Parks. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, 

MA: Department of Environmental Management. 

Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2006. Nevada wildlife action plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

Reno, NV. 

Vander Haegen, W.M., F.C. Dobler, and D.J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and 

landscape variables in Eastern Washington, USA. Conservation Biology 14:1145-1160. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations D-131 

Refuge Determination 

Prepared by: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence 

Refuge Supervisor: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: ______________________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-132 Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

This page left blank intentionally.
"S

!]

"S "S "S "S

"S

"S

"S "S "S "S

!]

!]

!]

!]

""

""

"" ""

""

"" ""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

e[

e[

e[

e[

e[

e[

e[

e[ e[

e[

e[

e[

!9

!9

!9

!9

!9 !9

!9

!9 !9

!9

!9

!9

!9

@"

?"

Onion Lake

Swan

Lake

Massacre Lake

Calcutta

Lake

Continental

Lake

Thousan d Cre ek

Badg er C ree k

Craine Creek

G u a n o 

g e

UV140

UV140

UV34

UV34A

UV8A

O R E G O N

N E VA DA

L A K E C O U N T Y

HA R N E Y C O U N T Y

C O U N T Y

C O U N T Y

Piute 

Cre ek

WA S H O E C O U N T Y

HU M B O L D T C O U N T Y

Virg in Cre ek

Catnip

Reservoir

Little Catnip

Spring

West Rock

Spring

Gooch

Spring

Fish

Spring

North Hell

Creek

Badger

Wheeler

Spring

Bateman

Spring

Devaney

East Rock

Spring

Big Spring

Reservoir

Virgin

Valley

Kinney

Camp

Virgin

Valley Ranch

Gooch

Camp

IXL

Ranch

Last Chance

Ranch Little

Sheldon

Andy's

Place

Badger

Cabin

Alkali

Ranch

Pruett

Homestead

Thousand Creek

Ranch & Bunkhouse

CCC Gate House

LEGEND

Approved Refuge Boundary

@" Refuge Headquarters

?" Proposed Visitor Contact Station

!9 Campgrounds

e[ Historic Structures

"" Wildlife Guzzler (big game)

"" Wildlife Guzzler (small game)

!] Kiosk

"S Sign

Hunting Not Allowed

Lakes

County Boundary

State Line

Public Vehicle Routes (clipped to refuge)

Highway

Intermittent Stream

Perennial Stream

Figure D.1

Compatibility Determination

FINAL CCP / EIS Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada and Lake County, Oregon

0 2 4 Mi

0 4 8 Km . Produced by USFWS Region 1

Refuge Information Branch

Portland, Oregon

Map Date: 4/12/2012

File: 10-068-1.mxd
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

D-134 

The back sides of map pages are blank to facilitate map readability. 
1

Exhibit D-1 Prospectus and Request for Proposals to Conduct Commercial Big 

Game Guide Services (Sample Document) 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

 Prospectus and Request for Proposal

INVITATION FOR PROPOSALS TO CONDUCT 

COMMERCIAL BIG GAME GUIDE SERVICES WITHIN 

AREAS OF 

SHELDON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND 

HART MOUNTAIN NATIONAL ANTELOPE REFUGE

Issued by: Project Leader 

 Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex 

Date: Month numberday, four digit year 

Location: Lakeview, OR 

 

Submittal: Sealed proposals must be postmarked or hand delivered to the address indicated 

below by, time, Month numberday, four digit year. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Attention: Complex Project Leader 

Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex 

PO Box 111 

Lakeview, OR 97630. 

For Information Contact: 

Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex, P.O. Box 111, Lakeview, OR 97630 (541) 947-3315, 

 
2 

 Table of Contents 

Title Page 

 I. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3 

 II. Area Description.......................................................................................................... 4 

 III. Definitions................................................................................................................... 6 

 IV. Offerings...................................................................................................................... 7 

 V. Special Requirements and Considerations.................................................................. 8 

 VI. Selection of Successful Applicants............................................................................ 12 

 VII. Instructions - How to Submit Proposals.................................................................... 13 

 VIII. Information Required................................................................................................ 15 

 Application Cover Sheet 

 Form A - Proposed Operations Plan 

Form B - History of Violations 

 Form C - Safety Record, Training, Equipment and Plan 

Form D - Demonstrated Experience and Knowledge of the Guide Area, and the Terrain, 

Climate, and Species to be Hunted 

 Form E - Ability to Provide a High Quality Hunt and Guiding Service to the Public 

Form F - Evaluation of Client References 

 Appendix A - Form Continuation Sheet 

 Appendix B - Sample Special Use Permit 

 Appendix C - Map of Sheldon NWR Hunt Area 

 Appendix D - Map of Hart Mountain NAR Hunt Areag

                                                           

g

 Appendices B, C, and D are not included as part of this CCP/EIS appendix, but would be included with the actual prospectus 

and request for proposals. Figure 5.1 of the Final Sheldon CCP/EIS depicts areas of Sheldon Refuge open to all hunting, and 

would be the approximate area included in the Prospectus Appendix C. 
3

PROSPECTUS FOR COMMERCIAL BIG GAME GUIDE SERVICES 

 

SHELDON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, NEVADA 

AND 

HART MOUNTAIN NATIONAL ANTELOPE REFUGE, OREGON 

 I. INTRODUCTION

The Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex (Sheldon NWR and Hart Mountain NAR) is offering 

opportunities for up to five (5) big game guides on each refuge, to provide commercial services on 

Refuge lands. The Refuge will award special use permits for big game guiding services on both refuges 

through a competitive selection process. Prospective applicants are advised to read this prospectus and 

the sample permit (see attachment). 

The objective of allowing commercial big game guiding is to make a variety of quality services available 

in support of recreational hunting on the refuges, when such activities are compatible with the refuge’s 

purposes, resources and management objectives. Both refuges encourage family-oriented sport hunting 

consistent with promoting positive hunting values, hunter ethics such as fair chase, and provide 

participants with reasonable harvest opportunities, less crowding, less competition, fewer conflicts 

between hunters, relatively undisturbed wildlife, greater hunter safety, less than average crippling loss, 

and less interference from or dependence on mechanized aspects of the sport. Commercial guiding 

activities authorized on refuge lands should contribute to these policies. 

Permit holders cannot sublet any part of their permit and are prohibited from subcontracting clients with 

any other guide. 

All applicants are responsible for making their own investigations as to the economic feasibility of any 

proposal, facts about the area, and estimates of potential business opportunity. 

It will be the responsibility of all permit holders selected under this prospectus to adhere to all permit 

conditions and work diligently to minimize conflicts with other users. 

For additional information contact Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex, P.O. Box 111, Lakeview, OR 

97630 (541) 947-3315, Hart Mountain NAR (541) 947-2731, or Sheldon NWR (775) 941-0199, 

weekdays between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. 

 
4 

II. AREA DESCRIPTION

Hart Mountain NAR 

Hart Mountain NAR was established in 1936, with the help and support of local residents, as “a range 

and breeding ground for pronghorn and other wildlife.” Hart Mountain NAR is located in east-central 

Lake County, Oregon, and is situated within the northwestern Great Basin. The total area encompassed 

within the executive borders of the refuge equals 275,173 acres. Including refuge lands outside these 

borders brings the total to 277,893 acres. Within the executive borders of the refuge, 11,998 acres remain 

as state inholdings, 14,600 acres remain as private and county inholdings, and the remaining 251,295 

acres are refuge lands. 

Sheldon NWR 

Sheldon was set aside in the 1930s for the conservation and development of natural wildlife resources, 

primarily pronghorn, and for the protection and improvement of public grazing lands and natural forage 

resources. The refuge encompasses approximately 575,000 acres of sagebrush-steppe in the northwestern 

corner of Nevada. Topography of the area is characterized by large tablelands and several mountain 

ranges separated by stream valleys and, in some cases, steep gorges. Elevations range from over 7,000 

feet on the tables and mountain tops to 4,000 feet in the lowlands in the northeast portion of the refuge. 

Surface water supplies are limited with annual precipitation averaging 7 inches at the lower elevations on 

the eastern end to 13 inches at the higher elevations on the western end. 

Vegetation comprises shrub-steppe communities dominated by big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and 

bitterbrush. Stands of mountain mahogany are found on the higher elevations throughout the Refuge, 

western juniper is prevalent at higher elevations on the western end of the refuge, and greasewood and 

four-wing saltbush are common at lower elevations on the east end. Aspen and willow stands are limited 

to snow pockets and stringer meadows. 
5

III. DEFINITIONS

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, SheldonHart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Guide. For purposes of this prospectus, "Guide" means to provide, for compensation or with the intent 

or with an agreement to receive compensation, services, equipment, or facilities to a big game hunter in 

the field by a person who accompanies or is present with the big game hunter in the field either 

personally or through an assistant; in this paragraph, “services” includes: 

(A) contracting to guide or outfit big game guide hunts; 

(B) stalking, pursuing, tracking, killing, or attempting to kill big game; 

(C) packing, preparing, salvaging, or caring for meat, except that which is required to properly and 

safely load the meat on the mode of transportation being used by a transporter; 

(D) field preparation of trophies, including skinning and caping; 

(E) selling, leasing, or renting goods when the transaction occurs in the field; 

(F) using guiding or outfitting equipment, including spotting scopes and firearms, for the benefit of a 

hunter; and 

(G) providing camping or hunting equipment or supplies, which are already located in the field. 

Operations Plan. A narrative description of the proposed commercial hunting operation, which contains 

all information required in Form A of this prospectus.

Party Size. The number of people (including guides, clients, pilots, and any other employees of the 

holder) who are authorized to be in a use area, by the terms of a special use permit. 

Permit Holder or Permittee. An individual who is selected through this prospectus and who is issued a 

special use permit. 

Special Use Permit (Permit). A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service authorization required for all 

commercial uses of refuge lands and waters. 

Use Area. An area designated by the Service and offered to a commercial operator to provide guided big 

game hunting services for the public. 

Use Day. One calendar day (24 hours), or portion thereof, for each person using the refuge. Used as a 

measure of human use. Also called a visitor day. Includes use of the refuge by guides, clients, and any 

other individuals associated with the permit holder for any part of one day (24-hour period from midnight 

to midnight). 

Example: One guide, one assistant guide, and four clients fly in to the refuge at 8:00 A.M, on September 

1, spend three nights and leave at 2:00 P.M. on September 4. That equals 24 use days (6 people x 4 days 

= 24 use days); and 16 client use days (4 clients x 4 days = 16 client use days). 
6 

Base Camp. Seasonal camps used as the primary base of guide operations in the field for the entire, or 

most of the hunting season, and usually used by most or all of the clients during some portion of their 

hunt. 

Spike Camp. Smaller camps usually used only for short duration (e.g., portion of a client trip) while 

hunting outside the range of the base camp, and then disassembled and moved or removed when no 

longer in use for a particular hunt or season. 
7

IV. OFFERINGS

Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex is offering a maximum of five (5) and (10) Big Game Hunting 

Guide SUP’s on Hart Mountain NAR and Sheldon NWR, respectively, as described below. Each 

individual can submit only one application per guide use area offered. 

Offering:

Use area number (and location): Sheldon NWR and/or Hart Mountain

Term of permit(s): August 1, 2009–July 31, 2014 

Offering Type: Single use – one permittee 

Species available: Pronghorn antelope, mule deer, and/or bighorn sheep 
8 

V. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS 

Minimum Requirements (Applicant must submit copies of all documents with application in order to 

be evaluated, unless otherwise indicated) 

 * Applicant must possess a current State: 

 - guide license 

 - certification with appropriate State agency 

 * Applicant shall provide proof of liability insurance (minimum $300,000 each occurrence, 

$500,000 aggregate), with the Fish and Wildlife Service named as coinsured prior to issuance of 

the refuge special use permit. Insurance does not have to be purchased prior to applying. The 

Service may, during the life of this permit, conduct a review of insurance requirements to assess 

adequacy of our current minimum requirements. Applicants should be aware that if a 

determination is made to increase minimum insurance requirements, permittees holding the 

current minimum coverage will be required to increase their insurance coverage to comply with 

the new requirements. 

 * Applicant and his/her assistant guides must possess current first aid and CPR cards prior to 

issuance of the permit and maintain currency through the authorized use period. 

 * Applicant shall submit an affidavit signed by the applicant that affirms the applicant’s financial 

ability to perform according to the operations plan. 

Use Records

The permit holder will be required to furnish the refuge manager a guide use report each year showing 

the numbers of clients and client use days for each species hunted, numbers of each species harvested, 

applicable dates, and other data required by special conditions of the special use permit, and provide a 

copy of the State’s hunt report for each client. This report must be provided by December 31 for all uses 

during that calendar year unless the permit requires otherwise. This report shall be certified by the permit 

holder as being complete and accurate. 

Performance Evaluations

Permit holders will be checked periodically to determine compliance with the permit conditions and 

operations plan. Evaluations will be based upon compliance inspections, discussions with clients, etc. 

The permit holder will be advised of deficiencies and any legal actions. 

Fees

Fees are required for commercial use of refuge lands. Holders of special use permits awarded under this 

prospectus will be required to pay a $250 administrative fee for each permit, annual fees for use and 

occupancy of refuge lands (i.e., cabins, tent platforms, campsite structures, caches, etc.), and client use 

day fees in accordance with Service Regional Policy. 

Total Allowable Use 
9

The Service anticipates the use allowed under the refuge permit will remain the same throughout the time 

period covered by the permit. However, it is not guaranteed. Use may be adjusted annually by the 

Service, if necessary due to regulation changes, environmental or resource concerns, or other 

management needs that may warrant adjustment. 

General Terms 

1. The government reserves the right to not award portions or all of some use areas being offered; 

extend the date for receiving the proposals; and reject any or all proposals. 

2. Applications containing false or incomplete information may be rejected by the Service. If a permit 

has been issued based on false or incomplete information, it may be terminated at any time. 

3. The Service will use the information submitted with the original applications to rank applicants and 

award permits. However, the Service also reserves the right to contact all applicants for any offering 

for additional information, or to evaluate other sources of information prior to award. 

4. Economic uses on national wildlife refuges must be approved by an authorized officer (50 CFR 

29.1). Successful applicants will be issued special use permits authorizing and governing use and 

occupancy of refuge lands under the National Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee) and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-3). Such uses are subject to fees established 

by the Service. Permits issued in response to this prospectus will only authorize commercial big 

game guiding activities allowed under a big game guide license by the States of Oregon or Nevada, 

and specified in the permit holder’s approved plan of operations. Other commercial activities (e.g., 

incidental sport fish guiding or guiding for small game/migratory birds) will be prohibited without 

the prior written approval of the refuge manager. 

5. The permit does not authorize use of other private or state lands. 

6. Any oral statement by any representative of the government, modifying or changing any conditions 

of this prospectus is an expression of opinion only and confers no right upon any applicant. 

7. In the event that a contradiction exists between conditions in the prospectus or sample permit and the 

conditions in the permit holder's special use permit, the conditions in the special use permit will 

govern. 

8. The permit holder’s operation plan, as amended and accepted by the Service, will be incorporated as 

a special condition of the holder’s permit. By accepting the permit, the holder must conduct his/her 

commercial guiding operations in adherence with the plan of operations, as well as other permit 

conditions. Any deviation from the permit conditions or approved operations plan requires prior 

written approval from the Refuge Manager. In the event that a contradiction exists between the 

permit holder’s proposal and the conditions in the holder's special use permit, the conditions in the 

special use permit will govern. 

9. All costs incurred by the applicants for items submitted for this prospectus shall be the sole 

responsibility of the applicant. 

Freedom of Information Act
10 

All proposals submitted in response to this prospectus will be disclosed by the Department of the Interior 

to any person upon request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. The Service 

believes that it is not necessary for applicants to provide trade secrets or confidential commercial or 

financial information when completing their proposals. Therefore, inclusion of such information is 

highly discouraged. However, if the applicant chooses to include commercial or financial information in 

the application which the applicant believes to be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the cover page of each copy of the proposal shall include an attachment 

with the following statement: 

“The information specifically identified on pages __, __, __, etc., of this proposal constitutes 

confidential commercial and financial information which the applicant believes to be exempt from 

disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The applicant requests that this information not be 

disclosed to the public, except as may be required by law.” 

The applicant shall also specifically identify confidential commercial and financial information on the 

page of the proposal which it appears and shall mark each page with the following legend: 

“This page contains confidential commercial and financial information which the applicant believes 

to be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and which is subject to the 

legend contained on the cover page of this proposal.” 

In the event of a request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act, the burden will be on the 

applicant to establish that the information he/she requests to be withheld as privileged commercial or 

financial information, qualifies for nondisclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Information 

included in the proposals relating to personal privacy such as social security numbers, home telephone 

numbers, certain items in law enforcement reports, etc. is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act and the Privacy Act [5 U.S.C. § 552(a)] and will be withheld. 
11

VI. SELECTION OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS

A panel made up of Service employees will evaluate all properly completed applications or proposals for 

a refuge guide use area, using scoring factors and guidance developed by the Service for each of the 

criteria listed below. The average score assigned by panel members will determine the applicant’s final 

score for each of the criteria. The sum of scores for all criteria will determine the applicant’s total score. 

After scoring and ranking all applications for a guide use area, the ranking panel will recommend a list of 

the “best qualified applicants” to be considered for final selection for that area. The refuge managers for 

Sheldon NWR and Hart Mountain NAR will make the final selections for the guide use areas within the 

refuge that he/she manages. The refuge manager may either limit his/her selection to the list of best 

qualified applicants recommended by the ranking panel, or consider all applicants for the area that meet 

the minimum scores and qualifications. The refuge manager will base his/her final selection on the 

results of the ranking panel evaluations, the manager’s own examination of the applications, interviews 

of the applicants, client references, and other records or sources of information (e.g., permit files) that can 

document the applicant’s performance and qualifications. 

Applicants must attain the minimum scores indicated below in all of the criteria to be considered for 

selection by the refuge manager. In the last criterion, any applicant whose point deductions for history of 

violations/convictions reach or exceed 90 points, will be ineligible for a permit. 

 1) Ability to provide a high quality hunt and guiding service to the public: 

(Maximum 75 points; minimum 25 points). 

 2) Safety record, training, equipment and plan: 

(Maximum 60 points; minimum 25 points). 

 3) Demonstrated experience and knowledge of the guide area, and the terrain, climate, and species 

to be hunted: (Maximum 110 points; minimum 20 points). 

 4) Impacts of the proposed operation on wildlife and other refuge resources such as water quality, 

vegetation disturbance, and soil disturbance: 

(Maximum 110 points; minimum 55 points, 60 points for wilderness areas, proposed wilderness 

areas, or wilderness study areas). 

 5) Impacts of the proposed operation on other refuge users: (Maximum 45 points; minimum 20 

points, 24 points for wilderness areas, proposed wilderness areas, or wilderness study areas). 

 6) History of compliance with state and federal laws, regulations, and permitting requirements 

associated with commercial guiding: 

(points deducted for each offense; point deductions may not exceed 90 points). 
12 

VII. INSTRUCTIONS: HOW TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS 

All proposals must be submitted in writing to: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Attention: Complex Project Leader 

Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex 

PO Box 111 

Lakeview, OR 97630. 

All proposals must either be postmarked at the address indicated above, by [time, month numberday, four 

digit year]. An original and two copies of the complete application package(s) must be submitted 

for each refuge. Proposals must be submitted in sealed envelopes and must be signed by the individual 

submitting the proposal. Each sealed envelope shall be clearly marked “Sheldon NWR or Hart Mountain 

NAR Refuge Guiding Proposal.” Each package should be marked with the name, address, and telephone 

number of the applicant. Applications that are mailed must be sent by certified or registered mail, return 

receipt requested. 

Incomplete proposals will not be returned to the applicant for more information. Material 

submitted with the proposals will not be returned to the applicant. All proposals must be legible, either 

neatly printed in dark ink or typed. Proposals received after the above deadline will be considered 

late and will be returned to the sender without evaluation. 

You may apply as a partnership; however, each partner must be individually qualified to receive the 

permit, and partnership applications will be ranked by the lowest scoring partner. Each partner must sign 

the permit and be responsible for complying with permit conditions. 

The following instructions are provided to guide the applicant in completing the enclosed forms in 

Section VIII. The Service will not accept any form of proposal except as specified in the format 

under Section VIII. Elements of the proposal may be incorporated as conditions of the special use 

permit. 

An applicant who knowingly provides false or incomplete information will be disqualified.

Proposals must include: 

Cover Sheet. By signing this form the applicant attests that all information provided with the 

application is true and complete and authorizes the Service to verify any information provided. 

Form A - Proposed Operations Plan. Information on this form should describe the full services you 

will offer to the public. The information you provide in your proposed operations plan will be used in 

evaluating impacts to fish and wildlife resources, other refuge resources, and other refuge users. It 

will also be considered in evaluating your ability to provide a quality hunt and guiding service to the 

public, and your knowledge of the area applied for. Instructions on the form indicate the information 

required. 

Form B - History of Violations. You must report felony or misdemeanor convictions (including 

forfeiture of collateral and no contest pleas) for violations committed during the last 10 years by you, 

or any of your business partners, or employees, and any pending charges pursuant to the instructions 

on the form. You must also report convictions and pending charges for any violations committed by 

individuals who were being guided or accompanied by you or persons associated with your guiding 
13

business at the time of the violation. If a pending charge results in a conviction, the conviction could 

be cause to revoke a permit, depending on the nature and severity of such conviction. You must also 

provide copies of official law enforcement records or background reports of criminal history for you 

and your business partners, as explained on the form. 

Form C - Safety Record, Training, Equipment and Plan. Information on this form will be used to 

evaluate your past safety record and ability to provide clients with a safe hunt. 

Form D - Demonstrated Experience and Knowledge of the Guide Area, and the Terrain, Climate, and 

Species to be Hunted. Use this form to describe your experience and knowledge of the refuge being 

applied for, including the terrain, climate, and species to be hunted. 

Form E - List and Description of Property, Equipment and Accessories. Applicants must describe 

how they will be able to meet all applicable federal, state, and local requirements pertinent to their 

full operation. Applicants must also be able to demonstrate that all the equipment and accessories 

proposed for use in their operations are safe and adequate for general public service. 

Form F - Ability to Provide a High Quality Hunt and Guiding Service to the Public. Use this form to 

describe your ability to provide a high quality hunt and big game guiding service. 

Form G - Evaluation of Client References. Applicants must supply a complete list of clients for the 

past three years. The clients may be contacted by the Service for references to evaluate the quality of 

your past services. 
14 

VIII. INFORMATION REQUIRED

Please read the following forms carefully. Additional information relative to the questions found in these 

forms can be found in Section V. Be sure to provide in written form the information requested under 

each element in the format specified. Additional pages should be used if extra space is needed (use 

copies of or the same format as the continuation sheet form provided in Appendix A). Information 

beyond the minimum requested will be evaluated. All information is subject to verification by the 

Service and additional supporting data may be required. Be sure to retain a copy of the application for 

your records. The Service is under no obligation to return applications. 
15

SHELDON-HART MOUNTAIN NWR COMPLEX REFUGE GUIDING PROSPECTUS 

APPLICATION COVER SHEET

GUIDE USE AREA (SHELDON NWR / HART MOUNTAIN NAR) 

 circle one 

I certify that the information furnished herewith is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and 

belief. I authorize the Fish and Wildlife Service to verify the information furnished herewith. 

BY ____________________________________________________ 

 (Sign in ink as typed or printed below) 

____________________________________________________ 

 (Type or print full name) (Social Security Number) 

____________________________________________________ 

 (Doing business as) 

PERMANENT MAILING ADDRESS 

______________________________________________ 

______________________________________________ 

______________________________________________ 

ADDRESS DURING APPLICATION REVIEW PERIOD (IF DIFFERENT) 

_______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

TELEPHONE NUMBER: Daytime _______________________ 

 Other _______________________ 

DATE ________________________ 

The following information on Forms A through G must be submitted for your proposal to be 

evaluated.
16 

FORM A 

Proposed Operations Plan

Provide in narrative form a description of the services you propose to offer. Be sure to explain the 

services for each offering for which you are applying. This narrative should address at a minimum, the 

type and extent of services, including the following: 

1. Dates of operations 

2. Species to be hunted and type of hunt(s) provided for each (i.e., archery, muzzleloader) 

3. Maximum number of clients for each species, and each type of hunt 

4. Methods or strategies to reduce impacts on Refuge resources and other Refuge users 

5. Camp site traditionally used and methods to alleviate effects on other campers 

6. Methods to minimize interactions with other refuge hunters 

 

Applicant’s Name _____________________________ Form A - Page 1 
17

FORM B 

History of Violations

1. Within the past 10 years, have you or any of your former, current or proposed business partners, 

been convicted, forfeited collateral, pled nolo contendere, had a guiding license or privilege 

suspended, or been administratively penalized for violation of any federal, state, or local laws, 

regulations, or permit conditions, related to hunting, fishing (including commercial fishing), guiding, 

or for any DUI offense? Are you or any of your former, current, or proposed business partners under 

pending charges for any violation as indicated above? If the answer to either of these questions is 

yes, list each incident and give the name of the person, place of occurrence and name/address of the 

law enforcement agency and/or court involved (and provide explanation, if you desire). 

1. Within the past 10 years, have any of your employees while in your employment, been convicted, 

forfeited collateral, pled nolo contendere, had a guiding license or privilege suspended, or been 

administratively penalized for violation of any federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or permit 

conditions, related to hunting, fishing and guiding? Are any current or proposed employees presently 

under pending charges for any violation as indicated above? If the answer to either of these questions 

is yes, list each incident and give the name of the person, place of occurrence and name/address of the 

law enforcement agency and/or court involved (and provide explanation, if you desire). 

3. Within the past 10 years, has any client or other individual been convicted, forfeited collateral, pled 

nolo contendere, or is now under pending charges for any violation that occurred while being guided 

or accompanied by you or individuals associated with your guiding business? If yes, list each 

incident and give the name of the person, place of occurrence and name/address of the law 

enforcement agency and/or court involved (and provide explanation, if you desire). 

Applicant’s Name ___________________________ Form B - Page 1 
18 

FORM C 

Safety Record, Training, Equipment and Plan

 

1. List all accidents, incidents, and safety related violations or enforcement actions involving you or 

your guiding operations that have occurred within the past 10 years. 

2. List all safety related training that you, your partners, and your employees have taken (e.g., advanced 

first aid, ETT, EMT, arctic survival, wilderness first aid/medicine, cold water survival, etc.) Also 

describe any relevant experience/training in actual rescue or survival operations or programs, hunter 

safety programs, etc. Give dates of training or participation and indicate if certification is current (if 

applicable). Note: the successful applicant and assistant guides are required to submit current first 

aid and CPR certification prior to permit issuance. 

3. Describe your emergency preparedness or safety plan. List emergency communications equipment 

and address your plans, if any, in the event of mechanical failures, or other types of 

accidents/incidents. 

4. List all safety related equipment and supplies, in addition to the communications equipment listed 

above. 

Applicant’s Name _____________________________ Form C - Page 1 
19

FORM D 

Demonstrated Experience and Knowledge of the Guide Area, 

and the Terrain, Climate, and Species to be Hunted

1. Describe and document the number of years of your guiding experience (noting the number of days 

spent in the field each year) On Sheldon NWR and/or Hart Mountain NAR, during the past 20 years. 

2. Describe your guiding/outfitting experience during each of the last 10 years. For each year, list the 

number of clients, noting the number of days you spent in the field, identify the species hunted, 

number of each species taken, specific locations and type of terrain and climate where you guided or 

outfitted. Indicate the specific periods, if any, for which you were not serving as a registered big 

game guide. You should also indicate if you were the contracting guide. If you guided for activities 

other than big game guiding, describe the type of activities you guided, and the specific services you 

provided. 

4. You may document experience other than guiding for the same period that you believe is relevant 

(e.g., personal sport hunting, or fishing, resource management activities, etc.) Describe the 

experience or activity, the specific location involved, noting the amount of time in the field and, if 

applicable, the number of clients served each year and the number of each species of animals 

harvested. 

5. Describe any education and/or training you believe is relevant. 

Applicant’s Name ______________________________ Form D - Page 1 
20 

Form E

List and Description of Property, Equipment and Accessories

 1. Describe how the property, equipment and accessories proposed for use in your operation are 

safe and adequate for general public service.

 2. Describe how you will be able to meet all applicable federal, state, and local requirements 

pertinent to your proposed operation. 

Applicant’s Name ______________________________ Form E - Page 1 
21

FORM F 

Ability to Provide a High Quality Guiding Service to the Public

 1. Describe your business practices including proposed client rates; payment options; 

promotional strategies or efforts; reservation, cancellation and refund policies; and 

acknowledgement of risk forms. Submit your current advertisement leaflets, client price lists, 

hunter contract forms, or other literature that reflects your business practices. 

 2. Describe provisions for clients with disabilities. 

 3. Describe educational and/or interpretive services or programs provided to clients. 

 4. Describe drinking water supplies and method of treatment if appropriate. 

 5. Describe your knowledge, abilities, and experience in caring for meat, capes, and hides from 

big game. List the number of years and estimated number of animals of each species that you 

and/or your employees have taken care of (e.g., field dressed, skinned, caped, boned, 

butchered, etc.) Also, document any training that you or your employees have received in 

care of meat or trophies (e.g., taxidermy, meat cutting, etc.) 

 6. Describe your plan, methods, provisions, and facilities to salvage, care, and provide 

opportunity for utilization of meat from harvested animals. 

 

Applicant’s Name ______________________________ Form F - Page 1 
22 

FORM G

Evaluation of Client References

Provide a complete list of all big game hunting clients that you have contracted and/or personally guided 

since July 1, 2005. If you need to go back prior to this date in order to have a minimum of 10 clients, you 

may do so. Include full names; addresses; home telephone and other telephone numbers, if known; 

species hunted; year of hunt; whether you were the contracting guide; whether it was a guided or drop-off 

client; and whether the client was guided by you personally or by an assistant. 

If you are a recently registered guide and are unable to provide the requested list for a minimum of 10 

clients, simply indicate that on this form. 

 

Applicant’s Name ______________________________ Form G - Page 1 
23

CONTINUATION SHEET Appendix A 

Applicant’s Name____________________________ Form _____ Page _____ 
24 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix E. Implementation E-1 

Appendix E. Projects, Staff, and Facilities Needed to Implement the 

Alternatives 

E.1 Overview 

Implementation of the CCP alternatives would require changes in funding, which would be sought 

from a variety of sources. This plan would depend on additional congressional allocations, 

partnerships and grants, and adoption demand for horses and burros. There are no guarantees that 

additional Federal funds will be made available to implement any of these projects. Other sources of 

funds would need to be obtained (both public and private). Activities and projects identified would 

be implemented as funds become available. 

The CCP proposes several projects to be implemented over the next 15 years. Differences in funding 

for each alternative are due primarily to differences in feral horse and burro population management 

objectives; differences in the location, development, and necessary staffing for visitor facilities; and 

staffing changes necessary to implement prescribed burning and control of encroaching sagebrush 

and western juniper. All of these projects are included in the Refuge Management Information 

System (Refuge Operational Needs System [RONS] or Maintenance Management System [MMS]), 

which are used to request funding from Congress. The RONS documents proposed new projects to 

implement the CCP to meet refuge goals and objectives and legal mandates. 

Annual revenue sharing payments to Humboldt, Washoe, and Lake counties would continue. If the 

refuge expands through the purchase of inholdings (privately owned lands within the current 

approved boundary) or through an expanded refuge boundary, additional revenue sharing payments 

in lieu of tax payments will be made to the respective county. See Chapter 5 for a summary of the 

economic effects of the CCP’s implementation. 

Monitoring activities would be conducted on a percentage of all new and existing projects and 

activities to document wildlife populations and changes across time, habitat conditions, and 

responses to management practices. 

E.2 Costs to Implement CCP 

The following sections detail both one-time and recurring costs for staffing and projects under each 

alternative that are high priority or that are anticipated to have substantial costs associated with them. 

Some biological staff positions at Sheldon Refuge have been vacant for several years. Under all 

alternatives, funding for these positions would continue to be necessary and has been included. 

Therefore, costs to implement the CCP will be greater than refuge management costs in past years. 

Costs for staffing and projects that are either assumed to be the same across all alternatives or that are 

not anticipated to be substantial are included under basic categories such as staffing, maintenance, 

and operations. One-time costs reflect the initial costs associated with a project, such as the purchase 

of equipment, contracting services, construction, etc. Future operational and maintenance costs 

associated with the project are identified under recurring costs. 

E.2.1 One-Time Costs 

One-time costs are project costs that have a start-up cost associated with them, such constructing a 

new building or relocating a campground. Some are full project costs for projects that can be 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

E-2 Appendix E. Implementation 

completed in three years or less. One-time costs can include the cost of temporary or term salary 

associated with a short-term project. Salary for new positions and operational costs are reflected in 

operational or recurring costs. 

Funds for one-time costs will be sought through increases in refuge base funding, special project 

funds, grants, etc. Some projects also might require land acquisition funds, other special 

appropriations, or grants. 

Projects listed in Table E.1 show high-priority and major one-time costs for replacement of Catnip 

Reservoir Dam and replacement of the Sheldon Refuge Headquarters office and visitor information 

building, which would be included under all alternatives. The primary differences in one-time costs 

between the three alternatives are for relocation of the existing campgrounds to reduce resource 

impacts and for upgrades to the three most heavily used and more developed campgrounds. 

Table E.1 High-priority and Major One-time Costs 

Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes) 

Priority1

Reconstruction of the Catnip Reservoir Dam $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 H 

Construction of Park Ranger and Law 

Enforcement Officer Quarters at Sheldon 

Refuge Headquarters 

$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 M 

Replacement of Visitor Center and 

Headquarters 

$0 $2,700,000 $0 H 

Relocation of Campgrounds $0 $450,000 $225,000 L 

Upgrades to Virgin Valley, Big Spring, and 

Catnip Reservoir Campgrounds 

$0 $110,000 $0 M 

Total Fixed Costs $3,200,000 $6,460,000 $3,425,000 1 H=High; M= Medium; L= Low 

E.2.2. Operational (Recurring) Costs 

Operational costs reflect refuge spending of base funds allocated each year. These are also known as 

recurring costs and are usually associated with day-to-day operations and projects that last longer 

than three years. 

Table E.2 displays projected operating costs under the CCP. The CCP reflects increased funding 

needs for proposed feral horse and burro management; increases in public uses, facilities, and 

staffing; increased removal of encroaching western juniper and sagebrush, and new monitoring 

needs. This table includes salaries and operational expenditures such as travel, training, supplies, 

utilities, and annual maintenance costs. 

For comparison purposes, the costs for feral horse and burro management have been calculated as an 

annual average over the 15-year life of the CCP even though the entire amount would be needed 

within five years under Alternative 2 and within 10 years under Alternative 3. Increased recurring 

costs for maintenance supplies and equipment are primarily for maintenance of the proposed Sheldon 

Refuge Headquarters office and visitor center, additional staff housing, and additional campground 

facilities, as well as for the removal of water developments and restoration work. Increased funds for 

fire fuels reduction supplies and equipment would be needed to fully complete fire breaks and for 

mechanical removal of encroaching western juniper and sagebrush. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix E. Implementation E-3 

Reductions to biological staff salaries under Alternative 2 reflect shorter-term needs for a feral horse 

and burro specialist. Changes to fire and habitat management staff salaries reflect less need for 

prescribed fire staff. Additional maintenance, law enforcement, and public use staff would be needed 

to adequately administer refuge lands as visitation increases and to maintain and operate additional 

public use facilities. Under Alternative 3, additional maintenance staff would be needed to complete 

removal of water control structures and associated restoration work. 

Table E.2 includes costs for permanent and seasonal staff needed year after year. It does not include 

staff costs associated with special projects; these are summarized in Table E.1. 

Table E.2 Operational (Recurring) Costs 

Alt 1 

(no action) 

Alt 2 

(preferred) 

Alt 3 

(natural 

processes) 

Priority1

Feral Horse and Burro Management $675,000 $333,000 $523,000 H 

Maintenance Supplies and Equipment $100,000 $170,000 $100,000 H 

Fire Fuels Reduction and Habitat Management 

Supplies and Equipment 

$47,000 $87,000 $47,000 H 

Administrative and Refuge Management Staff 

Salaries 

$278,000 $278,000 $278,000 H 

Biological Staff Salaries $206,000 $191,000 $206,000 H 

Fire and Habitat Management Staff Salaries $266,000 $257,000 $164,000 H 

Maintenance Staff Salaries $148,000 $164,000 $164,000 H 

Public Use and Law Enforcement Staff Salaries $83,000 $174,000 $83,000 M 

Total Operational (Recurring) Costs $1,803,000 $1,654,000 $1,565,000 1

H=High; M= Medium; L= Low 

E.2.3. Additional Planning to Implement the CCP 

The following step-down management plans would be completed to support implementation of the 

CCP. Timeframes for completion following the Record of Decision for the CCP/EIS are estimated 

for each plan, but would depend upon the progress and scheduling of other Sheldon-Hart Mountain 

Refuge Complex planning efforts, available staffing, and funding. 

 Minerals and Mining Management Plan (5-7 years) 

 Wilderness Stewardship Plan (3-5 years) 

 Transportation Management Plan (8-10 years) 

 Visitor Services Plan (3-4 years) 

 Law Enforcement Plan (2-5 years) 

 Cultural Resources Management Plan (8 years) 

 Cold-water Fisheries Management Plan (2-3 years) 

 Habitat Management Plan (4-6 years) 

 Integrated Pest Management Plan (5-7 years) 

E.2.4. Additional Staffing to Implement the CCP 

The estimated costs for implementing the preferred alternative, as indicated in Table E.2, reflect the 

addition of permanent staff necessary to implement the CCP within 15 years. These staffing needs 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

E-4 Appendix E. Implementation 

are in addition to 25 permanent and temporary positions currently filled and 15 positions that are 

currently vacant. 

 Law Enforcement Officer (1 Full-time Equivalent [FTE] position, GS-7): Conduct permit 

compliance checks and enforcement, increase enforcement of vehicle and travel 

management regulations, and provide additional visitor contact and enforcement 

associated with public use and use of historic structures. 

 Park Ranger (1 FTE, GS-7): Provide direct supervision for volunteers, volunteer projects; 

administer visitor center; conduct public use, campsite, wilderness, and route inventory 

and monitoring; maintain and monitor historic public use structures; assist with additional 

wilderness project workload using primitive/minimum tools; and administer permit 

systems for off-highway vehicles and campgrounds. 

 Refuge Operations Specialist (1 FTE, GS-9): Assist with development of step-down 

plans, project oversight, habitat evaluation, and invasive species and juniper treatment 

and control. 

 Maintenance Staff (0.5 FTE, WG-4): Assist with upgrading campgrounds, constructing 

and maintaining additional facilities (visitor center, Kinney Camp, campgrounds), 

relocating campgrounds, rehabilitating abandoned roads and campgrounds, and 

maintaining additional signs. 

 Maintenance Staff (0.5 FTE, WG-4): Assist with boundary fence monitoring, 

maintenance, and repair. 

 Fuels Crew Leader (0.6 FTE, GS-6): Juniper removal and other mechanical habitat 

treatments. 

 Fuels Crew (0.25 FTE each, GS-4): Three seasonal crew members to conduct juniper 

removal and other mechanical habitat treatments. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review F-1 

Appendix F. Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness 

Inventory and Review Summary 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

F-2 Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review 

Table of Contents 

F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

F.1.1 Wilderness Review Process ......................................................................................................... 3

F.1.1.1 Inventory Criteria .................................................................................................................. 3

F.1.1.2 Inventory Process .................................................................................................................. 6

F.1.1.3 Wilderness Inventory Summary ............................................................................................ 6

F.2 Wilderness Study Areas.......................................................................................................... 15

F.3 Refuge Recommendations for WSAs .................................................................................... 15

F.3.1 Big Mountain WSA ................................................................................................................... 16

F.3.2 Sage Hen Hills WSA ................................................................................................................. 16

F.3.3 Gooch Table WSA ..................................................................................................................... 16

F.3.4 Fish Creek Mountain WSA ....................................................................................................... 17

F.3.5 Rye Creek WSA ........................................................................................................................ 17

F.3.6 Round Mountain WSA .............................................................................................................. 17

F.3.7 Catnip Mountain WSA .............................................................................................................. 17

F.3.8 Big Spring Table WSA .............................................................................................................. 18

F.3.9 Railroad Point WSA .................................................................................................................. 18

F.3.10 Alkali Peak WSA ....................................................................................................................... 19

F.3.11 Hell Creek WSA ........................................................................................................................ 19

F.3.12 Guano Creek WSA .................................................................................................................... 19

F.3.13 Massacre Rim Contiguous WSA ............................................................................................... 20

F.3.14 Sheldon Contiguous Inholdings WSA ....................................................................................... 20

F.3.15 Fish Creek Table-Little Catnip WSA ........................................................................................ 20

F.3.16 Bateman WSA ........................................................................................................................... 20

F.3.17 Tenmile WSA ............................................................................................................................ 20

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 21

Tables 

Table F.1 Summary of Wilderness Inventory on Sheldon NWR by Unit ................................................. 8

Figures 

Figure F.1 Sheldon Refuge Wilderness Inventory Units. .......................................................................... 7
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review F-3 

F.1 Introduction 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge was initially established by Executive Order in 1931 as a refuge 

and breeding ground for wild animals and birds. Additional lands were acquired later, and the 

refuge’s purpose was broadened to include the conservation and development of natural wildlife 

resources and the protection and improvement of public grazing lands and natural forage resources. 

After a comprehensive inventory and evaluation of the wilderness character and value of the entire 

Sheldon Refuge with public input and involvement, the Service prepared an environmental impact 

statement and recommended portions of Sheldon Refuge for designation as wilderness under the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. This recommendation was later expanded, and a proposal was submitted to 

Congress by the President in 1974. At that time, the President requested Congress not act on his 

proposal until a mineral survey for Sheldon Refuge could be completed. The mineral survey was 

completed by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1975, but since that time Congress has taken no action 

to designate any portion of Sheldon Refuge as wilderness. 

F.1.1 Wilderness Review Process 

The purpose of a wilderness review is to identify and recommend for congressional designation 

National Wildlife Refuge System (System) lands and waters that merit inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness reviews are a required element of CCPs and are 

conducted in accordance with the Service’s wilderness review and evaluation policy outlined in 610 

FW 4 and in accordance with the refuge planning process outlined in 602 FW 1 and 3, including 

public involvement and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. 

There are three phases to a wilderness review: 1) inventory, 2) study, and 3) recommendation. 

1) Wilderness Inventory. The wilderness inventory identifies those lands within the refuge that 

might have wilderness character and satisfy the definition of wilderness as stated in the 

Wilderness Act and in Service Policy. The inventory preliminarily classifies each unit of 

land that meets these requirements as a wilderness study area (WSA). 

2) Wilderness Study. The wilderness study further evaluates each WSA for values, resources, 

and uses to determine if each one merits recommendation from the Service to the Secretary 

of the Interior as wilderness. 

3) Wilderness Recommendation. The recommendation phase consists of forwarding or 

reporting recommendations for wilderness designation from the Director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, through the Secretary of the Interior, and the President to Congress in a 

wilderness study report. 

This appendix summarizes the wilderness inventory, study, and recommendations for the preferred 

alternative included in the Sheldon Refuge CCP. The complete 2010 Sheldon Refuge Wilderness 

Review is available and can be found on the Sheldon Refuge planning website. 

F.1.1.1 Inventory Criteria 

The wilderness inventory is a broad look at the planning area to identify WSAs. These are roadless 

areas that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness identified in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act: 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

F-4 Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review 

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, 

is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by 

man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further 

defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval 

character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is 

protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions, and which: (1) generally 

appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s 

work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of 

sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and 

(4) may also contain ecological, geological or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, 

or historical value. 

A WSA must appear natural, provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, 

meet the size criteria, and may provide other supplemental values. The process for identification of 

roadless areas in the Sheldon NWR and application of the wilderness criteria are described in the 

following sections. 

Identification of Roadless Areas 

Identification of roadless areas required gathering and evaluating land status maps, land uses, road 

inventory data, and aerial photographs for Sheldon Refuge. By definition, a “roadless area” is a 

reasonably compact area of undeveloped Federal land that has the general characteristics of a 

wilderness and within which there is no improved road suitable for public travel by means of fourwheeled, motorized vehicles intended primarily for highway use. A route maintained solely by the 

passage of vehicles does not constitute a road (610 FW 1.5 Z). 

Using the Service’s definition of a road, there are six roaded areas within Sheldon Refuge. These 

areas include Highway 140, County Roads 34 and 34A, County Road 8A, Summit Lake Road, Bog 

Hot Road, and the Duffurena/Virgin Valley Road. All other routes within Sheldon Refuge are 

maintained solely by the passage of vehicles and do not constitute roads for the purposes of the 

Sheldon Refuge Wilderness Inventory completed in 2010. 

Evaluation of the Naturalness Criteria 

In addition to being roadless, a WSA must meet the naturalness criteria. Section 2(c) defines 

wilderness as an area that “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature 

with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” An area is apparently natural if it looks 

natural to the average visitor who is not familiar with historic conditions or human influences in a 

given area. Areas that have been or are in the process of being restored to a substantially natural 

appearance following previous significant disturbances such as grazing or agriculture may still be 

found suitable. 

An area may also meet the naturalness criteria if human impacts are relatively minor and 

substantially unnoticeable in the unit as a whole. Minor impacts may include trails, fire towers, fire 

breaks, pit toilets, fire rings, hitching posts, snow gauges, research monitoring devices, wildlife 

enhancement facilities (e.g., guzzlers or exclosures), fencing, spring developments, and small 

reservoirs. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review F-5 

Established or proposed refuge management activities or refuge uses that require the use of 

temporary roads, motor vehicles, motorized equipment, mechanical transport, landing of aircraft, 

structures, and installations generally prohibited within designated wilderness or “sights and sounds” 

of human impacts and activities outside the boundary of the unit do not disqualify an area from 

meeting the wilderness naturalness criteria. The physical impacts of these practices within the unit 

should be the focus of the naturalness evaluation. We evaluate existing and proposed refuge 

management activities and refuge uses in the study phase of the wilderness review. 

Evaluation of Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 

In addition to meeting the size and naturalness criteria, a WSA must provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. An area does not have to possess outstanding 

opportunities for both solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation and does not need to have 

outstanding opportunities on every acre. Further, an area does not have to be open to public use and 

access to qualify under this criteria; Congress has designated a number of wilderness areas in the 

Refuge System that are closed to public access to protect resource values. 

Opportunities for solitude refer to the ability of a visitor to be alone and secluded from other visitors 

in the area. Primitive and unconfined recreation means non-motorized, dispersed outdoor recreation 

activities that are compatible and do not require developed facilities or mechanical transport. These 

primitive recreation activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge, risk, self-reliance, 

and adventure. 

An outstanding opportunity for solitude may be present in an area offering only limited primitive 

recreation potential. Conversely, an area may be so attractive for primitive and unconfined 

recreational use that it would be difficult to maintain opportunities for solitude (e.g., around water). 

Opportunities are evaluated for each area on its own merits independent from other areas. When an 

area is contiguous to proposed wilderness, recommended wilderness, a WSA, or other Federal lands 

that a land management agency has already determined to have wilderness character (i.e., Service, 

Bureau of Land Management [BLM], National Park Service, or U.S. Forest Service lands), an 

additional evaluation of outstanding opportunities is not required. 

Evaluation of the Size Criteria 

Roadless areas or roadless islands meet the size criteria if any one of the following standards apply: 

 An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres. State and private lands are not included in making 

this acreage determination. 

 A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as an area surrounded by 

permanent waters or that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by 

topographical or ecological features. 

 An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition and of a size suitable for 

wilderness management. 

 An area of less than 5,000 contiguous federal acres that is contiguous with a designated 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another Federal 

managing agency such as the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, or BLM. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

F-6 Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review 

Evaluation of Supplemental Values 

Supplemental values are defined by the Wilderness Act as “ecological, geological, or other features 

of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value.” These values are not required for wilderness, but 

their presence should be documented. 

F.1.1.2 Inventory Process 

Refuge staff assessed several factors during the inventory process: the location of the existing 1974 

proposed wilderness area boundaries1

, improved roads, well-used and long-standing unimproved 

roads determined necessary for vehicle access, natural features such as cliffs, canyons, and mountain 

ranges, and the location of disconnected Refuge lands. From this assessment, refuge staff identified 

34 discrete wilderness inventory units (see Figure F.1 for an overview of all Sheldon Refuge 

Wilderness Inventory Units). 

F.1.1.3 Wilderness Inventory Summary 

Thirty-four Wilderness Inventory Units were identified during the inventory process. Thirteen 

Wilderness Inventory Units represent the eight areas proposed for wilderness designation in 1974. 

Five of the eight proposed wilderness areas (Rye Creek, Round Mountain, Catnip Mountain, Big 

Mountain, and Sage Hen Hills WSAs) are determined to still meet the criteria for wilderness study 

throughout their boundaries. As a result the boundaries for these WSAs remain unchanged from the 

1974 Wilderness Proposal. For the remaining three proposed wilderness areas (Big Spring, Gooch 

Table, and Alkali Peak), natural conditions, opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation, or size/contiguous status (through acquisition) have changed to the extent that 

portions either no longer meet the criteria and have been removed from wilderness study or now do 

meet criteria and have been added for wilderness study. As a result, the recommended boundaries 

for these three areas have been adjusted (see Figure F.1 for general location). An explanation for 

these adjustments is included in Table F.1. 

Of the 21 Wilderness Inventory Units that have not been previously proposed for designation, 10 are 

determined to meet the criteria for further wilderness study and have been identified as WSAs. Of 

the 11 remaining units not identified as WSAs, all but one (Badger Mountain) were determined to not 

meet the criteria for wilderness study in both the 1973 and 2009 wilderness inventories and for 

largely the same reasons. 

Table F.1 summarizes results of the wilderness inventory for Sheldon Refuge. A detailed description 

of the wilderness character for each of the 34 wilderness inventory units based upon the wilderness 

inventory criteria discussed previously is included in the Sheldon Refuge Wilderness Review 

(USFWS 2010). 

 

1

 The Proposed Wilderness Area boundaries have been corrected and adjusted slightly from earlier refuge planning 

documents based upon a detailed review of the final 1974 Sheldon Refuge Wilderness Proposal submitted to 

Congress and updated digital land status and refuge boundary data. 
Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review F-7 

Figure F.1 Sheldon Refuge Wilderness Inventory Units. 
F-8 Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review 

Table F.1 Summary of Wilderness Inventory on Sheldon NWR by Unit Refuge Unit Proposed 

Wilderness 

Area (1974) 

Acres Criteria 1: Naturalness Criteria 2: Outstanding Opportunities for 

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined 

Recreation 

(at least one of three required) 

Criteria 3: 

Size 

2a 2b 2c 

(2a) has outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude

(2b) has 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for a primitive 

and unconfined 

type of 

recreation 

(2c) is 

contiguou

s to 

proposed 

wildernes

s, 

recomme

nded 

wildernes

s, or 

WSA 

Alkali Peak Unit 1 PWA 51,248 Yes Yes Yes Badger Mountain Unit 2 

 37,252 No: The number and density 

of primitive vehicle routes and impacts from past wildfire suppression activities detract from the overall natural appearance of the unit 

No: Ongoing refuge management activities and relatively high amounts of visitation during summer and fall hunting seasons reduce opportunities for solitude 

No: Recreation activities within this unit are supported by motorized vehicles and a network of primitive motorized routes 

 Yes 

Bateman Unit 3 5,772 Yes Yes Yes Big Mountain Unit 4 

PWA 23,361 Yes Yes Yes 
Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review F-9 

Refuge Unit Proposed 

Wilderness 

Area (1974) 

Acres Criteria 1: Naturalness Criteria 2: Outstanding Opportunities for 

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined 

Recreation 

(at least one of three required) 

Criteria 3: 

Size 

2a 2b 2c 

Big Spring Creek 5 Unit 

PWA 13,191 No: A large number of 

mining disturbances, including disturbance unnoticed during 1974 inventory or which have occurred after the 1974 wilderness proposal are readily apparent from areas within the unit and detract from the natural appearance of the unit as a whole 

 Yes Yes 

Big Spring Table Unit 6 

PWA 52,200 Yes Yes Yes 

Bog Hot Unit 7 16,662 No: The unit does not appear 

natural as a whole due to the presence of permanent roads and additional developments on private lands 

No: Activities and uses associated with private inholdings reduce opportunities for solitude or a primitive type of recreation 

 Yes 

Catnip Mountain Unit 8 

PWA 33,227 Yes Yes Yes 

Fish Creek Mountain Unit 9 

PWA 13,786 Yes Yes Yes 
F-10 Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review 

Refuge Unit Proposed 

Wilderness 

Area (1974) 

Acres Criteria 1: Naturalness Criteria 2: Outstanding Opportunities for 

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined 

Recreation 

(at least one of three required) 

Criteria 3: 

Size 

2a 2b 2c 

Fish Creek Table—Little Catnip Unit 10 

 43,609 Yes: One of the most 

pristine and undeveloped portions of Sheldon Refuge; Swan Lake Reservoir is noticeable, but does not detract from the natural appearance of the unit as a whole 

Yes: Few visitors, very rugged remote terrain, which provides outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation in an unconfined setting 

Yes Yes 

Gooch Camp Unit 11 

 16,957 No: Density of roads and 

other developments give the appearance of unnatural conditions throughout the unit as a whole 

No: The presence of major access roads, highways, developed campgrounds, and management facilities provide little or no opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation 

 Yes 

Gooch Table Unit 12 

PWA 40,038 Yes Yes Yes 

Guano Creek Unit 13 

 4,133 Yes Yes Yes 

Hell Creek Unit 14 13,969 Yes Yes Yes Horse Pasture Unit 15 

 2,651 Yes No No No No 

IXL Unit 16 2,506 No: Developments, 

structures, and manipulations from water control and farming are readily apparent throughout the majority of the unit 

 Yes Yes 
Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review F-11 

Refuge Unit Proposed 

Wilderness 

Area (1974) 

Acres Criteria 1: Naturalness Criteria 2: Outstanding Opportunities for 

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined 

Recreation 

(at least one of three required) 

Criteria 3: 

Size 

2a 2b 2c 

Jackass Flats Unit 17 

 7,815 Yes Yes Yes 

Last Chance Unit 18 

 1,886 No: Density and size of 

roads and historic livestock developments give the appearance of unnatural conditions throughout the unit as a whole 

 Yes Yes 

Little Sheldon Unit 19 

 11,722 No: Density of roads and 

other developments give the appearance of unnatural conditions throughout the unit as a whole 

 Yes Yes 

Massacre Rim Contiguous Unit 20 

 334 Yes: Some historic livestock 

developments and nearby roads and/or motorized trails, but parcels appear natural, especially when considered in context of the contiguous BLM WSA 

 Yes Yes 

Massacre Rim Discontiguous Unit 21 

 142 No: Surrounded by lands 

found not suitable for wilderness study by BLM and that contain various historic developments for livestock management 

No: Opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation greatly affected by proximity (less than 0.25 mile) to motorized vehicle routes and other mechanized and motorized uses 

 No 
F-12 Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review 

Refuge Unit Proposed 

Wilderness 

Area (1974) 

Acres Criteria 1: Naturalness Criteria 2: Outstanding Opportunities for 

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined 

Recreation 

(at least one of three required) 

Criteria 3: 

Size 

2a 2b 2c 

Mud Springs Unit 22 

PWA 4,641 No: A number of 

developments in this portion of the unit have been enlarged, improved, or added since the 1974 proposal; the size and density of these developments now detract from the substantially natural appearance of the unit as a whole 

 Yes Yes 

Onion Lake Unit 23 

PWA 4,252 No: Density of historic 

livestock developments, existing trails, and Onion Reservoir are readily apparent and detract from the overall natural appearance of the unit as a whole 

 Yes Yes 

Rock Springs Basin Unit 24 

 7,220 No Yes Yes 

Rodero Unit 25 PWA 28,321 No: Density of historic 

livestock developments, camping, and existing trails are readily apparent and detract from the overall natural appearance of the unit as a whole 

 Yes Yes 

Round Mountain Unit 26 

PWA 36,284 Yes Yes Yes 

Rye Creek Unit 27 PWA 28,151 Yes Yes Yes 
Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review F-13 

Refuge Unit Proposed 

Wilderness 

Area (1974) 

Acres Criteria 1: Naturalness Criteria 2: Outstanding Opportunities for 

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined 

Recreation 

(at least one of three required) 

Criteria 3: 

Size 

2a 2b 2c 

Sage Hen Hills Unit 28 

PWA 21,068 Yes Yes Yes 

Sagebrush Basin Unit 29 

 4,241 Yes: Some disturbance from 

past mineral prospecting and mining, which are gradually returning to a more natural appearance and do not detract from the natural appearance of the unit as a whole 

 Yes Yes 

Sheldon Contiguous WSA Inholding Unit 30 

 119 Yes: Parcels are remote, 

undeveloped areas within an existing recommended BLM WSA 

 Yes Yes 

Tenmile Unit 31 3,702 Yes Yes Yes Yes Thousand Creek Unit 32 

 10,766 No: The unit does not appear 

natural as a whole due to the presence of permanent roads and additional developments on private lands 

No: Activities and uses associated existing roads and private lands reduce opportunities for solitude or a primitive type of recreation 

 Yes 

Upper Virgin Creek/Alkali Reservoir Unit 33 

 5,715 Yes Yes Yes 
F-14 Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review 

Refuge Unit Proposed 

Wilderness 

Area (1974) 

Acres Criteria 1: Naturalness Criteria 2: Outstanding Opportunities for 

Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined 

Recreation 

(at least one of three required) 

Criteria 3: 

Size 

2a 2b 2c 

Virgin Valley Unit 34 

 31,220 No: The number, size, and, 

density of developments and disturbances resulting from mining, ranching, and refuge management activities make this the least naturally appearing unit within Sheldon Refuge; it is unlikely this unit would appear natural even with extensive restoration and rehabilitation or a substantial amount of time to naturally recover 

No: Constant commercial mining activities, pubic use, motorized vehicle use, and other activities eliminate nearly all opportunities for solitude or a primitive type of recreation 

No: Recreation activities and uses within the unit are highly mechanized, supported by modern development, and controlled through rules and regulation 

 Yes 

1 Unit qualifies as WSA if it meets criteria 1, 2a or 2b or 2c, and 3.
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review F-15 

F.2 Wilderness Study Areas 

Based upon the wilderness review for Sheldon Refuge, 15 of the 34 wilderness inventory units 

totaling 189,389 acres were determined not suitable for wilderness study because they do not meet 

the minimum criteria for wilderness character. The remaining 19 of the 34 distinct and separate units 

totaling 388,772 acres were identified as meeting the definition of wilderness and meeting the criteria 

for wilderness study. This total area constitutes 67% of the entire 578,161 acres evaluated for 

wilderness study. These 19 units make up the following 17 wilderness study areas (WSAs): 

 Big Mountain WSA 

 Sage Hen Hills WSA 

 Gooch Table WSA 

 Fish Creek Mountain WSA 

 Rye Creek WSA 

 Round Mountain WSA 

 Catnip Mountain WSA 

 Big Spring Table WSA (includes portions of the Big Spring Table and Jackass Flats units) 

 Railroad Point WSA (includes portions of the Big Spring Table and Jackass Flats units) 

 Alkali Peak WSA (includes Alkali Peak and Upper Virgin Creek/ Alkali Reservoir units) 

 Hell Creek WSA 

 Guano Creek WSA 

 Massacre Rim Contiguous WSA 

 Sheldon Contiguous Inholdings WSA 

 Fish Creek Table-Little Catnip WSA 

 Bateman WSA 

 Tenmile WSA 

F.3 Refuge Recommendations for WSAs 

In total, Sheldon Refuge recommends 341,495 acres or 88% of the 388,772 acres found suitable for 

wilderness study be designated by Congress as wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Nearly all of Sheldon Refuge possesses wilderness character but also has been influenced by human 

activities. Several WSAs determined to meet the definition of wilderness for the purposes of this 

review include lands previously proposed for wilderness designation. These WSAs continue to 

contain valuable wilderness resources and, with the exception of vehicle trespass, have been 

effectively managed to meet the mission of the Service, the purposes for Sheldon Refuge, and the 

purposes of the Wilderness Act for the past 36 years. Upon further review, Sheldon Refuge has 

determined the existing situation is not substantially different so as to preclude the effective and 

continued management of these lands as wilderness. Sheldon Refuge has also determined that lands 

within certain WSAs acquired subsequent to the initial 1974 wilderness recommendation are 

substantially similar to surrounding proposed wilderness areas both in terms of resource values and 

management requirements. Therefore, Sheldon Refuge makes the following recommendations for 

these WSAs. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

F-16 Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review 

F.3.1 Big Mountain WSA 

The entire 23,361-acre Big Mountain WSA is recommended for wilderness designation. This 

recommendation is consistent with the original 1974 recommendation and proposal. Today there are 

six additional permanent structures (i.e., guzzlers) within the WSA. No routes provide access to any 

of the six guzzlers and use of a helicopter would likely be necessary to conduct major maintenance or 

replacement, similar to initial construction. However, these guzzlers and the use of aircraft for their 

maintenance would not preclude the designation or management of this area as wilderness. Other 

developments and disturbances noted during the 1974 wilderness inventory are less visible today and 

no other management manipulation or intrusion has been identified as necessary for the management 

of the Big Mountain WSA, which would be inconsistent with wilderness purposes. 

F.3.2 Sage Hen Hills WSA 

The entire 21,068-acre Sage Hen Hills WSA is recommended for designation as wilderness. This is 

not consistent with the original 1974 recommendation. No specific reason was given as to why this 

unit was not recommended for wilderness designation in 1974, but Map 6 of the Wilderness Study 

Report (USFWS 1974) indicated “range rehabilitation” was planned for nearly the entire unit. 

Presumably, activities would have included additional fencing and intensive artificial water 

development listed as recommended management activities in Step 1 of the Management Framework 

Plan for the Catnip Mountain grazing allotment (BLM 1972). These planned activities did not occur, 

and today the Sage Hen Hills WSA remains some of the most undeveloped, pristine, and productive 

habitat for pronghorn and Greater sage grouse within Sheldon Refuge. Other than maintenance of 

fences along the Sheldon Refuge boundary, no specific actions have been determined necessary for 

the continued management of lands within this WSA which would be inconsistent with wilderness 

purposes. 

F.3.3 Gooch Table WSA 

The entire 40,038-acre Gooch Table WSA is recommended for wilderness designation. This is 

consistent with the original 1974 wilderness recommendation and proposal. The Gooch Table WSA 

retains the same wilderness character as in 1974. 

The majority of the WSA was previously proposed for wilderness designation, but also includes 

3,000 acres near Highway 140. which has not been proposed. Most of the 3,000-acre area near 

Highway 140 is open to the location of mining claims, but little prospecting has occurred, no claims 

have been established, and there is little or no need for management activities within the unit which 

conflict with wilderness designation. Therefore, the recommendation would protect and preserve 

wilderness character of the WSA but would not interfere or hinder any ongoing or planned mining 

activities. 

With the exception of a few historic vehicle routes and disturbances that are gradually recovering to a 

more natural appearance, the WSA remains unchanged from its natural condition and there is no 

need for active management to remove developments or conduct habitat restoration work. The 

isolation of the table topography and abundance of low sagebrush habitat create conditions such that 

the likelihood and need for aggressive wildfire suppression is low, but the importance and value to 

pronghorn and other sagebrush-dependent wildlife is high. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review F-17 

F.3.4 Fish Creek Mountain WSA 

The entire 13,786-acre Fish Creek Mountain WSA is recommended for wilderness designation. This 

is consistent with the original 1974 recommendation and proposal. There are two parcels of private 

land within the WSA, but motorized access has not been documented and is not likely necessary for 

their use or development. Currently the Service is in negotiations to acquire one of these parcels 

from a willing seller. It is expected that some management intrusion and use of motorized equipment 

would be necessary to remove abandoned water troughs and restore three developed springs within 

the unit. Otherwise, no specific management actions have been determined necessary for the 

continued management of the WSA that would be inconsistent with wilderness purposes. 

F.3.5 Rye Creek WSA 

An area 17,453 acres in size within the eastern portion of the Rye Creek WSA is recommended for 

wilderness designation. The remaining 10,698 acres are not recommended primarily to allow the use 

of mechanical thinning of encroaching western juniper and prescribed burning to restore natural 

habitat and fire regime conditions to this portion of Sheldon Refuge. It is anticipated these activities 

would require repeated use of motorized and mechanized equipment and vehicles along previous 

established routes which would substantially affect opportunities for solitude and would reduce the 

natural appearance of the area. The cutting, thinning, and burning of native vegetation on the lands 

that are not recommended is also not consistent with the principles of wilderness management and 

would reduce the untrammeled natural character within this portion of the unit. 

F.3.6 Round Mountain WSA 

Sheldon Refuge recommends this WSA be divided into two separate proposed wilderness areas 

allowing a former primitive route corridor to be reopened to public vehicle access. The eastern 

portion of the Round Mountain WSA (15,512 acres) would be separated from the western portion of 

the Round Mountain WSA (20,600 acres) by a designated route corridor 100 feet wide consisting of 

approximately 172 acres extending from the northern Sheldon Refuge boundary to County Road 34A 

and including a 3-mile dead-end route extending to the west. This would be consistent with the 

original 1974 wilderness review and study, which recommended allowing this north-south route to 

remain in place. These routes are necessary for the removal, rehabilitation, and monitoring of several 

abandoned livestock developments located in the western portion of the Round Mountain WSA. 

Despite the fact both routes have officially been closed since the 1974 wilderness proposal, 

recreation users continually use OHVs and other vehicles on these popular routes, making 

rehabilitation ineffective. Sheldon Refuge anticipates regular vehicle use of these routes to support 

future management activities and continued use by the public. Once re-established, these routes 

would provide legal access to an existing BLM vehicle route connecting to Highway 140 in Oregon. 

F.3.7 Catnip Mountain WSA 

An area 11,737 acres in size, which includes the southern portion of the Catnip Mountain WSA, is 

recommended for wilderness designation. The remaining 21,490 acres, which include the northern 

portion of the WSA, are not recommended. Disturbances from past vehicle use in the northern 

portion of the WSA have altered the natural appearance and are not recovering naturally. Sheldon 

Refuge is seeking to increase the range of wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities available, and 

recommending the entire WSA would conflict with this management direction. Currently there are 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

F-18 Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review 

few remote areas within Sheldon Refuge that provide vehicle access and opportunities for highquality wildlife viewing and hunting. Recommending the southern portion of the WSA would 

preserve wilderness character in the most undisturbed and naturally appearing portion of the WSA 

and enhance other remote recreation opportunities by allowing vehicle use along exiting routes in the 

remaining portion of the WSA. 

F.3.8 Big Spring Table WSA 

Sheldon Refuge recommends those portions of the Big Spring Table Unit and the Jackass Flats Unit, 

which are west of the identified primitive route be combined to form the approximately 48,915-acre 

Big Spring Table WSA and that this WSA be designated as wilderness. Despite the fact most lands 

within the Jackass Flats Unit have been open to location of mining claims, little prospecting has 

occurred, no claims have been established, and there is little or no need for management activities 

within the unit that conflict with wilderness designation. The only portion of the Big Spring Table 

and Jackass Flats units not recommended for designation is a 100-foot-wide corridor extending 8.3 

miles from Highway 140 to the northern boundary of Sheldon Refuge consisting of approximately 

100 acres. This corridor would continue to provide administrative vehicle access through the Jackass 

Flats portion of the WSA and would re-establish administrative vehicle access through the current 

proposed wilderness area to Oregon for maintenance of fence lines and wildlife water guzzlers within 

Sheldon Refuge. This recommendation would effectively split the proposed wilderness area leaving 

the portion containing Railroad Point as a separate area approximately 11,000 acres in size. 

Recommending the Big Spring Table WSA for wilderness designation would protect and preserve 

one of the most pristine and ecologically intact portions of Sheldon Refuge. When considered in 

combination with the adjacent Hawk Mountain and Sage Hen Hills WSAs managed by BLM, this 

recommendation would protect and preserve wilderness character of a continuous area approximately 

102,600 acres in size. 

F.3.9 Railroad Point WSA 

Sheldon Refuge recommends those portions of the Big Spring Table Unit and Jackass Flats Unit east 

of the identified route (refer to unit maps) be combined to form the approximately 11,000-acre 

Railroad Point WSA and designated as wilderness. 

Despite the fact most lands within the Jackass Flats Unit have been open to location of mining 

claims, little prospecting has occurred, no claims have been established, and there is little or no need 

for management activities within the unit that conflict with wilderness designation. The only portion 

of the Big Spring Table and Jackass Flats units not recommended for designation is a 100-foot-wide 

corridor extending 8.3 miles from Highway 140 to the northern boundary of Sheldon Refuge 

consisting of approximately 100 acres. This corridor would continue to provide administrative 

vehicle access through the Jackass Flats portion of the WSA and would re-establish administrative 

vehicle access through the current proposed wilderness area to Oregon for maintenance of fence lines 

and wildlife water guzzlers within Sheldon Refuge. This recommendation would effectively split the 

proposed wilderness area leaving the portion containing Railroad Point as a separate area 

approximately 11,000 acres in size. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review F-19 

F.3.10 Alkali Peak WSA 

Sheldon Refuge recommends nearly the entire 61,204-acre Alkali Peak WSA for designation as 

wilderness. The WSA includes the Alkali Peak Unit (51,248 acres) which was previously proposed 

for wilderness designation, the Upper Virgin Creek/Alkali Reservoir Unit (5,715 acres) which was 

acquired by the Service through purchase, and the Sagebrush Basin Unit (4,241 acres). The only 

portion of the WSA not recommended for designation is a corridor that is 100 feet wide and 4.25 

miles in length consisting of approximately 51.5 acres. This corridor extends downstream along 

Virgin Creek from Alkali Reservoir and contains an administrative vehicle access route and several 

historic ranching structures. Management efforts for preservation of these permanent structures and 

regular vehicle use for administrative purposes are not be consistent with wilderness values. 

The Sagebrush Basin Unit was not recommended for wilderness designation in 1974 primarily due to 

anticipated mining and planned restoration activities that were inconsistent with wilderness 

management and necessary to meet the purposes for Sheldon Refuge. The area was subsequently 

withdrawn from mineral entry, which precluded additional mining activities, and the remaining 

management restoration activities (primarily the construction of erosion control structures and 

removal of sagebrush) have either been completed or are no longer considered necessary. 

The reaches of Virgin Creek within the WSA are relatively undisturbed and intact. Preservation and 

protection of wilderness characteristics would benefit the various nesting raptors and other wildlife 

sensitive to human activities and disturbances. Protecting and preserving the undeveloped low 

sagebrush habitats of Rock Spring Table in their natural conditions are important for the conservation 

of pronghorn, Greater sage grouse, and other sagebrush-dependent wildlife. 

Overall the Alkali Peak WSA contains truly remarkable scenery characterized by the broad high 

expanses of Rock Spring Table and the high vertical cliffs that form the canyon along Virgin Creek. 

The canyon affords isolation and remoteness to create outstanding opportunities for wilderness 

solitude. 

F.3.11 Hell Creek WSA 

Sheldon Refuge recommends the entire 13,969-acre Hell Creek WSA for designation as wilderness. 

The WSA includes a small portion of land previously proposed for wilderness designation, but 

primarily consists of that portion of Sheldon Refuge used to support the reintroduction of California 

bighorn sheep. This area was previously not recommended for wilderness designation due to the 

need for a large fence exclosure, water developments, and associated vehicle use and access routes. 

The reintroduction was successful, and the developments and access routes are no longer necessary 

for management purposes. 

The Hell Creek WSA possesses a diversity of habitats, remarkable scenery, and nationally important 

prehistoric resources in a remote and undeveloped setting. These characteristics provide outstanding 

opportunities for wilderness solitude and primitive and unconfined types of recreation. 

F.3.12 Guano Creek WSA 

Sheldon Refuge recommends the entire 4,133-acre Guano Creek WSA for designation as wilderness. 

This area was not found suitable during the 1973 wilderness review due to historic cultivation for 

agriculture. Subsequent management by Sheldon Refuge has substantially restored the natural 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

F-20 Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review 

appearance and ecological function of these lands, which has made them suitable for wilderness 

designation. When combined with the recommended Rye Creek WSA and Sheldon Contiguous 

WSA managed by BLM, this recommendation would protect and preserve wilderness character on a 

continuous area approximately 45,183 acres in size. 

F.3.13 Massacre Rim Contiguous WSA 

Sheldon Refuge does not recommend the 334-acre Massacre Rim Contiguous WSA for designation 

as wilderness. This recommendation is consistent with the current BLM recommendation for 

adjacent lands in the Massacre Rim WSA. 

F.3.14 Sheldon Contiguous Inholdings WSA 

Sheldon Refuge recommends the entire 119-acre Sheldon Contiguous Inholdings WSA for 

designation as wilderness. This recommendation is consistent with the current BLM 

recommendation for adjacent lands in the Sheldon Contiguous WSA. 

F.3.15 Fish Creek Table-Little Catnip WSA 

Sheldon Refuge recommends two separate portions of WSA be designated as wilderness. The 

recommendation would include an area approximately 8,755 acres in size west of Little Catnip 

Spring Road and another area approximately 20,371 acres in size north of County Road 8A. These 

lands represent some of the most intact natural habitats on Sheldon Refuge. The vast expanses of 

intact undeveloped sagebrush habitat, which are only occasionally visited by people, provide a sense 

of complete isolation and outstanding opportunity for wilderness solitude. Natural conditions are 

untrammeled, and ecological function is largely intact requiring few management activities. 

The remaining 14,483 acres of the Fish Creek Table-Little Catnip WSA is not recommended for 

wilderness designation to allow continued and planned activities to restore and manage wildlife 

habitats. These management activities include prescribed burning along Andy’s Place Road, 

maintenance of Swan Lake Reservoir and the earthen dam, and mechanical thinning of shrubs and 

trees on and around Bitner Butte. All of these activities are anticipated to require repeated long-term 

use of large vehicles and associated access routes, motorized and mechanized equipment, and other 

tools to manipulate the structure and function of habitats within portions of Sheldon Refuge. These 

tools and activities are considered necessary to fulfill the purposes for Sheldon Refuge but are 

generally not consistent with the principles of wilderness management. 

F.3.16 Bateman WSA 

Sheldon Refuge recommends the entire 5,772-acre Bateman WSA for designation as wilderness. 

This recommendation would protect and preserve relatively pristine and intact mountain mahogany 

habitats in their natural condition. These habitats are considered essential for fulfilling the purposes 

of Sheldon Refuge and for maintaining biological health, integrity, and natural diversity. 

F.3.17 Tenmile WSA 

Sheldon Refuge recommends the entire 3,702-acre Tenmile WSA for designation as wilderness. This 

recommendation would be consistent with the 2009 BLM findings and conclusion for the Ten Mile 

Spring WSA and would protect and preserve relatively pristine and intact mountain mahogany 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review F-21 

habitats in their natural condition. These habitats are considered essential for fulfilling the purposes 

of Sheldon Refuge and for maintaining biological health, integrity, and natural diversity. 

Literature Cited 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1972. Management framework plan for the Catnip Mountain 

grazing allotment. Surprise and Gerlach Resource Areas. Susanville-Winnemucca District, 

NV. 

BLM. 2009. Documentation of current wilderness inventory conditions. Ten Mile Wilderness 

Inventory Unit. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Black Rock 

Field Office. Winnemucca, NV. 

USFWS. 1974. Wilderness Study report. Charles Sheldon Antelope Range and Sheldon National 

Antelope Refuge. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Sport 

Fisheries and Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management (in part). 

USFWS. 2010. Sheldon Refuge Wilderness Review. Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex, 

Lakeview, OR. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

F-22 Appendix F. Wilderness Inventory and Review 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-1 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

G.1 Draft Minimum Requirements Decision and Analysis for Removal of 

Feral Horses and Burros 

Step 1: Determine if any administrative action is necessary. (Refer to the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS 

and preferred alternative). 

Management direction for feral horse and burro populations was evaluated through a range of 

alternatives included in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. The CCP/EIS preferred alternative for 

removal of feral horse and burros has been determined necessary for management of Sheldon Refuge 

and the proposed wilderness areas. 

Step 2: Determine the minimum activity/minimum tool. 

Description of Alternatives 

Activities considered as part of this minimum requirements and decision analysis do not include the 

use of vehicles for law enforcement purposes. Such uses have not been necessary in the past, but 

could occur during horse and burros gathers to ensure the health and safety of contractors, 

employees, and the general public. Uses of motorized vehicles and equipment, mechanical transport, 

or aircraft within the proposed wilderness may be authorized in emergency situations and are not 

subject to a minimum requirements and decision analysis (610 FW 1). 

Alternative A 

Description 

Gathers of feral horses and burros would be conducted on horseback, using temporary corrals or baittraps, and other non-mechanized and non-motorized tools and techniques within proposed wilderness 

not otherwise prohibited by the Wilderness Act and Service wilderness policy. Gathers would be 

conducted much as they were prior to the availability of high clearance four-wheel drive vehicles, 

stock trailers, and portable metal fencing panels commonly used today. Trap sites would consist of 

exiting canyons or stone corrals and could include sections of lightweight fence, which could be 

transported on foot or by horseback and erected for temporary use. If trap sites within the proposed 

wilderness areas are used, a number of herders would then be needed drive animals to additional 

holding pens located along nearby roads where they could then be loaded and transported by truck 

and trailer. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

The use of horseback riders and temporary corrals would not alter natural processes. Because horses 

presently occur throughout Sheldon Refuge, the presence of horseback riders would have a 

temporarily but negligible effect on the behavior and movements of wildlife, particularly large 

mammals such as bighorn sheep, mule deer, and antelope. Feral horses and burros are by definition 

the descendants of escaped domesticated livestock and are not part of the native ecology or natural 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-2 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

processes within Sheldon Refuge. The removal of these animals would result in less trammeling of 

wilderness character over the long term. 

“Undeveloped”

This alternative would not require further development of any temporary roads or permanent 

facilities within the proposed wilderness areas and would have little or no effect on the undeveloped 

character of the proposed wilderness areas. 

“Natural”

The use of horseback riders to conduct gathers would protect and preserve natural conditions within 

the proposed wilderness areas. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

In areas where gathers take place, the presence of several horseback riders would reduce 

opportunities for solitude for up to two weeks during the summer months. These activities would not 

impact opportunities for primitive or unconfined types of recreation. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

The primitive and traditional skills required for horseback gathers and roundups are used less often 

and may become lost altogether as both government agencies and rancher increasingly rely on 

motorized equipment such as helicopters and OHVs. This alternative would result in the continued 

practice and teaching of these primitive skills, but only for a relatively short period of time until 

removal is complete. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Economic and Time Constraints

It is doubtful any amount of time or money would result in the removal of all horses and burros from 

Sheldon Refuge with gathers conducted only by horseback. Even if this method could be effective, it 

is likely dozens of skilled riders would be required to conduct gather operations for several weeks to 

months each year. The costs for such gathers would likely be greater than those required to 

implement Alternative B or C and would likely be prohibitive. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The terrain of Sheldon Refuge is very rugged, rocky, and difficult to traverse by foot or on 

horseback. Feral horses living within Sheldon Refuge develop strong hooves and the stamina needed 

to run long distances over rugged, broken, and uneven rocky terrain. Riding a domestic horse, even 

shod with steel horseshoes, at similar speed over this terrain to conduct gathers would almost 

certainly result in injury to some horses and probably riders as well. Proper training, riding skill, and 

conditioning could reduce the potential for such injuries, but safety risks would remain high. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-3 

Alternative B

Description 

Gathers of feral horses and burros would be conducted using helicopters to herd animals into 

temporary corrals located adjacent to, or within, proposed wilderness and along existing trails and 

routes. Transportation of temporary corrals and captured animals would be accomplished using 

trucks and trailers travelling on existing routes. Gathers would typically take place once or twice per 

year over a period of four to six days per gather. 

Prior to the location of corral sites within wilderness, the existing access route and corral site would 

be photographed and monitored and the condition documented in conjunction with a cultural 

resource inventory. No maintenance or surface disturbance would be allowed to improve the access 

route or the corral site. The corral site would be located the minimum distance from the proposed 

wilderness boundary necessary and would be the minimum size necessary to safely and humanely 

hold the animals for transport. 

Prior to motorized vehicle access, truck and trailer drivers would be provided maps indicating the 

exact route and corral location. Vehicle use would be authorized only for the minimum number of 

trips necessary to transport corral materials and animals. All other access would be on foot or by 

horseback. 

Upon completion of the gather operations, all materials and structures would be removed. Once the 

management objective has been achieved, the corral site and route would be restored to their 

condition prior to use using standard wilderness route rehabilitation and restoration methods and 

primitive tools. Access routes and corral sites would be photographed and monitored following the 

first full growing season to document impacts from use and the effectiveness of restoration efforts, as 

well as to detect any newly introduced noxious weeds or other non-native species. Subsequent 

monitoring would be conducted as needed to document vehicle trespass and route recovery. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

Impacts from gather operations would be greater than those described for Alternative A or C. 

Impacts would likely affect a larger number of wildlife over the majority of Sheldon Refuge due to 

the noise and movement of helicopters conducting operations over large areas each day during gather 

operations. 

“Undeveloped”

The use of temporary routes and erection of temporary corrals within proposed wilderness areas 

under this alternative would result in a more developed appearance during gathers when compared 

with Alternative A or C. All structures would be removed following each gather and impacts to the 

undeveloped character of the proposed wilderness areas would be short-term. 

“Natural”

The crushing and disturbance of vegetation and soils from the use of motorized vehicles and 

temporary corral sites would adversely impact the natural appearance within portions of the proposed 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-4 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

wilderness areas. The removal of temporary structures after each gather and rehabilitation of routes 

and corral sites following completion of horse and burro removal efforts would mostly restore natural 

conditions and leave little long-term evidence of past use and development. It is anticipated for some 

routes, restoration efforts would not be effective and evidence of vehicle use would remain visible 

for several years. Because some routes would remain visible, it is also anticipated public vehicle 

trespass within the proposed wilderness areas would occur along these routes, causing further 

adverse impact to wilderness character. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Where gathers are conducted, very few opportunities for solitude would be available for the 

anticipated four to six days per gather. Opportunities within a larger area would be impacted than 

under Alternative A or due to the distances over which helicopters would be seen and heard, and 

these impacts would occur more frequently than under Alternative C. Impacts to opportunities for 

solitude would not last as long as those described for Alternative A due to the shorter amount of time 

necessary to conduct gathers using helicopters. However, few people visit the proposed wilderness 

areas during summer, and gather operations under all alternatives would impact a relatively small 

number of recreation users. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

This alternative would not maintain traditional skills. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Economic and Time Constraints

Despite the high costs associated with helicopters, the cost of this alternative would be considerably 

less than cost associated with potentially dozens of horses and riders needed to conduct gathers under 

Alternative A. In addition, the use of helicopters results in far less time than that required to conduct 

horseback gathers in a similarly sized area. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The use of helicopters at low elevation to gather horses and burros does increase the level of risk 

when compared with standard point-to-point helicopter use. Gathers are planned based on the 

identification and avoidance of hazards such as terrain, fence lines, and power lines to minimize risk 

to the extent possible. Risks associated with horseback gathers under Alternative A do not 

necessarily differ from those under this alternative, but the greater number of people and animals 

involved with horseback gathers does increase the probability for injury or accident when compared 

with the use of a single helicopter and pilot under this alternative. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-5 

Alternative C 

Description 

Gathers of feral horses and burros would be conducted using a combination of tools and techniques 

included in Alternatives A and B. 

Under this alternative the majority of burros would be gathered by horseback or using bait-traps 

located outside proposed wilderness, and the majority of horses would typically be gathered using 

helicopters or other aircraft to herd animals to temporary corrals located adjacent to roads outside 

proposed wilderness areas. Landing of helicopters would be conducted within wilderness only when 

determined necessary for pilot, crew, or animal safety. 

The placement of temporary corrals for the gathering of horses and burros is critical for safe and 

effective removal. Recent gather operations have successfully used roads and temporary corral sites 

outside proposed wilderness, but it is anticipated at least some sites within one or more proposed 

wilderness areas would be necessary to fully implement the minimum administrative action 

necessary. Corral site selection criteria include visibility (of the corral site by horses and burros; for 

horseback riders on the ground; and for safe low-level aircraft operations), terrain and obstacles (as 

related to effective sight distance, confinement, or interference with the movement of horse and 

burros being gathered; for horseback riders; and as hazards to low-flying aircraft), other hazards 

(such as overhead power lines or cliffs), and animal transport time (as a function of weather, safe 

vehicle speed, and overall distance from the corral site to the holding facility) are all determining 

factors in corral site selection to ensure a safe and effective gather operation. 

The minimum number of temporary corral sites in support of gather operations would be located 

within proposed wilderness only upon the written determination by the Sheldon Refuge Project 

Leader that no safe and effective corral site could be located outside proposed wilderness which 

meets the above stated criteria. In the future, it is most likely two or three temporary corral sites 

would be located within the Alkali Peak and Big Spring Table proposed wilderness areas due to the 

number of horses present, the ruggedness of the terrain limiting the distance horses can be moved to 

trap locations, the relatively larger size of these two areas, and the distance from portions of these 

areas to adjacent roads. Sites would likely be used once or twice per year for up to five years in 

order to implement the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS preferred alternative. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

Impacts to untrammeled wilderness character would likely be between those described for 

Alternatives A and B. 

“Undeveloped”

The types of impacts to untrammeled wilderness character would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, but the lower number of temporary corrals proposed under this alternative would 

impact fewer proposed wilderness areas less often than anticipated under Alternative B. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-6 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

“Natural”

The types of impacts to natural wilderness character would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, but would occur less often and would impact fewer proposed wilderness areas due to 

the smaller number of temporary corrals located within proposed wilderness under this alternative. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Horses are found throughout Sheldon Refuge, and impacts to opportunities for solitude from gathers 

using helicopters would occur in all proposed wilderness areas as described under Alternative B. 

Feral burros are commonly observed in and around the southern portion of the Big Spring Table 

proposed wilderness area and in the northern portion of the Gooch Table Proposed Wilderness Area. 

Impacts to opportunities for solitude in these areas would be as described under both Alternative A 

and B. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

This alternative would maintain traditional skills as described under Alternative A. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Economic and Time Constraints

Gathers of both horses and burros are conducted by qualified private contractors. By allowing the 

use of either horseback riders or helicopters to conduct gathers, Sheldon Refuge would be able to 

accept the least expensive and most efficient method proposed for each particular gather. In certain 

areas and under certain conditions it is expected horseback gathers would be both less expensive and 

less time-consuming than helicopter gathers and vice versa. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

Typically horseback gathers are most practicable for feral burros in the lower elevation greasewood 

and salt scrub flats of the Virgin Valley and Thousand Creek drainages. Terrain in these locations is 

much gentler and domestic horses can more easily and safely be ridden than in other portions of 

Sheldon Refuge. The use of helicopters in other portions of Sheldon Refuge is generally accepted to 

be the safest method for the animals and people involved. 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-7 

Comparison of Alternatives 

It may be useful to compare each alternative’s relative positive and negative effects to each of the 

criteria in tabular form, keeping in mind the law’s mandate to “preserve wilderness character.” 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Untrammeled + - +/- 

Undeveloped + - - 

Natural + - - 

Solitude or Primitive Recreation + - +/- 

Unique Components 

Wilderness Character + - - 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

Maintaining Traditional Skills + - + 

Special Provisions 

Economics & Time - + + 

Additional Wilderness Criteria 

Other Criteria Summary +/- +/- + 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Safety - + + 

Safety Criteria 

The selection criteria for each horse and burro corral site are primary to ensure safety for both people 

and animals. Sites would be located within proposed wilderness only after it has been determined 

that a safe and effective corral site cannot be found outside proposed wilderness that meets the stated 

selection criteria. This determination will be documented in writing on a site-by-site basis during the 

gather planning phase.

Step 2 Decision: What is the Minimum Activity/Minimum Tool?

Selected Alternative 

Alternative C 

Rationale for Selecting this Alternative (Including Documentation of Safety Criterion, If 

Appropriate)

Gathering of horses and burros by horseback as described under Alternative A would be the least 

intrusive method within the proposed wilderness areas, but is unlikely to meet the management 

objective of the Sheldon Refuge CCP preferred alternative. Temporary corrals baited with feed or 

feed-traps are effective for gathering small numbers of feral burros and the use of horseback riders to 

herd feral burros has been successful for some gathers on Sheldon Refuge. Gathers conducted from 

horseback would likely be successful in areas of Sheldon Refuge with high concentrations of feral 

horses and ideal sites for temporary corrals. However, in areas with lower population density and as 

the population in other areas are reduced, horseback gathers would become increasingly difficult, 

time-consuming, and costly. Even with large numbers of riders and sufficient funding, gathers 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-8 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

conducted only from horseback are unlikely to be successful in gathering all feral horses and burros 

from Sheldon Refuge, which is required to fully implement the minimum administrative action 

necessary. As a result, horses and burros would continue to cause adverse impacts to Sheldon 

Refuge and wilderness character discussed under the No Action alternative of the Sheldon Refuge 

CCP/EIS. 

In contrast, Alternative B would likely accomplish the minimum administrative action necessary as 

discussed under the preferred alternative of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, but would also result in 

the greater impact to wilderness character than the other options considered and would result in 

considerable cost. 

Alternative C would minimize impacts to wilderness character to the extent practicable while 

providing a high probability for full implementation of the minimum administrative action necessary. 

Alternative C is also determined to be the safest and most cost effective alternative evaluated. 

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 

No use of motorized vehicles would occur without a prior written determination by the Sheldon-Hart 

Mountain Refuge Complex Project Leader based upon a written evaluation using the corral trap site 

selection criteria listed in Alternative C. All areas where use of mechanized or motorized equipment 

occurs and where temporary structures are erected would be monitored and degradation of natural 

conditions reported. 

Check Any Wilderness Act Section 4(c) Uses Approved in this Alternative 

 mechanical transport landing of aircraft 

 motorized equipment temporary road 

 motor vehicles structure or installation 

 motorboats 

Record and report any authorizations of Wilderness Act Section 4(c) uses according to agency 

procedures. 

Approvals Signature Name Position Date 

Prepared by: 

Recommended: 

Approved: 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-9 

G.2 Draft Minimum Requirements Decision and Analysis for Reduction and 

Thinning of Western Juniper within Sheldon Refuge Proposed Wilderness 

Areas 

Step 1: Determine if any administrative action is necessary. (Refer to the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS 

and preferred alternative). 

Management direction for management of encroaching western juniper was evaluated through a 

range of alternatives included in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. The CCP/EIS preferred alternative 

for the reduction and thinning of western juniper has been determined necessary for management of 

Sheldon Refuge and the proposed wilderness areas. 

Step 2: Determine the minimum activity/minimum tool. 

Description of Alternatives 

Western juniper is a native species, but its expansion into sagebrush-steppe habitats as a result of 

continued long-term fire suppression and overgrazing for more than 100 years has severely degraded 

these habitats and as a result has adversely impacted priority wildlife species and the purposes for 

Sheldon Refuge. Areas of juniper expansion have been identified at various locations, primarily in 

the westernmost portion of Sheldon Refuge. While juniper expansion has been identified with 

proposed wilderness areas, we anticipate project areas would be located almost entirely within the 

Rye Creek Proposed Wilderness Area in the western portion of Sheldon Refuge, where 

approximately 5,000 acres have been identified for treatment. Terrain within the Rye Creek 

Proposed Wilderness Area is rugged and particularly steep along the westernmost edge. The entire 

unit is within 2 miles of established roads, and two access routes are located in the western half of the 

Rye Creek Area, where the majority of the 5,000 acres identified are located. 

Average tree density and size within the Rye Creek Proposed Wilderness Area are highly variable. 

Densities range from only a few trees per acre to more than 150 trees per acre. Tree sizes range from 

less than two inches to more than 12 inches diameter breast height (dbh). These larger trees often 

have lower branches 4 inches or more in diameter, and near ground level below these lowest 

branches, trunk diameters can be more than 20 inches. While size and age structures have not been 

determined for juniper stands within Sheldon Refuge, sampling of western juniper stands in Eastern 

Oregon reveal juniper less than 5 inches dbh are typically less than70 years old, and represent about 

7% of the total juniper trees within the stand. This same study reported 75% of juniper five inches 

dbh and larger were 70 to 130 years in age, and most were between 90 and 109 years in age (Gedney 

et al. 1999). These percentages are consistent with estimated areas of juniper expansion within the 

Rye Creek Proposed Wilderness Area. Using these estimates, approximately 350 acres of juniper 

within the Rye Creek Proposed Wilderness Area would be categorized as less than 5 inches dbh. 

Throughout the remaining 4,650 acres, we assume average density is 50 trees per acre. 

Removal of western juniper has been focused on accessible non-wilderness areas throughout the 

region where the use of motorized tools and mechanized equipment are standard practice. Primitive 

tools and non-motorized methods have rarely been used for large-scale juniper reduction and 

thinning projects. The alternatives presented in this minimum requirements decision and analysis are 

considered a reasonable basis for initiating juniper treatments based upon knowledge of these tools 

and techniques when used for other tree species and in dissimilar environments. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-10 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Western juniper grows with branches close to the ground and has a dense, hard wood. Juniper is 

killed by cutting only when the cut is made below the lowest live branch. These characteristics make 

effective control of expanding juniper with hand tools more difficult and labor intensive than for 

other western tree species. Herbicides have been shown to effectively kill only smaller juniper less 

than 6 feet in height (Lile et al. 2004). For the purposes of this minimum requirements decision and 

analysis we assume one person using hand tools (e.g., pruning saw, pruning shears, axe, singleperson crosscut saw, brush axe) would be able to cut 40 trees with an average dbh of 5 inches or less 

during a 10-hour workday, or less than 10 trees 5 to 12 inches dbh in the same amount of time. We 

also assume a one person using power tools (e.g., chainsaw, power pruning saw, power brush cutter) 

would be able to cut twice the number of trees in the same amount of time when compared to a 

person using primitive tools. While tree diameter is not the best indicator of tree age, we expect trees 

larger than 12 inches dbh would usually be considered mature old-growth trees (i.e., >120 years old) 

and would not be cut as part of juniper reduction and thinning. We anticipate these assumptions and 

consequently the minimum management action and tools necessary would be adjusted as additional 

inventory data and experience are obtained. 

Alternative A

Description 

Control of expanding western juniper on an average of 1,500 acres per year would be completed 

using a combination of chemical herbicides and cutting with primitive hand tools. Access and 

transport of tools and equipment would be by foot, horseback, pack stock, or other non-mechanized 

and non-motorized means. 

Chemical control would be single tree application of approved herbicides as liquid concentrate 

through an applicator gun, dry pellets placed under the drip line, or as a spray applied to the foliage 

with a backpack sprayer. We anticipate these methods would be used most often where juniper are 

sufficiently small and occur at low density (less than 10 trees per acre) where carrying hand tools 

would be more cumbersome and cutting through small fine branches and more flexible stems would 

be more difficult and time consuming. 

Cutting, felling, limbing, piling, and burning of western juniper would be conducted using nonmotorized tools and equipment. Work crews using crosscut saws, axes, pruning saws, limbing 

shears, drip torches, and other primitive hand tools would remove or thin juniper. Burning of felled 

trees and limb piles would take place during typically cooler and wetter winter months. 

Based upon the assumptions for this minimum requirements decision and analysis, accomplishment 

of the management objectives under the CCP preferred alternative of 1,500 acres per year would 

require two 20-person crews working for the entire year. In areas furthest from road access and with 

the highest density of juniper, it is expected seasonal tent camps would be used with regular resupply 

of food, water, tools, and equipment. 

Temporary work crew campsites and latrine sites would be selected in advance. Sites would be 

capable of supporting one or more potential juniper thinning efforts. Access routes for seasonal 

camps or campsites anticipated to be used for multiple seasons would also be identified in advance. 

Both access routes and campsites would be photographed and inventoried prior to use in conjunction 

with a cultural resource inventory to document wildlife present, measure vegetative cover, and to 

identify noxious weeds and other invasive non-native plants. No maintenance or surface disturbance 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-11 

would be allowed to improve access routes. Rocks and other obstacles could be temporarily moved 

to provide suitable tent sites. Temporary latrines for burial of waste would be excavated to the 

minimum depth and size necessary. 

Upon completion of juniper reduction and thinning operations, all materials and structures would be 

removed. Once the management objective has been achieved, campsites would be restored to their 

prior appearance using standard wilderness rehabilitation and restoration methods and primitive 

tools. Access routes and campsites would be photographed and monitored following the first full 

growing season to document impacts from use and the effectiveness of restoration efforts, as well as 

to detect any newly introduced noxious weeds or other non-native species. Subsequent monitoring 

would be conducted as needed to document wildlife use and campsite recovery. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

The presence of 20-person work crews for the entire year within the same general location is 

expected to alter wildlife behavior and habitat use. These impacts would be expected to last for 

several years after treatment of the entire 5,000 acres is completed. Over the long term as native 

perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs become re-established, we would expect several wildlife species 

absent from these areas over the past several decades to return. Long-term trammeling of wilderness 

character from cutting and burning of juniper was evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

Year-long work camps consisting of small and large tents would affect the undeveloped character of 

small portions of the Rye Creek Proposed Wilderness Area. Following campsite removal and 

restoration, little or no noticeable evidence of temporary developments would remain. Use along 

identified access routes would be noticeable but would appear as undeveloped and unmaintained 

trails. 

“Natural”

Where juniper is treated using herbicide, the few trees killed would be left standing and would appear 

to have died naturally. Higher amounts of herbicide needed to kill larger trees can also kill nearby 

shrubs, which would create a somewhat less natural appearance. 

Natural conditions would be affected for many years by the presence of cut stumps throughout the 

Rye Creek Proposed Wilderness Area, reminding visitors of past use and human activities. Use of 

access routes and campsites would result in damage to vegetation, including shrubs and other 

perennials, and these impacts would be noticeable for several years. Following campsite removal 

and restoration, impacts would remain readily visible for several years due to the contrast between 

work camp locations lacking shrubs and other longer-lived plants and the surrounding undisturbed 

areas where these plants would remain. It is anticipated these impacts would occur at as many as six 

campsites, each less than 1 acre in size located primarily along the northern portion of the Rye Creek 

Proposed Wilderness Area. Long-term impacts to the natural conditions from the thinning and 

reduction of juniper were evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-12 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Opportunities for solitude would be difficult to find due to the presence of two 20-person work crews 

within the area for the entire year. Generally, effects would occur within the project area and near 

campsite locations. The use of hand tools would have little or no impact on opportunities for 

primitive recreation. However, the appearance of thousands of cut stumps across 5,000 acres would 

serve as a reminder of human activity and intrusion and would adversely impact opportunities for 

solitude over the long term. Most of the project area is within a portion of Sheldon Refuge closed to 

hunting, and recreation use is estimated to be very low. As a result, impacts to solitude would affect 

few people. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

Under this alternative dozens of people with little or no prior experience would learn to use, and 

teach others to use, specialized primitive tools and skills (i.e., crosscut saws and saw maintenance) 

necessary for future wilderness preservation and management. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

To achieve the objectives of the administrative action would require two 20-person crews working 

throughout the entire year over the next three to four years. Working throughout the year is not 

practical given the availability of large work crews, the required logistical support to sustain such 

large crews in a wilderness work environment, and inclement winter weather, which would 

periodically stop work. The training, tools, equipment, support, and other costs associated with such 

large numbers of people would require substantially more time to meet management objectives than 

that required for other alternatives. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The use of hand tools required to implement this alternative results in fewer accidents and less severe 

injuries than motorized tools designed to accomplish the same tasks. The use of herbicides as 

proposed under this alternative presents little risk to health or safety when handled and applied 

properly and according to product labels. Other risks and potential safety issues encountered within 

proposed wilderness are generally no greater than those encountered in other remote areas of Sheldon 

Refuge. 

Alternative B

Description 

Cutting, felling, limbing, piling, and burning of western juniper within proposed wilderness would be 

conducted using both motorized and non-motorized tools and equipment. Transport of tools and 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-13 

equipment would be by motorized vehicle along two existing routes located in the western portion of 

the Rye Creek Proposed Wilderness Area. Access for work crews to project areas would be by foot 

or horseback. 

Work crews using chainsaws, motorized pruning saws, limbing shears, drip torches, and other hand 

tools would remove or thin juniper as described in Alternative A. 

Under the assumptions described for this analysis, we expect motorized tools would be twice as 

effective as hand tools for cutting juniper. As a result, only half as many people (one 20-person 

crew) or half as much time (two 20-person crews for six months) would be required to accomplish 

the management objective of treating 1,500 acres as proposed under the CCP preferred alternative 

when compared with Alternative A. In areas farthest from road access and with the highest density 

of juniper, it is expected short-term tent camps would be used for periods up to four days. All 

supplies for temporary camps would be transported with tools and other equipment required for 

juniper thinning and removal. 

Access routes would be photographed and inventoried prior to use to measure vegetative cover, and 

to identify noxious weeds and other invasive non-native plants. No maintenance or surface 

disturbance would be allowed to improve access routes. Transport of tools, equipment, and materials 

would be accomplished using one vehicle making a single trip to the project and/or campsite within 

the proposed wilderness area, and a single trip out each week. 

Upon completion of juniper reduction and thinning operations, all waste, materials, and structures 

would be removed. Once the management objective has been achieved, campsites would be restored 

to their prior condition using standard wilderness rehabilitation and restoration methods. Access 

routes and campsites would be photographed and monitored following the first full growing season 

to document impacts from use and the effectiveness of restoration efforts, as well as to detect any 

newly introduced noxious weeds or other non-native species. Subsequent monitoring would be 

conducted as needed to document route and campsite recovery and document future vehicle trespass 

into proposed wilderness areas. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

The presence of work crews for multiple four-day periods within the same general location is 

expected to alter wildlife behavior and habitat use until thinning and burning efforts are completed. 

Because activities would occur less often and for a shorter amount of time than under Alternative A, 

we anticipate these impacts would not persist for several years after juniper reduction is completed. 

Long-term trammeling of wilderness character from cutting and burning of juniper was evaluated in 

the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

Short-term work camps consisting of small tents would have less temporary impact on the 

undeveloped character of proposed wilderness than Alternative A. Following campsite removal and 

restoration, little or no noticeable evidence of temporary developments would remain. Access by 

motor vehicle would occur less frequently than foot or horseback access described under Alternative 

A. However, previously established routes would continue to be easily identified as primitive two-
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-14 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

track vehicle routes in contrast to the more naturally appearing undeveloped trails anticipated under 

Alternative A. 

“Natural”

The use of chainsaws and other motorized tools to conduct juniper thinning would result in a less 

natural appearance of stumps and unburned logs when compared with Alternative A. Use of access 

routes and campsites would also result in damage to vegetation, including shrubs and other 

perennials. The use of smaller short-term camps would also avoid impacts from Alternative A of 

digging latrines to bury waste. When compared with Alternative A these impacts would be less 

severe, would affect smaller areas, and would be noticeable for a shorter amount of time due to 

smaller work crews, smaller campsites, and less use of routes with no camp resupplies needed. It is 

anticipated these impacts would be only somewhat noticeable for many years at as many as three 

campsites, each less than 0.3 acre in size, located primarily in the most remote northwest portion of 

the Rye Creek Proposed Wilderness Area where juniper density is highest. Long-term impacts to 

natural conditions from thinning and removal of juniper were evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge 

CCP/EIS. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Opportunities for solitude would be directly affected by the presence of work crews as large as eight 

people and the sounds of chainsaws and other motorized equipment. Noise from a single vehicle trip 

for transport of tools, equipment, and supplies would have only a slight short-term impact on 

wilderness solitude. Overall, noise impacts to wilderness solitude under this alternative would be 

more intense and would affect a larger area than larger work crews using hand tools as proposed in 

Alternative A, but these impacts would last for a shorter length of time. 

The use of motorized tools and equipment would detract from opportunities for primitive recreation. 

Impacts to solitude from the long-term presence of cut stumps would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. Most of the Rye Creek Proposed Wilderness Area is closed to hunting, and recreation 

use is estimated to be very low. As a result, impacts to solitude and primitive recreation would affect 

few people. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

This alternative would not maintain traditional skills. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

The need for fewer work crews or less amount of time and only small short-term tent camps under 

this alternative would require considerably less logistical support than crews and camps proposed 

under Alternative A. In areas with higher tree density or larger diameter trees, we assume crews 

working with chainsaws and other motorized equipment would be able to remove and thin juniper 

twice as fast as similar sized crews working with crosscut saws, axes, and other primitive tools. 

However, where juniper density is low and most time and effort is spent walking and carrying tools 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-15 

and equipment from one tree to the next, case studies have demonstrated crews using motorized 

equipment do not save time or accomplish the same amount of cutting faster than crews using 

primitive tools (Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center 2006). It is anticipated this alternative 

would save time compared with Alternative A only in those areas furthest from roads and with the 

highest juniper density. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The use of motorized tools required to implement this alternative has been shown to result in a higher 

accident rate and result in more severe injuries than those from primitive tools designed to 

accomplish the same tasks (Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center 2006). However, the vehicle 

used to transport tools, equipment, and supplies under this alternative would remain in the project 

area to provide emergency evacuation to roads or suitable helispots. Improved emergency response 

time with the use of a motorized vehicle would mitigate some of the injury severity risks associated 

with the use of motorized equipment under this alternative. Other risks and potential safety issues 

encountered within proposed wilderness are generally no greater than those encountered in other 

remote areas of Sheldon Refuge. 

Alternative C 

Description 

This alternative would combine the tools and methods described in Alternatives A and B. In areas 

with very low density of small trees (less than 10 trees per acre and less than 67 feet in height), 

herbicide would likely be used. In low juniper density areas (average less than 30 trees per acre) and 

in areas of small juniper size (average less than 5 inches dbh), thinning and removal would be 

conducted as described under Alternative A. For areas with juniper density greater than 30 trees per 

acre and in treatment areas where average juniper dbh is greater than 5 inches, thinning and removal 

would be conducted as described under Alternative B. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

Impacts to untrammeled wilderness character would likely be between those described for 

Alternatives A and B. 

“Undeveloped”

Impacts to undeveloped wilderness character would be as described for Alternative B with the use 

temporary structures (i.e., tents) at some sites for periods of approximately four days at a time. 

“Natural”

The types of impacts to natural wilderness character would include those described for Alternatives 

A and B. Areas with low juniper density would have a more natural appearance than those with 

higher juniper density where motorized equipment would be used. However, the use of motorized 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-16 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

equipment in higher density areas would not result in the impacts to natural condition from larger 

work crews and seasonal work camps described under Alternative A. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Impacts to untrammeled wilderness character would likely be between those described for 

Alternatives A and B. In low juniper density areas or areas with smaller juniper where herbicides or 

primitive tools would be used, opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be least 

impacted from the presence of work crews. In high juniper density areas or areas with larger juniper, 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be more intensely impacted, but these 

impacts would last for less than a week at a time and would end upon completion of cutting, felling, 

and limbing work. Impacts from piling and burning work would be as described under Alternative 

B. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

This alternative would maintain traditional skills as described under Alternative A. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

It is more likely Sheldon Refuge would utilize assistance from volunteers and/or other organizations 

to assist thinning efforts using primitive hand tools in areas of lower juniper density and areas with 

smaller trees. Work projects in these lower density areas and areas with smaller juniper would also 

require smaller work crews and less training than would longer-term work projects using motorized 

equipment. Overall we anticipate the amount of time or number of people required to accomplish the 

management objective under this alternative would be slightly more than under Alternative B, but 

much less than required under Alternative A. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The level of safety involved with this alternative would fall between that described for Alternatives A 

and B.

Comparison of Alternatives 

It may be useful to compare each alternative’s positive and negative effects to each of the criteria in 

tabular form, keeping in mind the law’s mandate to “preserve wilderness character.” 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Untrammeled -- - +/- 

Undeveloped -- - - 

Natural -- - - 

Solitude or Primitive Recreation - -- - 

Unique Components 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-17 

Wilderness Character -- -- - 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Heritage and Cultural Resources N/A N/A N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills + - + 

Special Provisions N/A N/A N/A 

Time - + + 

Additional Wilderness Criteria N/A N/A N/A 

Other Criteria Summary +/- +/- + 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Safety + - +/- 

Safety Criteria 

The use of chainsaws, motorized brush cutters, and other power equipment for the cutting juniper is 

inherently more dangerous than the use of crosscut saws, pruning shears, and other hand tools. The 

use of motorized equipment is not being proposed as the necessary minimum tool for safety reasons. 

Documentation 

Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center. 2006. Traditional tools and skills. PowerPoint 

presentation. Available at: 

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=toolboxes&sec=awareness. Accessed September 

7, 2010. 

Gedney, D.R., D.L. Azuma, C.L. Bolsinger, and N. McKay. 1999. Western juniper in eastern 

Oregon. Gen. Technical Report PNW-GTR-464. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 53 pp. 

Lile D.F., D.L. Lancaster, and R.G. Wilson. 2004. Control of cut juniper stumps and small trees in 

northeastern California. University of California Cooperative Extension, Lassen and Modoc 

Counties. In: 2004 Proceedings of the California Weed Science Society. Vol. 56. Pp. 88-

93. 

Step 2 Decision: What is the Minimum Activity/Minimum Tool? 

Selected Alternative 

Alternative C 

Rationale for Selecting this Alternative (Including Documentation of Safety Criterion, If 

Appropriate) 

Alternative C would use the tools and techniques least intrusive to opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation where they would be most efficient and would result in the least impact to 

natural conditions. Tools and techniques more intrusive to opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation would be used where they would be most efficient and would require the least impact to 

natural conditions from work crew campsites and resupply. Alternative C is also determined to have 

an acceptable level of safety and would be cost effective when compared with the other alternatives. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-18 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 

Except as specifically described in the alternative selected, no use of motorized vehicles or 

equipment may occur without prior written determination by the Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge 

Complex Project Leader. All areas where the use of motorized vehicles and temporary structures is 

to occur would be specifically identified, monitored, and degradation of natural conditions reported. 

Check Any Wilderness Act Section 4(c) Uses Approved in this Alternative 

 mechanical transport landing of aircraft 

 motorized equipment temporary road 

 motor vehicles structure or installation 

 motorboats 

Record and report any authorizations of Wilderness Act Section 4(c) uses according to agency 

procedures. 

Approvals Signature Name Position Date 

Prepared by: 

Recommended: 

Approved: 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-19 

G.3. Draft Minimum Requirements Decision and Analysis for Treatment, 

Removal, and Eradication of Invasive Non-native Plants 

Step 1: Determine if any administrative action is necessary. (Refer to the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS 

and preferred alternative). 

Management direction for invasive non-native plans was evaluated through a range of alternatives 

included in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. The CCP/EIS preferred alternative for the treatment, 

removal, and eradication of invasive non-native plants has been determined necessary for 

management of Sheldon Refuge and the proposed wilderness areas. 

Step 2: Determine the minimum activity/minimum tool. 

Description of Alternatives 

As described in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS, several invasive non-native plants (weeds) are 

currently found within Sheldon Refuge, or occur immediately adjacent to Sheldon Refuge and are 

expected to spread to areas within Sheldon Refuge in the near future. These non-native invasive 

plants include several noxious weeds and have a persistent and growing adverse impact on the 

natural character of the eight proposed wilderness areas within Sheldon Refuge, and/or threaten the 

natural character of adjacent contiguous Wilderness Study Areas managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Based upon analysis of the impacts from the Service’s preferred alternative in the Sheldon Refuge 

CCP/EIS, it has been determined treatment of up to 1,000 acres per year using a variety of weed 

control techniques through an integrated pest management approach, including herbicides where 

appropriate and effective, would be the minimum administrative action necessary to fulfill the 

purposes for Sheldon Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System, and to protect and preserve 

wilderness character. The alternatives presented here evaluate the least intrusive methods and tools 

necessary to apply various integrated pest management techniques as necessary to accomplish the 

objective and strategies of the preferred alternative. 

Management strategies of the preferred alternative that would affect the proposed wilderness areas 

include treatment of invasive non-native plants on as many as 1,000 acres per year primarily along 

road corridors throughout Sheldon Refuge, and control of non-native species as part of emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation efforts following catastrophic fires. Proposed wilderness boundaries 

within Sheldon Refuge are set back 50 feet or more from the centerline of all roads, and these 

corridor areas are the locations where weeds most likely occur due to disturbances caused by vehicle 

use and maintenance activities. Based upon the size of the current road system within Sheldon 

Refuge, there would be approximately 5,800 non-wilderness acres targeted for repeated weed 

treatments. We anticipate very few acres associated with weed treatments along road corridors 

would occur within the proposed wilderness areas. Therefore, the actions evaluated in the 

alternatives presented would be primarily for weed treatments following catastrophic fires. 

Invasion of grasslands and shrub-steppe habitats below 6,800 feet by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) 

following fire is the most likely large-scale threat to the natural character of the proposed wilderness 

areas. Portions of each proposed wilderness area are below 6,800 feet in elevation, and we anticipate 

treatment of cheatgrass across several hundred, and possibly several thousand acres, within one or 

more proposed wilderness areas would be necessary in the future. However, such large-scale 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-20 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

treatment efforts are complex and could require a variety of treatment tools and methods. Such 

large-scale treatments within wilderness would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through a 

separate minimum requirements and decision analysis, including a minimum tool analysis. 

Other weeds that threaten the ecological integrity of Sheldon Refuge and the natural character of the 

proposed wilderness areas occupy much smaller areas, ranging from widely scattered individual 

plants to areas a few acres in size. We anticipate treatment of these weeds would occur repeatedly 

within each proposed wilderness area, and in many instances at the same or very close to the same 

locations over the next 10 to 15 years. Due to the fact these types of situations are expected to be the 

most common, this minimum tool analysis will focus on determining the minimum tools necessary to 

implement weed treatment of individual plants or patches of weeds within portions of the proposed 

wilderness areas 10 acres in size or smaller. 

Alternative A 

Description 

Under Alternative A, all weed treatments would be completed using non-mechanized and nonmotorized means and other methods not otherwise prohibited by the Wilderness Act. In addition, 

weed treatment under this alternative would not allow the use of herbicides for treatment of areas 10 

acres in size or smaller. Treatments would be completed using hand tools to cut or dig weeds from 

the ground. 

We anticipate removing scattered individual plants and small patches of plants from an area 10 acres 

in size would require one to four people working for one to four days. Plant parts would either be 

left on the ground or removed from Sheldon Refuge for disposal, depending upon the type of weed 

and growth stage. 

For treatment of larger areas infested with several acres of weeds, the number of people and/or the 

amount of time needed would be considerably longer. In areas where native shrubs and other woody 

plants are common, hand-pulling and grubbing would be the only practicable option. However, we 

anticipate many weeds would be overlooked under such conditions and treatment would not be very 

effective. 

Because weed control would be limited to hand tools, retreatment of most areas is likely under this 

alternative. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

The presence of work crews for up to four days within the same general area is expected to alter 

wildlife behavior and habitat use until efforts are completed. Long-term trammeling of wilderness 

character from the control of non-native plants was evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

Short-term temporary camps consisting of small tents would have a slight effect on the undeveloped 

character within small portions of the proposed wilderness areas. Following campsite removal and 

restoration, little or no noticeable evidence of temporary developments would remain. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-21 

“Natural”

We do not anticipate hand-pulling, cutting, or digging of scattered weeds or of individual weeds 

within areas a few acres in size would noticeably affect the natural appearance or condition of the 

proposed wilderness areas. Digging and grubbing to control numerous large patches of deep-rooted 

perennial weeds would likely cause substantial soil disturbance and could increase soil erosion from 

the site. Control of certain deep tap-rooted weeds and large woody plants using only hand-cutting, 

pulling, or grubbing is simply not effective and will only slow or delay plant growth. 

Disturbance from hand tools to control large patches of weeds would make sites more susceptible to 

future invasion from weeds. Sites would be re-seeded to mitigate these impacts, but a number of 

efforts to reseed areas within Sheldon Refuge have had mixed results depending on weather, soil 

type, and other subsequent disturbances such as windstorms and wildlife use. The combination of 

digging and reseeding would slightly alter the natural appearance of the treated areas, but if 

successful these effects would not be noticeable after one or two growing seasons. 

In areas of dense native vegetation and shrubs, the effectiveness of hand treatment would be limited, 

and many weeds would likely be overlooked, requiring several subsequent retreatments. 

More general long-term impacts to natural conditions from control and removal of non-native 

invasive plants were evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Opportunities for solitude and unconfined types of recreation would be directly affected by the 

presence of work crews for up to four days. The use of hand tools would have little or no impact on 

opportunities for primitive recreation. Most weed control activities would occur during the spring 

before seeds develop and would not coincide with the fall hunting seasons when most visitation to 

the wilderness areas occurs. As a result impacts to opportunities solitude and primitive and 

unconfined recreation would affect few people. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

The use of hand tools under this alternative could include grubbing and digging of individual plants 

and could result in damage or destruction of artifacts and minor disturbance of cultural and historic 

sites. 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

The use of simple primitive tools such as hoes and grubbing adzes under this alternative would have 

little effect on maintaining traditional skills. 

Special Provisions

N/A

Time Constraints

Removal of weeds with the use of hand tools would be the most time consuming when compared 

with Alternative B or C. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-22 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

Hand tools required to implement this alternative are commonly used. Safety issues and concerns 

can be mitigated through proper job training and protective equipment. 

Alternative B 

Description 

Under this alternative the control and removal of scattered individual plants and treatment of areas 10 

acres in size or less would be completed using tools under Alternative A and hand-operated 5-gallon 

backpack herbicide and/or slightly larger capacity pack stock sprayers over a period of one to four 

days per treatment. To protect public health and safety, areas treated with herbicides would be 

closed to public access for a period of time determined from product label recommendations and 

restrictions. 

For herbicide treatment of very large patches or multiple large patches of weeds, we anticipate 10 or 

more trips per person would be required to refill portable backpack sprayers. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

The presence of work crews for periods up to four days per treatment is expected to alter wildlife 

behavior during treatment and to alter habitat use for several years until natural plant communities 

are restored. Long-term trammeling of wilderness character from control of invasive non-native 

plants was evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

Short-term work camps consisting of small tents would have a lesser temporary impact on the 

undeveloped character of proposed wilderness than Alternative A. Following campsite removal and 

restoration, little or no noticeable evidence of temporary developments would remain. 

“Natural”

Hand tools would be used under this alternative primarily to remove scattered individual weeds, or 

small patches of weeds. Herbicides would more commonly be used to treat large patches and areas 

with numerous patches of weeds. While some herbicides that would be used for treatment are plant 

specific and kill only the target weed (grasses, broadleaf plants, woody plants), some of the most 

effective herbicides are not specific to only the target weed and would kill native plants as well. 

Where herbicides are applied over areas of a few acres or more, vegetation composition would not 

appear natural, at least until the following growing season. Depending upon the type of herbicide(s) 

used, either the grass component of the habitat type or the forb component of the habitat type could 

be largely absent. A discussion of additional impacts to refuge and habitat biological health, 

diversity, and integrity from the use of herbicides is included in (Appendix O). However, when 

compared to the often less-effective methods under Alternative A, this alternative would require 

fewer retreatments and would avoid ground disturbance to remove large patches of deep-rooted 

perennial weeds. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-23 

Long-term impacts to natural conditions from control and treatment of non-native plants were 

evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Opportunities for solitude and unconfined types of recreation would be directly affected by the 

presence of work crews for up to four days and temporary closures in areas up to 10 acres in size 

where herbicides are used. The use of hand tools would have little or no impact on opportunities for 

primitive recreation. Most weed control activities would occur during the spring before seeds 

develop and would not coincide with the fall hunting seasons when most visitation to the wilderness 

areas occurs. As a result, impacts to opportunities solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation 

would affect few people. 

Opportunities for solitude would be directly affected by the presence of small crews for several days. 

Opportunities for unconfined types of recreation would be directly impacted by temporary closures in 

areas up to 10 acres in size where herbicides are used. Because only herbicides would be used, we 

anticipate these impacts would last a few days longer than the herbicide application period. Overall, 

impacts to unconfined recreation would impact larger areas than under Alternative A due to public 

access closures. Noise impacts to wilderness solitude under this alternative would be more intense 

and affect a larger area than under Alternative A, but would be less intense than under Alternative C, 

which proposes the use of motorized vehicles. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

Impacts from the use of hand tools would be as described under Alternative A. However, in areas 

where herbicides are used, the potential for these impacts would be eliminated and as a result impacts 

to cultural resources are lower under this alternative when compared to Alternative A or C.

Maintaining Traditional Skills

This alternative would maintain only basic skills for using hand tools. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

This alternative would require fewer people and less time over the long term when compared with 

multiple retreatments anticipated under Alternative A. For areas of moderate to gentle terrain, this 

alternative would require more time than under Alternative C, which would utilize larger-capacity 

motorized spray equipment and vehicles. In areas of steep, rough, and rocky terrain inaccessible to 

vehicles, this alternative would require about the same amount of time as Alternative C. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The hand tools, hand-powered spray equipment, and livestock required to implement this alternative 

are commonly used. Backpack sprayers are notorious for developing small leaks and would likely 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-24 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

need to be regularly fixed or replaced to avoid contamination. Safety issues and concerns can be 

mitigated through proper job training and project planning. 

Alternative C 

Description 

As with Alternative A and B, the control and removal of scattered individual plants and treatment of 

areas a few acres in size would be completed with the use of hand tools and hand-powered backpack 

and/or pack stock sprayers by one to four people working over a period of one to four days per 

treatment. 

In addition, motorized vehicles equipped with low-pressure tires and flail mowers or large-volume 

herbicide sprayers with electric pumps, handheld spray wands, and/or spray booms capable of 

spraying an area at least 40 feet in width would be used for the treatment of very large weed patches 

or multiple large patches over areas up to 10 acres in size. Using such equipment we anticipate one 

person could treat 10 acres within one day under ideal conditions and terrain, but treatments could 

require as many as two days depending on terrain, weed density, and the number of herbicide 

refilling trips needed. However, due to the steep rugged terrain within many portions of the proposed 

wilderness areas, motorized vehicles may not be capable of mowing or spraying all weeds within the 

treatment areas. The use of hand tools, backpack, or stock pack spray equipment would likely be 

necessary for treatment of these remaining areas. To protect public health and safety, areas treated 

with herbicides would be closed to public access for a period of time determined from product label 

recommendations and restrictions. 

Vehicle use would occur off-road within the treatment areas. Vehicle access would occur along 

previously existing routes and would require a single trip to the treatment area. All fuel, herbicide, 

tools, equipment, and work crews necessary to complete the treatment would be transported with the 

vehicle to the treatment area, on foot, or by pack stock. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

The presence of work crews and motorized vehicles for periods up to two days per treatment is 

expected to alter wildlife behavior during treatment and to alter habitat use for several years until 

natural plant communities are restored. Long-term trammeling of wilderness character from control 

of invasive non-native plants was evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

Impacts from work crews treating scattered individual plants or areas only a few acres in size would 

be as described for those activities under Alternatives A and B. Access by motor vehicle would 

occur less frequently than foot or horseback access described under Alternative A or B. However, 

previously established routes would continue to be easily identified as primitive two-track vehicle 

routes in contrast to the more naturally appearing undeveloped trails anticipated under Alternative A. 

In addition, the use of vehicles off-road to conduct mowing or spraying would create new vehicle 

tracks, which would likely encourage trespass into these areas and the pioneering of new routes. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-25 

“Natural”

Effects from herbicide use would be as described under Alternative B, and we anticipate natural 

conditions would be affected for many years after treatment. 

In areas where flail mowers would be used to cut weeds prior to seed production, vegetation would 

not appear natural within areas several acres or more in size and effects would be readily apparent to 

even a casual observer. In grassland habitats, these effects would be noticeable until the following 

spring or perhaps the end of the next growing season. In shrub-steppe habitats these effects would be 

noticeable for decades. However, unlike hand-pulling or herbicide use, mowers or flailers can 

effectively treat large patches of annual or biannual weeds by eliminating most seed production but 

still allow native plant communities to remain. The combination of followed by herbicide treatment 

or hand removal of remaining weeds can be effective. These remaining native plants are then able to 

continue growing and produce seed in following years to revegetate the treated areas and maintain 

natural conditions over the long term. 

The presence of vehicle tracks throughout the treatment areas would appear unnatural and the use of 

access routes would result in damage to vegetation, including shrubs and other perennials. When 

compared with short-term campsite use, stock use, and backpacking under Alternatives A and B, 

these impacts would be more severe, would affect larger areas, and would be noticeable for a longer 

amount of time due to more intensive trampling from vehicle tires, and access travel concentrated 

along existing vehicles routes. 

Long-term impacts to natural conditions from control and treatment of non-native plants were 

evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Opportunities for solitude would be directly affected by the presence of small hand crews and the 

sights and sounds of concentrated use of motorized vehicles conducting treatments for one or two 

days. Opportunities for unconfined types of recreation would be directly impacted by temporary 

closures in areas ranging from two acres up to 10 acres in size where herbicides are used. Because 

only herbicides would be used, we anticipate these impacts would last a few days longer than the 

herbicide application period. Overall, impacts to unconfined recreation would impact larger areas 

than under Alternative A due to public access closures. Noise impacts to wilderness solitude under 

this alternative would be more intense and would affect a large area, but would last for a shorter 

period of time than under Alternative A or B. 

The use of motorized vehicles would detract from opportunities for primitive recreation. Most 

treatments would occur during the spring when recreation use is estimated to be very low. As a 

result, impacts to solitude and primitive recreation would affect few people. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

Impacts from the use of hand tools would be as described under Alternative A. The use of vehicles 

off-road under this alternative has the potential to disturb unidentified artifacts or other historic and 

cultural resources. The use of low-pressure tire vehicles would reduce the potential for breaking or 

otherwise destroying these artifacts. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-26 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

This alternative would maintain only basic skills for using hand tools. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

The need for fewer people and ability to treat areas within one or two days using vehicles would 

ensure treatment is conducted within the time period most likely to be effective, and herbicide 

application would require less time with fewer refilling trips required when compared with smallcapacity backpack sprayers. However, when compared with Alternative B, this alternative’s use of 

motorized vehicles would not be effective in treating 100% of project areas, which include steep 

rocky terrain. As a result, effective treatment under this alternative of all potential sites would 

require the methods and tools considered under Alternative B. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The use of motorized vehicles to haul and apply herbicides off-road in uneven terrain is less safe than 

application on foot using a portable backpack sprayer. Using motorized vehicles presents a rollover 

hazard and in the event of an accident, the amount of herbicide that could be spilled is also greater 

than with a 5-gallon backpack sprayer. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Untrammeled - - -

Undeveloped - + +

Natural - + +/-

Solitude or Primitive Recreation +/- +/- -

Unique Components 

Wilderness Character - + - 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Heritage and Cultural Resources - +/- -

Maintaining Traditional Skills + - -

Special Provisions NA NA NA

Time - +/- +

Additional Wilderness Criteria NA NA NA

Other Criteria Summary - - - 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Safety + + - 

Safety Criteria 

Safety risks from hand tools for cutting and digging, from herbicide use, and off-road use of 

motorized vehicles can be mitigated by proper protective equipment and training. However, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-27 

Alternative C is the least safe of the three alternatives due to the combined safety risk from the use of 

all three tools. 

Documentation 

See Appendix O. 

Step 2 Decision: What is the Minimum Activity/Minimum Tool? 

Selected Alternative 

Alternative B 

Rationale for Selecting this Alternative (Including Documentation of Safety Criterion, If 

Appropriate) 

The combination of hand-pulling, hand-cutting, and herbicide use proposed under Alternative B was 

identified as the minimum set of tools and techniques necessary to effectively maintain and/or restore 

natural habitat conditions within areas of Sheldon Refuge and the proposed wilderness areas 

identified. This alternative does not require activities otherwise prohibited by the Wilderness Act 

and would protect and preserve wilderness character. 

Each of these techniques has been shown through experience to be well-suited to the control of 

certain weeds, while at the same time minimizing soil disturbance, seed germination, and the need 

for follow-up treatments when compared to more restrictive approaches, which utilize only one 

method of treatment, or more intensive methods, which utilize motorized equipment and vehicles. 

Mowing large areas to control weeds is typically combined with other treatment methods over areas 

larger than 10 acres in size. At this time no specific weeds or areas have been identified where the 

use of flail mowers would be necessary or effective. 

The combination of tools and techniques under Alternative B would avoid activities and uses 

otherwise prohibited within proposed wilderness areas, and are expected to be effective. Grubbing, 

digging, and cutting with hand tools under Alternative A could actually aggravate the problem of 

invasive plants through ground disturbance. The use of herbicides under Alternative B would be 

effective for some weeds, but would also kill native plants when used for large patches. For such 

large patches, hand-cutting would eliminate seed production from biannual or annual plants, while 

only moderately impacting native perennial plants and natural appearance. 

Alternative C would allow use of the widest range of tools and techniques, but not all tools and 

techniques are necessary to efficiently accomplish habitat management objective within relatively 

small areas of Sheldon Refuge. When combined with added impacts to natural condition from offroad vehicle use, Alternative C would cause the greatest damage to habitats and natural conditions 

when compared with Alternatives A and B. Treatment of larger areas within wilderness areas will be 

considered on a case-by-case basis, and each evaluation would consider the use of effective largescale non-motorized and non-mechanized tools and techniques such as biological control, grazing, or 

aerial herbicide application. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-28 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 

Except as specifically described in alternative selected, no use of motorized vehicles or equipment 

may occur without prior written determination by the Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex 

Project Leader. 

Check Any Wilderness Act Section 4(c) Uses Approved in this Alternative 

 mechanical transport landing of aircraft 

 motorized equipment temporary road 

 motor vehicles structure or installation 

 motorboats 

Record and report any authorizations of Wilderness Act Section 4(c) uses according to agency 

procedures. 

Approvals Signature Name Position Date 

Prepared by: 

Recommended:

Approved: 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-29 

G.4 Draft Minimum Requirements Decision and Analysis for Removal and 

Restoration for Abandoned Livestock Developments 

Step 1: Determine if any administrative action is necessary. (Refer to the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS 

and preferred alternative). 

Management direction for abandoned livestock developments was evaluated through a range of 

alternatives included in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. The CCP/EIS preferred alternative for 

removal and restoration of abandoned livestock developments has been determined necessary for 

management of Sheldon Refuge and the proposed wilderness areas. 

Step 2: Determine the minimum activity/minimum tool. 

Description of Alternatives 

In order to achieve the minimum administrative action determined necessary as described in the 

Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS preferred alternative, the minimum tools, equipment, and techniques for 

use within wilderness must be capable of removing and restoring structures and disturbances 

associated with at least 20 springs and 20% or more of playas located in the Sheldon Refuge 

proposed wilderness areas within the next 15 years. 

Early pioneers in the Sheldon area quickly recognized that successful agriculture required irrigation 

during the summer months. These settlers built most of the region’s large reservoirs to help ensure 

water was available through July, August, and September. Early management activities on Sheldon 

Refuge focused on additional development of water resources to increase year-round water for 

livestock and, to a lesser degree, wildlife. Ponds were dug in seeps, spring flow diverted to watering 

troughs, and stock ponds built. Fences were constructed to keep livestock out of riparian areas and 

directed to troughs. Although these activities have been common since the 1930s there is debate 

about how effective these activities are for wildlife (Broyles 1995). 

In 1994, grazing privileges within Sheldon Refuge were transferred back to Sheldon Refuge by the 

permittee(s) and permanently retired by the Service. This eliminated all commercial livestock 

grazing within the Refuge and the need for all associated livestock water developments. These 

abandoned developments remain throughout Sheldon Refuge including all eight proposed wilderness 

areas. 

There are currently 183 water improvements identified on Sheldon Refuge. Of primary concern for 

this wilderness minimum requirements decision and analysis are the 77 developed springs and 22 

developed playas within Sheldon Refuge, which include the following developments and 

disturbances: 

a) Spring box or head box: A spring box or head box is a structure installed at or near the 

spring source to collect water for diversion to a water trough, tank, or dug-out using a pipe. 

Spring boxes or head boxes are typically constructed of concrete or steel to isolate water 

from contamination and are surrounded with gravel to filter coarse materials. Excavation to 

install these structures varied from spring to spring, up to about 20 feet in depth. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-30 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Figure 1. Typical spring box within Sheldon Refuge (photo 

Gail H. Collins).

b) Pipeline: Pipelines associated with developed springs connect a spring box to a water 

trough or tank, connect the spring source and a spring box, or connect directly from a spring 

source to a water trough or tank. Pipelines usually are constructed of steel or plastic pipe 

generally 2 inches or less in diameter. Pipelines are commonly buried below the frost line 

(usually 24-36 inches below ground) or placed on the surface and protected from trampling 

by a covering of rocks. 

c) Troughs and Tanks: Water troughs that remain within Sheldon Refuge vary from 6-footlong light-gauge galvanized steel “sheep” troughs to converted heavy-gauge steel military 

surplus aircraft engine containers weighing 300 pounds or more. In some cases a number of 

troughs are used together at the same spring to store additional water. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-31 

Figure 2. Abandoned converted aircraft engine container water troughs in Sheldon 

Refuge; these two troughs weigh several hundred pounds combined.

d) Stock Ponds and Dug-outs: Stock ponds are created by constructing earthen dams built 

across ephemeral drainages or depressions and are intended to capture snowmelt runoff and 

create a watering place that will persist into the summer months. Stock ponds differ from 

larger reservoirs in that there is no outlet structure such as a canal or headgate to release 

water. Dug-outs are artificially constructed depressions that collect and store water. Dugouts differ from reservoirs and stock ponds in that a dam is not relied upon to impound water. 

Dug-outs within Sheldon Refuge are generally located below water troughs and are 30 feet in 

diameter or less, but occasionally larger. Seventy water improvements within Sheldon 

Refuge have been identified as spring dug-outs or stock ponds and 22 water developments 

have been identified as playa dug-outs. These dug-outs are not associated with springs or 

water troughs, are typically larger than spring dug-outs, and were constructed using 

backhoes, bulldozers, and sometimes explosives. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-32 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Figure 3. Typical stock pond; note the small earth dam at the right to impound 

water.

Figure 4. Moderately sized dug-out within the Round Mountain proposed 

wilderness area.

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-33 

e) Fence Exclosures: Fences were constructed at some, but not all, springs to protect the 

spring source, spring box, water pipeline, and riparian vegetation. Exclosures were 

traditionally constructed using barbed wire and wood or metal posts to protect areas smaller 

than 1 acre and nearly all have been removed or are in various stages of disrepair. 

Figure 5. Typical wire fence spring exclosure within Sheldon Refuge.

 

The primary concerns related to abandoned spring and playa water developments with Sheldon 

Refuge and the proposed wilderness areas are the long-term impacts to wetland and riparian 

ecological health from permanent changes to the distribution and timing of water and the visual 

impacts to the undeveloped and natural character of the proposed wilderness areas from the 

continued presence of permanent structures. 

A secondary concern is the protection of springs and riparian habitats in either their current or 

restored condition from the impacts of feral horses and burros. 

Alternative A

Description 

Under Alternative A, primitive techniques, tools, and skills including non-mechanized and nonmotorized tools and equipment would be used to remove abandoned debris and restore the natural 

character and function of developed springs throughout the proposed wilderness areas. 

The majority of work under this alternative would be completed using small hand tools such as hand 

wire rollers, pliers, jacks, picks, shovels, snatch blocks, hand-powered winches, cables, ropes, etc. 

Transport of all tools, materials, supplies, debris, and people would be by foot or pack stock. Larger 

debris such as troughs and metal tanks would be dragged or skidded out along existing routes using 

stock teams, or cut into smaller pieces with gas cutting torches, which could then be packed out. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-34 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

To protect springs from further damage by feral animals and to ensure successful restoration, spring 

fence exclosures would either be fully repaired or completely replaced with new fence. Where 

feasible, replacement fences would be constructed using wood rail or metal pipe, which blend with 

the surroundings, do not present a tangle hazard to animals, require less maintenance, do not require 

ground disturbance, and are easily dismantled and removed. However, due to the remote location of 

many springs within the proposed wilderness areas, and the size, weight, and amount of fence 

material needed, construction using wood rail or metal pipe fence would be prohibitive (particularly 

at locations furthest from roads). Instead, we anticipate most exclosures would continue to be 

constructed using traditional wire and metal t-posts, which can more easily be hauled using pack 

stock and can be constructed over most terrain. 

For deeply buried spring boxes and water pipelines where removal would create substantial surface 

disturbance, sites would be assessed to determine whether the development should be left intact to 

allow the continued flow of water or whether the pipe and/or spring box should be severed, plugged, 

and/or filled in. Most smaller stock ponds and dug-outs would not be refilled or recontoured with 

soil due to the impacts this would cause to invertebrates, existing riparian vegetation, and increased 

erosion rates and water turbidity. Instead these sites would be allowed to refill naturally over time or 

would be filled with coarse rocks and small boulders to create a more natural appearance and restore 

a more natural timing and amount of water flow by reducing water storage capacity of the structures. 

For restoration of larger dug-outs and catchments associated with playas and some springs, work 

crews with highline buckets and shovels and/or horse-drawn dredges and draglines would be used to 

refill excavated areas. 

We anticipate the amount of time and effort required to removal and restore springs and playas under 

this alternative would vary considerably depending upon location and degree of development. For 

springs with minimal development (e.g., a few feet of plastic pipe and a single rusted-out light-gauge 

metal trough) and near roads for motorized access, we estimate complete removal and restoration 

could be completed by four people in a single day. In the case of springs with extensive 

developments and ground disturbance (i.e., a steel culvert spring box, 100 feet or more of 2-inch steel 

pipe, one or two converted aircraft engine container troughs, and a dug-out catchment 4 feet deep and 

40 feet in diameter ) or playas with large excavations (i.e., 8-12 feet deep and over 100 feet in 

length), removal and restoration could require seasonal work camps and pack stock resupply to 

support crews of eight or more people working with stock teams for several weeks. 

Temporary work crew campsites and latrine sites would be selected in advance. Sites would be 

capable of supporting one or more restoration efforts. Access routes for seasonal camps or campsites 

anticipated to be used for multiple seasons would also be identified in advance. Both access routes 

and campsites would be photographed and inventoried prior to use in conjunction with a cultural 

resource inventory to document wildlife present, measure vegetative cover, and identify noxious 

weeds and other invasive non-native plants. No maintenance or surface disturbance would be 

allowed to improve access routes. Rocks and other obstacles could be temporarily moved to provide 

suitable campsites. Temporary latrines for burial of waste would be excavated to the minimum depth 

and size necessary. 

Upon completion of restoration work, all materials and structures would be removed. Once the 

management objective has been achieved, campsites would be restored to their prior appearance 

using standard wilderness rehabilitation and restoration methods and primitive tools. Access routes 

and campsites would be photographed and monitored following the first full growing season to 

document impacts from use and the effectiveness of restoration efforts, as well as to detect any newly 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-35 

introduced noxious weeds or other non-native plants. Subsequent monitoring would be conducted as 

needed to document wildlife use and campsite recovery. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

The presence of work crews for periods of a month or possibly longer within the same general 

location is expected to alter wildlife behavior and habitat use until restoration efforts are completed. 

Long-term trammeling of wilderness character from management efforts to rehabilitate and restore 

natural condition to these sites within proposed wilderness was evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge 

CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

The removal of permanent structures and debris from the proposed wilderness areas would improve 

the undeveloped character of specific sites and areas within all eight proposed wilderness areas. For 

specific areas (such as the Alkali Peak Proposed Wilderness Area) where a number of abandoned 

developments are concentrated, the removal and restoration of these multiple sites would improve the 

overall undeveloped character of the proposed wilderness as a whole. Temporary short-term 

seasonal work camps consisting of small and large tents would affect the undeveloped character of 

small portions of the proposed wilderness areas. Following campsite removal and restoration, little 

or no noticeable evidence of temporary developments would remain. Use along identified access 

routes would be noticeable, but would appear as undeveloped and unmaintained single-track trails 

“Natural”

Water pipelines, troughs, and playa dug-outs have altered the natural flow and location of water, 

which in turn have altered the natural ecology of associated riparian and wetland habitats. Actions 

under this alternative would restore natural ecological function to a number of springs within all eight 

proposed wilderness areas. However, the ecology of playa habitats is poorly understood and we can 

only speculate what impacts restoration efforts would have on playa function and ecology. 

Water development has altered the natural appearance of the proposed wilderness areas through the 

placement of water troughs and the construction of dug-outs. Natural erosion and regrowth of 

vegetation have made a number of dug-outs substantially unnoticeable to the casual observer, 

particularly at sites with Wyoming big sagebrush and Great Basin wild rye. At other sites, 

particularly dug-outs in alkaline playa basins, excavation work completed more than 60 years ago 

remains readily visible and noticeable to most people. Even if work at these sites is unable to restore 

natural ecological function, efforts would be successful at restoring the natural appearance of these 

sites. Restoration work itself would result in some short-term soil disturbance and vegetation 

removal, but we anticipate these impacts would not be readily apparent within one or two growing 

seasons. Restoration sites would be monitored to determine if reseeding with native plants is needed 

to stabilize soils or prevent the establishment of invasive non-native plants. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Opportunities for solitude would be directly affected by the presence of work crews as large as eight 

people, and effects would primarily occur within the project area and near campsite locations. The 

use of hand tools would have little or no impact on opportunities for primitive recreation. Recreation 

use is estimated to be very low during the summer months, but use increases during the fall hunting 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-36 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

seasons within most proposed wilderness areas. As a result, impacts to solitude would affect few 

people if restoration efforts were conducted during the spring and summer months and would affect 

sport hunters if conducted during the fall. 

Once evidence of past developments has been removed, opportunities for primitive types of 

recreation would be improved over the long term within all eight proposed wilderness areas. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

Each site proposed for restoration has been previously disturbed by construction activities, and any 

cultural and historic resources were likely disturbed or destroyed at that time. Areas surrounding 

these sites would be inventoried for sensitive cultural and historic resources that could be damaged 

by restoration work; activities would be conducted to avoid these areas. However, the risk of 

disturbing or destroying artifacts and resources not identified during these inventories is greatest 

under this alternative, which proposes to use large teams of horses or mules, draglines, and dredges 

to refill large spring and playa dug-outs. Risk to cultural and historic resources from other 

restoration efforts would be negligible under this alternative. 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

The primitive and traditional skills required for handling pack stock and stock teams to pull loads or 

specialized equipment such as dredges and draglines are used rarely and may become lost altogether 

as both government agencies and ranchers increasingly rely on motorized equipment such as backhoes 

and excavators. This alternative would result in the continued practice and teaching of these primitive 

skills, but only for a relatively short period of time until large-scale restoration efforts are completed. 

Special Provisions

N/A

Time Constraints

It is estimated there are a dozen or more extensively developed playas and springs within the 

proposed wilderness areas. Even if the substantial amount of funding necessary were available, a 

number of highly skilled team drivers, specially trained horse and mule teams, and specialized 

equipment would be needed to complete restoration of these sites. It is uncertain if employees and/or 

contractors meeting these requirements could be hired to complete the work within the 10- to 15-year 

timeframe of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS preferred alternative. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

The continued use of traditional four-strand wildlife-friendly fence when reconstructing or replacing 

protective spring exclosures under this alternative would have a number of drawbacks. While 

effective, wire fence poses a tangle hazard to wildlife if not properly maintained, requires posts be 

placed into the ground, is not easily removed, and is more difficult to reuse at other locations when 

compared to wood rail or metal pipe fence exclosures as proposed under Alternatives B and C. 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The use of hand tools and equipment required under this alternative would be relatively safe, but 

even with trained and experienced teamsters the use of horse or mule teams and dredges or draglines 

to refill large excavations would increase the level of risk and safety hazards. Consequently, this 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-37 

alternative would be less safe than the use of specialized excavators and other modern motorized 

equipment specifically designed to operate safely in such situations. 

Alternative B

Description 

Under this alternative the majority of spring and playa rehabilitation and restoration work would be 

completed using a combination of hand tools as discussed under Alternative A, non-motorized 

vehicles, and motorized vehicles and equipment. All vehicle use would be at restoration sites and 

along existing routes within the proposed wilderness areas. 

Hand tools and non-motorized vehicles such as wheeled carts, wheelbarrows, or horse-drawn wagons 

would be used to transport tools, equipment, and debris, and to refill dug-out water catchments at the 

majority of sites within the proposed wilderness areas. At the most extensively developed springs 

and playas (refer to Alternative A Description section), removal and restoration work would be 

completed using a backhoe or small excavator. At a few locations where complete restoration would 

require removing large amounts of debris, refilling a dug-out, and constructing a protective fence 

exclosure around the spring itself, a truck and trailer would be used to transport both the backhoe or 

excavator and all fence materials to the site and haul out all debris and equipment in a single round 

trip. Any additional trips to transport supplies, materials, or people would be on foot or by 

horseback. 

Figure 6. Free-standing metal pipe fence exclosure effectively protecting riparian 

habitat from feral horse and burro impacts (photo Gail H. Collins).

With the use of either mechanized or motorized vehicles under this alternative, we anticipate most 

protective fence exclosures would be constructed using the less intrusive but heavier wood rail or 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-38 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

metal pipe fence. Exclosures would be constructed using traditional wire and metal t-posts only 

where terrain would make the use of freestanding rail or pipe fence impractical and ineffective. 

Access routes would be photographed and inventoried prior to use to measure vegetative cover and to 

identify noxious weeds and other invasive non-native plants. Only the minimum maintenance or 

surface disturbance necessary would be conducted along routes at specific sites for the safe transport 

of vehicles and heavy equipment. 

We anticipate the amount of time and effort to remove materials and complete restoration work under 

this alternative would not vary greatly due to location or degree of development. For springs with 

minimal development and near access roads, work could likely be completed by four people in a 

single day, similar to Alternative A. For springs and playas with extensive development and 

disturbance, we anticipate the use of mechanized vehicles and/or motorized equipment would enable 

crews of four to eight people to complete the necessary work within five days. Work crews would 

access sites each day on foot or by horseback, or would use short-term temporary campsites near the 

restoration sites. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

The presence of work crews for periods up to five days within the same general location is expected 

to alter wildlife behavior and habitat use until restoration efforts are completed. We anticipate these 

effects would be somewhat less than under Alternative A or C. Long-term trammeling of wilderness 

character from management efforts to rehabilitate and restore natural condition to these sites within 

proposed wilderness was evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

As described under Alternative A, the removal of permanent structures and debris would improve the 

undeveloped character of all eight proposed wilderness areas. Impacts from short-term temporary 

crew campsites would be less than those described for longer-term campsites proposed under 

Alternatives A and C. 

“Natural”

Similar to effects identified under Alternative A, restoration work under Alternative B would restore 

both natural ecological conditions and natural appearance to springs and playas within each of the 

eight proposed wilderness areas. For sites with extensive development and past disturbance, the use 

of a backhoe or small excavator would likely cause less disturbance to vegetation and soils than 

would teams of horses or mules as described under Alternative A. The bucket of a backhoe can be 

used effectively to a distance of 24 feet without moving the backhoe itself and could completely refill 

a 40-foot-diameter dug-out by repositioning only a few times. To refill a dug-out this size using 

teams of horses with a dredge or dragline would take many dozens of passes, and the amount of area 

required to turn the teams would disturb a much larger area than a backhoe. Similarly, when refilling 

long deep trenches in playa dug-outs, a backhoe with a front-end loader or small excavator with a 

blade would be able to move much more soil each pass than a team of horses or mules pulling a 

dredge or dragline. As with spring dug-outs, stock teams would disturb surrounding portions of the 

playa when turning around while motorized equipment is capable of backing over the freshly 

disturbed soil to make subsequent passes. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-39 

Vehicle access to restoration sites would occur along existing routes. For access routes to the most 

disturbed sites, one trip with a single truck and trailer or piece of equipment is expected to cause less 

damage to vegetation and soils than would the multiple trips on foot or by pack stock required to 

support long-term temporary camps under Alternative A. However, if the same access route would 

be used to access other developed springs and playas, impacts would likely be similar to those 

described under Alternative A. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Opportunities for solitude would be directly affected by the presence of work crews as large as eight 

people and the sounds of motorized vehicles. Noise from a single vehicle trip for transport of tools, 

equipment, and supplies would be expected to have a slight short-term impact on wilderness solitude. 

Overall, noise impacts to wilderness solitude under this alternative would be more intense and would 

affect a larger area, but would last for a shorter length of time than would those from larger work 

crews using hand tools as proposed in Alternative A. In contrast, impacts to wilderness solitude 

would be less intense, would affect a smaller area, and would last longer than those from the use of 

helicopters as proposed in Alternative C. 

The use of both motorized and non-motorized vehicles would detract from opportunities for primitive 

recreation. As discussed under Alternative A, impacts would be greatest if restoration efforts are 

conducted during the fall hunting seasons when recreation use is greatest within the proposed 

wilderness areas. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

Inventories would be conducted as described under Alternative A. Because backhoes or small 

excavators would be used to refill spring or playa dug-outs with materials previously excavated to 

construct those structures and would need to reposition only a few times at each site and would be 

hauled along existing routes, the risk to unidentified artifacts or resources at restoration sites would 

be less under this alternative when compared to Alternative A, and only slightly greater than under 

Alternative C. 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

This alternative would not maintain traditional skills. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

The specialized tools and equipment needed to complete restoration of springs and playas under this 

alternative are readily available and with necessary funding, work could be completed within the 10- 

to 15-year timeframe of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS preferred alternative. Once fence materials are 

at the restoration site, construction of wood rail or metal pipe exclosures can be completed in a much 

shorter amount of time than a traditional wire and t-post fence exclosure of the same size. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

Increased use of wood rail or metal pipe rail fence for protective spring exclosures under this 

alternative would have a number of added benefits when compared with Alternative A. Both wood 

and pipe rail are more durable than wire and as a result require less maintenance and last longer when 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-40 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

properly maintained. Unlike wire fence, if wood or metal fencing does fail or collapse, the materials 

do not become an entanglement hazard for wildlife. Even though materials are more bulky than wire 

and metal t-posts, the natural color of wood and rusted metal blend surprisingly well into the 

surrounding landscape, which is covered with sagebrush, grass, and rock. Construction does not 

require posts be placed into the ground, and materials are easily dismantled, removed, and 

reassembled for reuse at other locations. 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

Backhoes and small excavators are specifically designed to allow a single skilled operator to safely 

and efficiently move large amounts of material in a relatively short amount of time. When compared 

to the increased risks associated with working around teams of horses and mules, the greater number 

of skilled people needed, and the longer amount of time necessary to move the same amount of 

material, this alternative would be considerably safer than Alternative A. 

Transporting large amounts of debris and fence materials by vehicle under this alternative would be 

safer than transport by helicopter as proposed under Alternative C. 

Alternative C 

Description 

Under this alternative developed springs and playas would be restored and rehabilitated using a 

combination of hand tools as described under Alternative A and helicopter transport of debris and 

fence materials when removal with primitive tools is not practicable. The use of a helicopter to 

remove debris from some springs would also make the use of metal pipe or wooden rail fence 

materials possible. 

Access for work crews and transport of most tools, equipment, supplies, and debris to and from 

restoration sites would be on foot or horseback. 

Helicopters would be used to transport suspended loads of fence materials for protective spring 

exclosures and to haul out large heavy debris such as converted aircraft engine container water 

troughs. At each site where fence materials are to be flown in, a load of debris would be prepared in 

advance to be hauled out on the return trip. Where it is determined a helicopter would be necessary 

for restoration of several springs in the same general vicinity, debris and materials would be prepared 

in advance and transported to/from all sites consecutively. In this way the length of time and amount 

of helicopter use within wilderness would be minimized, and the number of people and amount of 

time required to conduct restoration work would be minimized. Except in the case of emergency or 

for pilot safety, this alternative would not require the landing of aircraft within the proposed 

wilderness areas. 

Filling and recontouring dug-outs, stock ponds, and small reservoirs for complete site restoration 

would not be conducted within the proposed wilderness areas under this alternative. We expect most 

dug-outs would continue to function for the foreseeable future but eventually will refill and 

revegetate through the natural processes of erosion, sedimentation, and plant community succession. 

Stock ponds are expected to recover more quickly than dug-outs as loose material used for 

constructing the impoundment berms is eroded away, allowing water to flow unimpeded. In many 

cases this has already occurred. A separate minimum tool analysis would be conducted on a case-by-
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-41 

case basis for playa restoration if results from proposed restoration efforts conducted outside 

wilderness indicate refilling and recontouring is necessary to restore biological health, diversity, and 

integrity to these habitats. 

We anticipate the amount of time to remove materials and complete restoration of springs with 

minimal development and near access roads would likely be completed by four people in a single day 

similar to Alternatives A and B. Where helicopters are determined necessary, we anticipate a crew 

of two people could prepare debris and materials for transport in less than one day and transport with 

the helicopter could be completed in less than one hour. Construction of temporary fence exclosures 

around spring sources would be accomplished within one day by a crew of four to six people using 

hand tools. Under this alternative debris would be removed from springs and playas, but dug-outs, 

stock ponds, and small reservoirs at these sites would not be refilled as under Alternatives A and B. 

Instead, dug-outs would be allowed to naturally refill with sediment, or would be breached to prevent 

catastrophic failure and allow the flow of water back to riparian habitats where feasible. We expect 

this alternative would meet the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS preferred alternative objective to restore at 

least 20% of playas and 20 springs over the next 15 years. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

Under this alternative, the number of people and amount of time required to complete restoration 

work would be less than under Alternative A or B. Consequently the impacts to untrammeled 

wilderness condition would also less than those under Alternatives A and B. Long-term trammeling 

of wilderness character from management efforts to rehabilitate and restore natural condition to these 

sites within proposed wilderness was evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

The removal of permanent structures and debris would improve the undeveloped character of all 

eight proposed wilderness areas, similar to Alternatives A and B. Under this alternative debris and 

other abandoned items would be removed from springs and playas, but we would not refill areas 

excavated for stock ponds, dug-outs, or small reservoirs. As a result, some playas may continue to 

appear developed, but with debris removed, we anticipate remaining disturbances would be 

substantially unnoticeable to the casual observer due to natural filling through erosion and regrowth 

of vegetation. Impacts from temporary crew campsites anticipated under Alternatives A and B 

would not occur under this alternative. 

“Natural”

Stock ponds, dug-outs, and small reservoirs would appear more natural in the short term when 

compared with more visible impacts of restoration under Alternatives A and B. In addition, the risk 

of spreading invasive weeds under this alternative is avoided due to the absences of soil disturbance, 

temporary work camps, and the need for repeated stock use. Over the long term, we anticipate 

natural hydrology and habitat composition would be restored under this alternative, but would occur 

at a much slower rate than under Alternatives A and B. Because the ecology of playa habitats is 

poorly understood we cannot determine if allowing natural erosion and recovery processes would 

restore natural playa function and ecology under this alternative. Results from playa restoration 

efforts planned for sites outside the proposed wilderness areas will provide the information needed to 

determine if such actions are the minimum necessary to restore wilderness character in the future. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-42 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Many existing routes within the proposed wilderness areas have naturally grown in with vegetation 

over time. Minimal access either on foot or horseback to restoration sites under this alternative 

would result in little or no noticeable impact to the current condition of existing routes compared 

with the repeated use of these routes for access either on foot or by horseback as proposed under 

Alternative A or by motorized vehicles as proposed under Alternative B. This alternative would 

leave routes looking more natural than under Alternative A or B and would not make these routes 

more visible and more susceptible to trespass vehicle use in the future. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Opportunities for solitude would be directly affected by the presence of work crews as large as six 

people and the sights and sounds of helicopters within the proposed wilderness area where work is 

conducted, and possibly within other nearby proposed wilderness areas. We anticipate noise from a 

single helicopter flight to drop off and pick up a load of materials or debris would impact wilderness 

solitude for less than one hour. Overall, noise impacts to wilderness solitude under this alternative 

would be more intense and would affect a larger area than larger work crews using hand tools as 

proposed in Alternative A, or motorized vehicles as proposed under Alternative B, but these impacts 

would last for a shorter length of time. 

As discussed under Alternative A, impacts would be greatest if restoration efforts are conducted 

during the fall hunting seasons when recreation use is greatest within the proposed wilderness areas. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

Because no soil disturbance would occur under this alternative, we expect no adverse impact to 

cultural or historic resources. 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

This alternative would maintain some traditional skills, but not to the degree of Alternative A. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

The specialized tools and equipment needed to implement this alternative are readily available and 

necessary funding is available. The less intensive restoration efforts under this alternative would 

require less time and funding than either Alternative A or B, and work could be completed within the 

10- to 15-year timeframe of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS preferred alternative. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

The benefits of constructing protective fence exclosures with wood rails or metal pipe at some 

springs where helicopters are used would be as described under Alternative B. 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

Using helicopters to transport large, irregular shaped, bulky loads of fence materials or debris would 

increase risks to safety. Because only two people are typically associated with such operations, this 

alternative is expected to be somewhat less safe than using motorized excavation equipment under 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-43 

Alternative B, but somewhat safer than using teams of horses or mules to pull excavation equipment 

under Alternative A. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Untrammeled + + + 

Undeveloped + + - 

Natural +/- +/- + 

Solitude or Primitive Recreation ++ -- +/- 

Unique Components 

Wilderness Character + +/- +/- 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Heritage and Cultural Resources - +/- + 

Maintaining Traditional Skills + - - 

Special Provisions N/A N/A N/A 

Time - + + 

Additional Wilderness Criteria - + + 

Other Criteria Summary - + + 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Safety - +/- +

Safety Criteria 

Aircraft present a unique set of safety hazards which can be mitigated through the use of proper 

protective equipment, specialized training, and the use of qualified and experienced pilots and flight 

crews. 

Documentation 

Broyles, B. 1995. Desert wildlife water developments: Questioning use in the southwest. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin. 23(4):663-675. 

Step 2 Decision: What is the Minimum Activity/Minimum Tool? 

Selected Alternative 

Alternative C 

Rationale for Selecting this Alternative (Including Documentation of Safety Criterion, If 

Appropriate)

Alternative C would accomplish removal of permanent developments from all eight proposed 

wilderness areas with the least amount of short-term impacts to natural conditions, the least risk for 

introduction and spread of invasive non-native plants, the least risk for additional impact to cultural 

resources, and the shortest duration of impacts to opportunities for wilderness solitude and primitive 

recreation. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-44 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Alternative C would restore natural appearance and function to springs and other areas developed for 

livestock over a longer period of time, but with much less trammeling of wilderness character when 

compared with Alternative A or B. 

It is our determination the impact to wilderness solitude from the short-term low-altitude use of 

helicopters is outweighed by avoiding other longer-term adverse impacts but achieving the beneficial 

impacts of restoring natural appearance, condition, and opportunities for solitude free from evidence 

of people and their activities. 

Monitoring and reporting requirements: 

Check Any Wilderness Act Section 4(c) Uses Approved in this Alternative 

 mechanical transport landing of aircraft 

 motorized equipment temporary road 

 motor vehicles structure or installation 

 motorboats 

Record and report any authorizations of Wilderness Act Section 4(c) uses according to agency 

procedures. 

Approvals Signature Name Position Date 

Prepared by: 

Recommended: 

Approved: 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-45 

G.5 Draft Minimum Requirements Decision and Analysis for Maintenance of 

Wildlife Guzzlers 

Step 1: Determine if any administrative action is necessary. (Refer to the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS 

and preferred alternative.) 

Management direction for wildlife guzzlers was evaluated through a range of alternatives included in 

the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. The CCP/EIS preferred alternative for guzzler maintenance has been 

determined necessary for management of Sheldon Refuge and the proposed wilderness areas. 

Step 2: Determine the minimum activity/minimum tool. 

Description of Alternatives 

Permanent water developments for wildlife (a.k.a. guzzlers) were previously constructed and are 

located within the Round Mountain (bighorn sheep guzzler), Big Mountain (three bighorn sheep 

guzzlers and three small game guzzlers), and Big Spring Table (one bighorn sheep guzzler and four 

small game guzzlers) Proposed Wilderness Areas. 

The preferred alternative identified in the Sheldon Refuge Final CCP/EIS would retain all guzzlers, 

including those within the proposed wilderness areas (Refer to CCP/EIS Figure 5.1 for guzzler 

locations). To ensure guzzlers remain functional, periodic monitoring and maintenance are required. 

Materials needed for maintenance include small items such as fence wire, fence posts, and plastic 

gutter, as well as very large and heavy items such as sheet metal, fiberglass water catchments, and 

storage tanks. 

This analysis evaluates the minimum activity necessary within the proposed wilderness areas to 

accomplish the management direction of the preferred alternative. This analysis is programmatic in 

nature, and the decision is intended to provide for the types of monitoring and maintenance expected 

to occur over the course of the next 10 to 15 years. Unforeseen circumstances or conditions may 

require activities otherwise prohibited within the proposed wilderness areas that were not evaluated 

through this analysis. The decision to conduct such activities would require a site- and case-specific 

minimum requirements decision and analysis, with public involvement as required by Service policy. 

Alternative A 

Description 

All maintenance of guzzlers within proposed wilderness would be conducted using non-mechanized 

and non-motorized tools and equipment. Access and transport of tools, equipment, and materials 

would be by foot, horseback, pack stock, or other non-mechanized and non-motorized means. 

Under this alternative, periodic monitoring and minor maintenance could be completed by a single 

person or small crews of four to six people within a single day. Large items such as catchment 

basins and water tanks would be repaired on-site. 

For major repairs requiring replacement, teams of horses or mules could be used to pack sheet metal 

or drag catchment basins used for small game guzzlers, and we anticipate crews could complete 

replacement within two days. Due to their size and weight, we do not expect replacement of large 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-46 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

water storage tanks used for bighorn sheep guzzlers would be possible using non-mechanized means 

as proposed under this alternative. 

Materials used for maintenance and replacement would be selected and/or modified to blend with the 

surrounding terrain. The most noticeable element of guzzlers are their metal roofs. Replacement 

roofing would be painted camouflage/natural colors to better blend with the ground. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

The presence of work crews for one or two days within the same general location is expected to alter 

wildlife behavior and habitat use until maintenance efforts are completed. Continued long-term 

trammeling of wilderness character from altered numbers, movements, and distribution of wildlife 

populations due to the construction of artificial sources of water was evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge 

CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

Maintenance under this alternative would retain permanent structures within the three proposed 

wilderness areas. Over the long term, most bighorn sheep guzzlers could not be fully maintained and 

would likely be removed. 

“Natural”

Maintenance of guzzlers using materials that blend with the surrounding landscape would somewhat 

reduce the unnatural appearance of guzzlers. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

The presence of small work crew for one or two days would have little or no impact on opportunities 

for solitude or unconfined types of recreation. Reduced visibility of guzzlers should improve 

opportunities for primitive recreation. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

The routine use of hand tools and the occasional use of horse or mule teams to transport materials 

would maintain traditional skills. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

The use of non-mechanized and non-motorized tools and equipment for minor repairs and 

maintenance under this alternative would not substantially increase the amount of time to complete 

similar maintenance when compared with the other alternatives. For most guzzlers, initial 

construction was completed using helicopters to transport tools and materials, and completing major 

maintenance or repairs using stock for transport of tools and equipment would not be feasible. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-47 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The use of hand tools and horse or mule teams to drag materials under this alternative does not 

present a great deal of risk. Other risks and potential safety issues encountered within proposed 

wilderness are generally no greater than those encountered in other remote areas of Sheldon Refuge. 

Alternative B 

Description 

Under this alternative, routine site visits for monitoring and minor maintenance of guzzlers within 

proposed wilderness would be conducted using non-mechanized and non-motorized tools and 

equipment. Access and transport of tools, equipment, and materials for routine site and minor 

maintenance would be by foot, horseback, pack stock, or other non-mechanized and non-motorized 

means as under Alternative A. 

The transport of sheet metal, catchments, and water tanks for major maintenance and repairs would 

be conducted using non-motorized vehicles such as wagons and carts along existing routes. Water 

tanks used at bighorn sheep guzzlers are typically buried and would need to be excavated for 

replacement. Under this alternative we anticipate a single trip using a non-motorized vehicle would 

occur at each guzzler no more than once every 10 years. 

In order to accomplish management objectives for guzzler maintenance it is likely multiple crews of 

four to eight people would work up to six days depending upon terrain, the size of guzzler, and the 

maintenance needed. Most guzzlers are located in very rocky steep terrain, and tools and materials 

were transported for initial construction to most sites by helicopter. It is unlikely major maintenance 

could be completed at all guzzlers using stock or non-motorized vehicles as proposed under this 

alternative and Alternative A. At bighorn sheep guzzlers farthest from road access, it is expected 

short-term tent camps for as many as eight people would be used for periods up to six days. All 

supplies for temporary camps would be transported with tools, equipment, and materials required for 

major maintenance. 

Access routes would be photographed and inventoried prior to use to measure vegetative cover, and 

to identify noxious weeds and other invasive non-native plants. No maintenance or surface 

disturbance would be allowed to improve access routes. Transport of tools, equipment, and materials 

would be accomplished using one vehicle making a single trip to the project and/or campsite and a 

single trip out. 

Upon completion of maintenance operations, all waste, materials, and structures would be removed. 

Once the management objective has been achieved, campsites would be restored to their prior 

condition using standard wilderness rehabilitation and restoration methods. Access routes and 

campsites would be photographed and monitored following the first full growing season to document 

impacts from use and the effectiveness of restoration efforts, as well as to detect any newly 

introduced noxious weeds or other non-native species. Subsequent monitoring would be conducted 

as needed to document route and campsite recovery and document new vehicle trespass into 

proposed wilderness areas. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-48 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

The presence of crews working up to six days within the same general location is expected to alter 

wildlife behavior and habitat use until maintenance is completed. Continued long-term trammeling 

of wilderness character from altered numbers, movements, and distribution of wildlife populations 

due to the construction of artificial sources of water was evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

Maintenance under this alternative would retain permanent structures within the three proposed 

wilderness areas. The presence of tents and other temporary structures at work camps would affect 

the undeveloped character of the three areas for up to six days. 

“Natural”

Maintenance of guzzlers using materials that blend with the surrounding landscape would somewhat 

reduce the unnatural appearance of guzzlers. The use of vehicles would trample vegetation and make 

existing routes more visible and more susceptible to unauthorized vehicle use in the future. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

The presence of small work crew for up to six days would have minor impacts on opportunities for 

solitude or unconfined types of recreation. Reduced visibility of guzzlers should improve 

opportunities for primitive recreation. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

The use of mechanized equipment under this alternative would not maintain traditional skills to the 

extent of Alternative A, but would better maintain traditional skills when compared with alternatives 

C and D. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

For guzzlers that were initially constructed using vehicles, use of non-mechanized and non-motorized 

tools and equipment for minor repairs and maintenance under this alternative would not substantially 

increase the amount of time to complete similar maintenance when compared with the other 

alternatives. For most guzzlers, initial construction was completed using helicopters to transport 

tools and materials, and completing major maintenance or repairs using non-motorized vehicles for 

transport of tools and equipment would not be feasible. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-49 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The use of hand tools, horse or mule teams, and non-motorized vehicles under this alternative does 

not present a great deal of risk. Other risks and potential safety issues encountered within proposed 

wilderness are generally no greater than those encountered in other remote areas of Sheldon Refuge. 

Alternative C 

Description 

Under this alternative, routine site visits for monitoring to assess condition and maintenance needs 

for guzzlers would be conducted either on foot, by horseback, or by low level helicopter overflight 

(i.e., without landing). Monitoring would be conducted as needed to annually prioritize and schedule 

repairs for at least 10% of non-functioning guzzlers as identified in the Sheldon CCP/EIS Objective 

3f. We anticipate a single trip on foot, by horseback, or by helicopter overflight to each guzzler 

would likely occur every three to five years, but not more than once per year. 

Minor maintenance of guzzlers within proposed wilderness would be conducted using nonmechanized and non-motorized tools and equipment. Access and transport of tools, equipment, and 

materials for routine and minor maintenance would be by foot, horseback, pack stock, or other nonmechanized and non-motorized means as under Alternative A. 

The transport of sheet metal, catchments, water tanks, or other large items needed for major 

maintenance or repairs and not typically transported by pack stock or backpack would be conducted 

by helicopter. Helicopters would be used to transport suspended loads of materials. At each site 

where materials are to be flown in, the items being replaced would be prepared in advance to be 

hauled out on the return trip. In this way, helicopter use would maximize efficiency, and the number 

of people and amount of time required for maintenance would be minimized. Except in the case of 

emergency or for pilot safety, this alternative would not require the landing of aircraft within the 

proposed wilderness areas; personnel and work crews would not be transported by helicopter. 

Tools and smaller items could be combined with other loads of materials and for transport by 

helicopter. Under this alternative, helicopter use would occur as necessary to meet management 

objectives identified in the Sheldon Refuge CCP, but we anticipate a single trip using a helicopter 

would typically occur at each guzzler once every 10 years. 

Work would normally be completed using primitive tools consistent with the principles of wilderness 

management. Under this alternative, battery-powered hand tools may be permitted when it is 

determined that such uses would reduce the number of days required to complete maintenance and 

repairs within the proposed wilderness area and that such use would minimize impacts to wilderness 

solitude and undeveloped character from reduced presence of work crews. However, such uses 

would not be permitted for convenience, comfort, or only negligible benefits to efficiency for 

conducting maintenance or repairs. 

Similar to Alternative B, water tanks used at bighorn sheep guzzlers are typically buried and would 

need to be excavated for replacement. 

Campsites would be photographed and monitored following the first full growing season to 

document impacts from use and the effectiveness of restoration efforts, as well as to detect any newly 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-50 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

introduced noxious weeds or other non-native species. Subsequent monitoring would be conducted 

as needed to document campsite recovery. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

 We expect the nature of impacts to untrammeled wilderness character would be similar to, but less 

intensive than, those from alternatives A and D. Annual helicopter overflights and the presence of 

crews working up to six days within the same general location are expected to alter wildlife behavior 

and habitat use until maintenance is completed. 

The use of helicopters would reduce the amount of time required for monitoring and would eliminate 

the need for personnel to travel cross-country through the wilderness areas. However, unlike impacts 

from foot or horseback travel under other alternatives, the impacts of helicopter use under this 

alternative would occur over a much larger area as flights occur between landing areas outside the 

wilderness and various guzzlers. These activities could potentially impact a greater number of 

wildlife than activities under alternatives A and B would, and would only be slightly less than 

impacts under Alternative D, which also proposes to transport maintenance crews by helicopter. 

Continued long-term trammeling of wilderness character from altered numbers, movements, and 

distribution of wildlife populations due to the construction of artificial sources of water was 

evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

 Impacts to undeveloped wilderness character would be as described for Alternative B with the use of 

temporary structures (i.e., tents) at some sites for periods up to six days. Battery-powered hand tools 

would only be used for major maintenance and repairs to improve efficiency and would reduce the 

number of days needed for work crews in the field, resulting in slightly less adverse impact to 

undeveloped wilderness character than Alternative B or D. 

“Natural”

Impacts to natural conditions would be similar to those under Alternative A. Maintenance of 

guzzlers using materials that blend with the surrounding landscape would somewhat reduce the 

unnatural appearance of guzzlers. Access by work crews on foot or by horseback would occur 

approximately once every 10 years and would result in some trampling of vegetation. However, 

impacts from such use are expected to be negligible and not observable or measurable after one 

growing season. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

The use of a helicopter under this alternative would have a direct impact on opportunities for 

wilderness solitude. Due to the noise and visibility of helicopters, these impacts would occur over a 

larger area than those anticipated under either Alternative A or B. Use of battery-powered hand tools 

for major maintenance and repairs would reduce the amount of time needed for work crews to 

complete repairs and maintenance and would result in less adverse impact to opportunities for 

wilderness solitude. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-51 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

This alternative would not maintain traditional skills and would further diminish the use of traditional 

skill through the use of modern motorized hand tools. This alternative would eliminate most use of 

primitive tools or traditional methods of travel and work for monitoring and maintenance of guzzlers 

within the wilderness areas and would further diminish the use of traditional skills through use of 

aircraft and modern motorized hand tools. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

If all guzzlers are flown consecutively, monitoring by helicopter overflight could be completed 

within a single day. This would save time when compared to monitoring on foot or by horseback, 

which we expect could be completed within three days. However, personnel equipped with proper 

hand tools and minimal supplies as proposed under Alternative A and B would complete routine and 

minor maintenance in conjunction with monitoring, which would require fewer site visits and less 

time when considering both monitoring and minor maintenance. Use of non-mechanized and nonmotorized tools and equipment for minor repairs and maintenance under this alternative would not 

substantially increase the amount of time needed to complete similar maintenance when compared 

with the other alternatives. In some cases, the use of battery-powered hand tools would be used and 

would reduce the amount of time needed to complete repairs or maintenance by at least one full day, 

as this would be the criteria for allowing their use. This alternative is likely to complete all necessary 

maintenance and repairs to all guzzlers within the proposed wilderness areas. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

Using helicopters for low level overflights and to transport large, irregular shaped, bulky loads would 

increase risks to safety. Because only two people are typically associated with such operations, this 

alternative is expected to be only somewhat less safe than using horse or mule teams and nonmotorized equipment as under Alternative B. 

Alternative D 

Description 

Under this alternative, site visits for monitoring and maintenance would be completed using 

helicopters, motorized equipment, and non-motorized tools and equipment. 

Access for routine site visits for monitoring and to conduct maintenance would be conducted by low 

level helicopter overflights and landing. It is anticipated that crews of one to six people would be 

needed in the majority of cases and could be transported to the guzzler in a single trip. Sheet metal, 

catchments, water tanks, tools, and other items needed for maintenance or repairs would also be 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-52 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

transported by helicopter. At each site where materials are to be flown in, the items being replaced 

would be prepared in advance to be hauled out on the return trip. Tools and smaller items could be 

combined with other loads of materials for transport by helicopter. In this way, helicopter use would 

maximize efficiency, and the number of people and amount of time required for maintenance would 

be minimized. 

Under this alternative, helicopter use would occur as necessary to accomplish monitoring and 

maintenance objectives identified in the Sheldon Refuge CCP, and we anticipate a single flight to 

each guzzler by helicopter would typically occur every three to five years, but not more than once per 

year, with multiple trips to each guzzler for maintenance approximately every 10 years. 

Work would normally be completed using a combination of primitive tools, battery-powered hand 

tools, electric or air-powered tools, and gas-powered generator and/or motorized air compressor. 

Motorized tools and equipment may be permitted when it is determined such uses would reduce the 

number of days required to complete maintenance and repairs within the proposed wilderness area. 

Similar to Alternative B, water tanks used at bighorn sheep guzzlers are typically buried and would 

need to be excavated for replacement. 

Permanent helicopter landing sites (helispots) would be located near each guzzler. A wind detector 

(such as a small flag) and identifiable markings (such as rock painted contrasting colors), and dust 

abatement as necessary would be required at each site (see Departmental Manual 351 DM 1 and 

Chapter 8.5 of the Interagency Helicopter Operations Guide). We anticipate some clearing of brush 

and removal of rocks and possibly minor excavation to create a level landing surface near each 

guzzler would be necessary to establish a long-term helispot safe for multiple landings and take-offs. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

We expect impacts to untrammeled wilderness character would be similar to those anticipated under 

Alternative A. Similar to impacts from the presence of work crews described under Alternative A, 

the annual use of helicopters for access and multiple flights for transport of tools and materials to 

guzzlers is expected to alter wildlife behavior and habitat use until maintenance efforts are 

completed. The use of helicopters, motorized equipment, and motorized tools would reduce the 

amount of time required for work crews and would eliminate the need for temporary campsites 

within the wilderness areas. However, unlike impacts from the presence of work crews near guzzler 

under other alternatives, helicopter use under this alternative would occur over a much larger area as 

multiple flight would occur between staging areas and guzzler landing sites to transport work crews, 

tools, equipment, and materials. These activities could potentially impact a greater number of 

wildlife than activities under the other alternatives would. 

Continued long-term trammeling of wilderness character from altered numbers, movements, and 

distribution of wildlife populations due to the construction of artificial sources of water was 

evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-53 

“Undeveloped”

Impacts to undeveloped wilderness character from the necessary clearing, leveling, and marking of 

helispots to create suitable permanent helicopter landing sites would result in slightly greater impact 

to undeveloped wilderness character than under Alternative B or C. 

“Natural”

Maintenance of guzzlers using materials that blend with the surrounding landscape would somewhat 

reduce the unnatural appearance of guzzlers. Impacts to natural conditions from the creation and 

maintenance of permanent helicopter landing sites would be similar to, but longer lasting than, those 

under Alternative B or C from the use of temporary campsites. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Overflights and noise from helicopter use under this alternative would have a direct impact on 

opportunities for wilderness solitude. Due to the annual, and in some years multiple, trips anticipated 

to each guzzler, these impacts would occur more often, resulting in greater impact than under all 

other alternatives. Use of motorized and mechanized tools and equipment for maintenance and 

repairs would reduce the amount of time needed for work crews to complete repairs and 

maintenance, but would further add to impacts from noise and would result in a greater adverse 

impact to opportunities for wilderness solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation than 

would the other alternatives. 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

This alternative would eliminate most use of primitive tools or traditional methods of travel and work 

for monitoring and maintenance of guzzlers within the wilderness areas and would further diminish 

the use of traditional skills through reliance on use of aircraft, modern motorized hand tools, and 

modern mechanized equipment. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

The use of aircraft and motorized tools and equipment under this alternative would not substantially 

reduce the amount of time needed to complete similar maintenance when compared with Alternative 

C. The variety of battery-powered hand tools available under Alternative C would afford 

convenience and time savings similar to those from similar generator-powered tools. Work 

accomplished with larger generator or air compressor–powered tools such as a jackhammer can often 

be accomplished more quickly and result in a more natural appearance through the use of traditional 

tools such as explosives. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-54 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

Using helicopters to transport work crews and large, irregular shaped, bulky loads would increase 

risks to safety. Efforts to establish permanent landing sites would reduce some risk associated with 

off-airport landings, but multiple helicopter flights to transport work crews under this alternative 

would pose a greater risk to their safety than would the other alternatives, which rely on access by 

foot or horseback and would not require helicopter landings. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

It may be useful to compare each alternative’s positive and negative effects to each of the criteria in 

tabular form, keeping in mind the law’s mandate to “preserve wilderness character.” 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Untrammeled - - - -- 

Undeveloped +/- - - - 

Natural + - + - 

Solitude or Primitive Recreation + + - -- 

Unique Components N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Wilderness Character + - - --- 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Heritage and Cultural Resources N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills + - - --- 

Special Provisions N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Time - - + ++ 

Additional Wilderness Criteria N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Other Criteria Summary +/- - +/- - 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Safety + + - --- 

Safety Criteria 

Aircraft present a unique set of safety hazards, which can be mitigated through the use of proper 

protective equipment, specialized training, and the use of qualified and experienced pilots and flight 

crews. To provide adequate safety for pilots, personnel, and work crews, helispots must comply with 

interagency guidelines. 

Step 3 Decision: What is the Minimum Activity/Minimum Tool? 

Selected Alternative 

Alternative C 

Rationale for Selecting this Alternative (Including Documentation of Safety Criterion, If 

Appropriate)

Alternative C would use the tools and techniques that have the least impact to natural conditions 

while achieving management objectives. Impacts to wilderness solitude are greater under Alternative 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-55 

C than either Alternative A or B (which both use more primitive tools) due to helicopter overflights 

from monitoring and the use of helicopters approximately once every 10 years at each guzzler, but 

landing would not be required and impacts to solitude would be short term and less intrusive over the 

long term than the use of wheeled vehicles as proposed under Alternative B or multiple helicopter 

flights and landings proposed under Alternative D. 

Work crews have regularly accessed work sites within designated wilderness on foot, by horseback, 

and with the use of pack stock for nearly 50 years. Use of these primitive modes of travel and related 

equipment are core wilderness principles and are preferable to the use of mechanical transport for 

conducting activities within wilderness. The proper choice of access routes and use of minimumimpact camping techniques during short-term (one week) maintenance and construction projects have 

proven effective in minimizing impacts to wilderness character and often result in no visible or 

measurable impact after the next growing season. While cross-country travel through steep, rough, 

and rocky terrain on foot or by horseback does pose some safety risk, the risk can be minimized 

through the use of proper technique, equipment, and training. Related injuries are typically minor 

and can usually be treated in the field. 

Alternative A would be less intrusive than either Alternative B or C, but due to the steep, rough, and 

rocky terrain where most guzzlers are located, neither Alternative A or B would be able to transport 

large materials required for major maintenance or repairs in order to accomplish maintenance of all 

guzzlers, including replacement of large water tanks or sheet metal at bighorn sheep guzzlers—which 

has been determined the minimum administrative action necessary. 

The use of helicopters as proposed under Alternative D would reduce impacts to vegetation from 

cross-country travel and use of temporary campsites as described under the selected Alternative C. 

However, these impacts described for Alternative C are expected to be negligible. Therefore, the 

adverse impacts from permanent helispots, from helicopter overflights, and from associated noise are 

greater than the vegetation impacts that would be avoided. Use of helicopters for transport would 

also reduce the amount of time needed for work crews to access guzzlers. We anticipate all guzzlers 

could be monitored during a single day by helicopter, while monitoring on foot or by horseback 

would require three days. However travel on foot or by horseback could reduce the amount of time 

needed when only minor maintenance or repairs are carried out, as these could be completed with 

minimal hand tools and supplies. 

The use of helicopters for transport of work crews to primitive landing sites is inherently dangerous 

and poses safety risks. There is a low probability for accident or injury with the use of experienced 

pilots, and proper equipment, maintenance, and training. However unlike injuries received during 

backcountry travel by foot or on horseback, when helicopter accidents do occur, related injuries are 

typically more severe and are more often life-threatening or fatal. Therefore the convenience and 

efficiency afforded by the use of helicopters for monitoring and transport of work crews does not 

outweigh the increased level of risk and additional impacts to wilderness character. 

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 

Except as specifically described in the alternative selected, no use of motorized vehicles or 

equipment may occur without prior written determination by the Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge 

Complex Project Leader. All areas where the use of motorized vehicles and temporary structures 

occur will be monitored and degradation of natural conditions reported. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-56 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Check Any Wilderness Act Section 4(c) Uses Approved in this Alternative 

 mechanical transport landing of aircraft 

 motorized equipment temporary road 

 motor vehicles structure or installation 

 motorboats 

Record and report any authorizations of Wilderness Act Section 4(c) uses according to agency 

procedures. 

Approvals Signature Name Position Date 

Prepared by: 

Recommended: 

Approved: 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-57 

G.6 Draft Minimum Requirements Decision and Analysis for Refuge Studies, 

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research 

Step 1: Determine if any administrative action is necessary. (Refer to the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS 

and preferred alternative). 

Management direction for inventory and monitoring was evaluated through a range of alternatives 

included in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. The CCP/EIS preferred alternative for the use of studies, 

inventory, monitoring and research has been determined necessary for management of Sheldon 

Refuge and the proposed wilderness areas. 

Step 2: Determine the minimum activity/minimum tool. 

Description of Alternatives 

Fulfilling the purposes for Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge and implementation of Sheldon Refuge 

CCP/EIS preferred alternative would require continued inventory, monitoring, research, and other 

studies related to both biological resources and social issues within all eight of the proposed 

wilderness areas. The majority of studies, inventory, monitoring, and research conducted within 

Sheldon Refuge and identified through the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS would be conducted using 

methods and tools not otherwise prohibited by the Wilderness Act or Service policy for management 

of proposed wilderness areas. 

The majority of inventory, monitoring, and research conducted within Sheldon Refuge require 

observation, collection of small samples, or basic measurements and could be accomplished by staff, 

volunteers, and partners using primitive tools and would not require access by motorized vehicle or 

aircraft. However, due to concerns for animal welfare, accepted study protocols, and limited times of 

day, season, or year when activities can be accomplished, some prohibited uses, such as the use of 

helicopters to capture and/or transport animals, need to be evaluated for use within the proposed 

wilderness areas. 

The study, inventory, monitoring, and research of large animals within Sheldon Refuge and the 

proposed wilderness, particularly to inventory populations, population trends, animal movements, 

and migration patterns of large mammals, could be completed using a variety of tools and methods 

including the use of helicopters. Helicopters have traditionally been used for such activities and are 

evaluated through this minimum tool analysis as one alternative. Alternatives to using helicopters 

include a variety of non-motorized and non-mechanized ground-based capture methods, which are 

also evaluated as part of this minimum tool analysis. 

Alternative A 

Description 

All inventory, monitoring, and research would be conducted on foot or by horseback using nonmotorized equipment and traditional primitive tools. 

With the exception of basic monitoring efforts, most projects would require the establishment of 

temporary field camps to support crews of two to eight people for a period of one to 12 weeks 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-58 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

depending upon the type of project and specific inventory, monitoring, and research protocols. We 

anticipate no more than two temporary seasonal field camps would be used at any given time. 

Temporary field camps and latrine sites would be selected in advance. Sites would be capable of 

supporting one or more projects. Access routes for seasonal camps or campsites anticipated to be 

used for multiple seasons would also be identified in advance. Both access routes and campsites 

would be photographed and inventoried prior to use in conjunction with a cultural resource inventory 

to document wildlife present, measure vegetative cover, and identify noxious weeds and other 

invasive non-native plants. No maintenance or surface disturbance would be allowed to improve 

access routes. Rocks and other obstacles could be temporarily moved to provide suitable tent sites. 

Temporary latrines for burial of waste would be excavated to the minimum depth and size necessary. 

Upon project completion, all materials and structures would be removed and campsites would be 

restored to their prior appearance using standard wilderness rehabilitation and restoration methods 

and primitive tools. Access routes and campsites would be photographed and monitored following 

the first full growing season to document impacts from use and the effectiveness of restoration 

efforts, as well as to detect any newly introduced noxious weeds or other non-native species. 

Subsequent monitoring would be conducted as needed to document wildlife use and campsite 

recovery. 

Capture of large animals for fitting with radio or GPS collars and the collection of blood or tissue 

samples would be conducted using a wide variety of methods dictated by a variety of factors 

including project objectives; species of animal; terrain and distance; and time of year. Methods 

designed to capture individual animals could include baiting or attracting animals into temporary box 

traps, temporary corrals, or leg-hold snares. These methods require nearby temporary field camps to 

allow repeated visits to the trap site to release non-target animals and to minimize the length of time 

animals are in captivity. 

Other methods designed to capture multiple animals involve the use of herders either on foot or 

horseback to drive animals into large nets, temporary traps or corrals, or other confined areas where 

target animals can be selected and then sedated or captured by hand. These methods reduce the 

potential for capturing non-target species but increase the number of non-target individuals captured 

and increase the length of time animals are kept in captivity when compared with other capture 

methods. The length of time from when animals are initially herded until the time they are release is 

highly variable using these techniques, but can be up to 12 hours. 

For construction of some temporary traps, holes would be dug to place post or anchors. Monitoring 

populations and locating animals in preparation of capture operations would include aircraft 

overflights to count and record locations, but no landing of aircraft within the proposed wilderness 

areas would occur. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

The presence of temporary traps, field camps, and crews for periods of several weeks or months 

within the same general location is expected to alter wildlife behavior and habitat use until projects 

are completed. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-59 

Herding animals for a single capture operation is not likely to result in long-term changes to animal 

behavior, migration, or habitat use. If repeated capture efforts are necessary, the use of the methods 

and techniques under this alternative would likely affect both animal behavior and habitat use as 

animals become conditioned to the activity (either by avoiding capture areas or by becoming 

habituated to the activity). Using herders to capture live animals typically requires moving entire 

groups of animals into the net, trap, or confined area where individuals are then selected. As a result, 

impacts are likely to affect entire groups within the larger wildlife population. 

The most common types of injuries that occur during live animal captures include falling, tripping, 

being trampled by other animals, or suffering from shock. Injuries typically occur when slower, 

smaller animals are trampled by faster, larger animals as they are driven or herded, when animals are 

tripped and tangled in nets during captures at running speeds, while trying to escape from traps or 

other confined spaces as people try to restrain and remove a single animal from the group; or from 

adverse reaction to immobilization drugs used for capture, or from a physiological response to being 

captured, referred to as “capture myopathy.” 

When compared with the use of use of helicopters, the herding or driving of groups of animals into 

nets or traps increases the risk of injury to non-target individuals both because of the greater number 

of animals captured and the longer amount of time required both for completing the capture and 

processing, and the length of time animals are kept in captivity. 

Long-term trammeling of wilderness character from inventory, monitoring, and research was 

evaluated in the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS. 

“Undeveloped”

Temporary field camps consisting of small and large tents would affect the undeveloped character of 

small portions of the proposed wilderness areas. Following campsite removal and restoration, little 

or no noticeable evidence of temporary developments would remain. Use along identified access 

routes would be noticeable but would appear as undeveloped and unmaintained trails. 

“Natural”

Use of access routes and campsites would result in damage to vegetation, including shrubs and other 

perennials, and these impacts would be noticeable for several years. In areas where longer-term 

temporary field camps are constructed and used, vegetation would be trampled and some areas of 

bare ground would occur. It is anticipated these impacts would affect areas less than 1 acre in size in 

and around field camp locations. 

Live animal captures would temporarily affect the natural behavior and movements of animals. The 

placement of tracking devices such as radio and GPS collars would temporarily affect the natural 

appearance of these animals. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Opportunities for solitude would be directly impacted by seasonal field camps consisting of several 

tents and groups of up to eight people for periods lasting several weeks or months. Management 

objectives, weather, and availability of staff, contractors, and equipment influence the time of year 

large animal captures are conducted. While capture efforts would be conducted during periods of 

low public use when possible, it is likely some projects would be conducted when public use of the 

proposed wilderness areas is greatest (i.e., during the fall hunting seasons). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-60 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

In today’s increasingly modern technical work environment, the basic skills necessary for conducting 

extended inventory, monitoring, and research within large wilderness areas have become increasingly 

rare. The primitive and traditional skills required for living daily life in a remote field camp setting 

would be maintained under this alternative. 

Special Provisions

A purpose for all wilderness areas is to administer such areas for the gathering and dissemination of 

information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. Most proposed wilderness areas within 

Sheldon Refuge contain ecological features of scientific and educational value. The study, inventory, 

monitoring, and research of large animals and other ecological features are necessary both for the 

preservation and protection of natural and untrammeled wilderness character and for the long-term 

conservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats within Sheldon Refuge. 

Time Constraints

Completion of some inventory, monitoring, and research activities considered as part of this 

alternative may require multiple field crews, multiple seasons, or multiple years. All else being 

equal, the use of methods under this alternative to inventory, monitor, and research certain species of 

large mammals would take considerably longer to achieve project and management objectives when 

compared with the use of helicopters described under Alternative B. Due to the rugged terrain of 

Sheldon Refuge and the difficulty of herding large wildlife from horseback or on foot, we anticipate 

these methods would not result in the capture of a sufficient number of animals to meet project 

objectives in some instances. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The terrain of Sheldon Refuge is very rugged, rocky, and difficult to traverse by foot or on 

horseback. Capture of live animals using the tools and techniques under this alternative would 

include safety risks for staff or contractors conducting the work. People could be injured during live 

animal captures by falling or tripping, or by being kicked, trampled, or gored by animals. 

Alternative B

Description 

The appropriate methods for live capture of large mammals are most often determined by project 

objectives, species of animal, animal density, time of year, terrain, and a variety of other factors. In 

many cases, the methods described for Alternative A are the most efficient and result in the least 

amount of risk to wildlife and would be used. We anticipate inventory, monitoring, and research 

requiring live capture of animals, including certain capture of large mammals, within Sheldon Refuge 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-61 

would be conducted as described under Alternative A. This alternative considers the use of 

helicopters in addition to other methods considered under Alternative A. 

In certain cases, live capture of large animals can be conducted with fewer people, in less time, and 

with less impact to fewer animals with the use of a helicopter. Under this alternative, helicopters 

could be used for live capture of large animals. Helicopter captures typically require spotting 

animals from the air and then using the aircraft to isolate a single target animal, which can then be 

quickly immobilized using a tranquilizing dart gun or net gun. Once the animal has been 

immobilized, the helicopter lands nearby so that information and samples can be collected and any 

marking or collaring completed before the animal is released. The length of time between initial 

spotting of the animal and release of the animal is typically less than 30 minutes. 

Effects 

Wilderness Character 

“Untrammeled”

When compared with herding or driving of groups of animals into nets or traps as described under 

Alternative A, the use of helicopters under this alternative would reduce the risk of injury to nontarget individuals because target animals can more quickly and easily be singled out for capture, the 

amount of time required for completing the capture is less, and the length of time animals are kept in 

captivity is shorter. 

“Undeveloped”

The use of helicopters under this alternative when compared with other methods would eliminate the 

need for field camps and the need for temporary traps or corrals.

“Natural”

The use of helicopters under this alternative when compared with other methods would reduce the 

amount of ground disturbance and impacts to vegetation from temporary field camps and use of 

access routes. 

Impacts to the natural appearance of animals from marking or collaring would be as described under 

Alternative A. 

“Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation”

Helicopter activities would limit opportunities for solitude for periods of less than one week in areas 

where activities are conducted. When compared with the use of temporary field camps, traps, and 

corrals for several weeks as proposed under Alternative A, the use of helicopters would impact 

opportunities within a larger area due to the distances over which helicopters would be seen and 

heard. Impacts to opportunities for solitude would not last as long as those described for Alternative 

A due to the shorter amount of time necessary to conduct live animal captures using helicopters. We 

anticipate helicopters would be used at various times of the year, including during fall hunting 

seasons depending upon project objectives and impacts could affect the majority of visitors within 

any particular proposed wilderness area. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-62 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Other Unique Components that Reflect the Character of this Wilderness 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills

The use of helicopters under this alternative would not maintain traditional skills. 

Special Provisions

N/A 

Time Constraints

When compared with the herding or driving of animals described under Alternative A, we anticipate 

the use of helicopters would result in the capture of a sufficient number of animals to accomplish 

objectives for most or all types of possible projects. 

Additional Wilderness-specific Comparison Criteria

N/A 

Safety of Visitors, Personnel, and Contractors 

The use of helicopters at low altitudes to conduct live animal captures does increase the level of risk 

when compared with standard point-to-point helicopter use. Captures are planned based on the 

identification and avoidance of hazards such as terrain, fencelines, and powerlines to minimize risk 

to the extent possible. Risks associated with capture activities under Alternative A do not necessarily 

differ from those under this alternative, but the greater number of people and animals involved does 

increase the probability for injury or accident when compared with the use of a single helicopter pilot 

and two-person crew under this alternative. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

It may be useful to compare each alternative’s relative positive and negative effects to each of the 

criteria in tabular form, keeping in mind the law’s mandate to “preserve wilderness character.” 

Alternative A Alternative B 

Untrammeled - - 

Undeveloped - + 

Natural - + 

Solitude or Primitive Recreation -- - 

Unique Components 

Wilderness Character - - 

Alternative A Alternative B 

Heritage and Cultural Resources N/A N/A 

Maintaining Traditional Skills + - 

Special Provisions + + 

Time - + 

Additional Wilderness Criteria N/A N/A 

Other Criteria Summary + + 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses G-63 

Alternative A Alternative B 

Safety - + 

Safety Criteria 

Capture of large wild animals by herding and driving in rough terrain and in confined spaces is 

inherently dangerous and has a high risk for injury both to the animals and the handlers and herders. 

The most common potential injuries include broken bones, fractures, contusions, punctures, 

lacerations, and head injuries from falling, being trampled, kicked, or gored. These risks can be 

reduced but not eliminated by using protective equipment such as chest protectors, eye protection, 

and helmets. The number of people required to implement these methods as proposed under 

Alternative A and the number of animals involved would increase the overall potential for injury. 

Capture of large animals with the use of helicopters at low levels is also inherently dangerous. The 

use of proper aircraft for the specific type of flight operations, the use of experienced pilots and 

crews, use of specialized fire-resistant clothing and helmets, and proper pre-flight briefings to 

identify and avoid hazards and obstacles can minimize but not eliminate the potential for accidents 

and injuries. While injuries sustained from low-level helicopter accidents are typically more severe 

than would be expected from herding and driving animals on foot or by horseback, the shorter 

amount of time, fewer people required, and the smaller number of animals to be captured as proposed 

under Alternative B would decrease the overall potential for injury.

Step 2 Decision: What is the Minimum Activity/Minimum Tool? 

Selected Alternative 

Alternative B 

Rationale for Selecting this Alternative (Including Documentation of Safety Criterion, If 

Appropriate)

Capture of large animals by driving and herding on foot or by horseback as described under 

Alternative A would avoid the landing of aircraft, which is otherwise prohibited within the proposed 

wilderness areas, but would not necessarily be the least intrusive method. The use of field camps for 

periods of several weeks, disturbance and stress caused to more animals than is otherwise necessary, 

and the greater risk to both employee and staff safety and to the health of animals being captured 

would have greater impact on wilderness character than would Alternative B. The use and landing of 

helicopters as proposed under Alternative B would occasionally diminish opportunities for 

wilderness solitude for short periods of time, but when compared with seasonal field crews living in 

longer-term temporary wilderness camps as proposed under Alternative A, helicopter impacts are 

expected to be less intrusive overall. 

Helicopters have proven to be an efficient and effective tool for the quick capture and release of a 

number of species for the purposes of wildlife research and management. In contrast, herding and 

driving under Alternative A would not only pose more safety risks, but due to terrain and logistical 

difficulties, we anticipate some efforts would be unsuccessful and would therefore not meet 

management objectives. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

G-64 Appendix G. Minimum Requirements Decisions and Analyses 

Alternative B would minimize impacts to wilderness character to the extent practicable while 

providing a high probability for full implementation of the minimum administrative action necessary. 

Alternative B is also determined to be the safest and most efficient alternative evaluated. 

Check Any Wilderness Act Section 4(c) Uses Approved in this Alternative 

 mechanical transport landing of aircraft 

 motorized equipment temporary road 

 motor vehicles structure or installation 

 motorboats 

Record and report any authorizations of Wilderness Act Section 4(c) uses according to agency 

procedures. 

Approvals Signature Name Position Date 

Prepared by: 

Recommended: 

Approved: 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix H. Horse and Burro Population Control Methods H-1 

Appendix H. Standard Operating Procedures for Horse and Burro 

Population Control Methods 

Gathers would be conducted by using contractors or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

personnel. The following procedures for gathering and handling horses and burros would apply 

whether contractors or Service personnel conduct a gather. 

Prior to any gathering operation, the Service will provide for a pre-capture evaluation of existing 

conditions in the gather area(s). The evaluation will include animal conditions, prevailing 

temperatures, drought conditions, soil conditions, road conditions, and a topographic map with 

wilderness boundaries, cultural resources, the location of fences, other physical barriers, and 

acceptable trap (corral) locations in relation to animal distribution. The evaluation will determine 

whether the proposed activities will necessitate the on site presence of a veterinarian during 

operations, versus on call. If it is determined that capture operations necessitate the services of a 

veterinarian, one would be obtained before the capture would proceed. If applicable, the contractor 

will be apprised of all conditions and will be given instructions regarding the capture and handling of 

animals to ensure their health and welfare is protected. 

Trap (corral) sites and temporary holding sites will be located to reduce the likelihood of undue 

injury and stress to the animals, and to minimize potential damage to the natural resources of the 

area. These sites would be located on or near existing roads. 

The primary capture methods used in the performance of gather operations include: 

1. Helicopter Drive Trapping. This capture method involves utilizing a helicopter to herd 

horses and burros into a temporary trap (corral). 

2. Helicopter Assisted Roping. This capture method involves utilizing a helicopter to herd 

horses or burros to ropers. 

3. Horse-back Gather. This capture method uses horse-back wranglers to draw or drive 

horses into a temporary trap (corral). 

4. Bait Trapping (corralling). This capture method involves utilizing bait (water or feed) to 

lure primarily burros into a temporary trap (corral) (may include horses). 

Capture Methods used in the Performance of Gather Contract Operations

1. The primary concern of the contractor is the safe and humane handling of all animals 

captured. All capture attempts shall incorporate the following: 

All trap (corral) and holding facility locations must be approved by the Refuge 

Manager (RM) prior to construction. The title Refuge Manager covers the Project 

Leader, Deputy Project Leader and the Refuge Manager. The Contractor may also be 

required to change or move trap (corral) locations as determined by the RM. All 

traps (corrals) and holding facilities not located on public land must have prior 

written approval of the landowner. 

2. The rate of movement and distance the animals travel shall not exceed limitations set by 

the RM who will consider terrain, physical barriers, weather, condition of the animals and 

other factors. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

H-2 Appendix H. Horse and Burro Population Control Methods 

3. All traps (corrals), wings, and holding facilities shall be constructed, maintained and 

operated to handle the animals in a safe and humane manner and be in accordance with 

the following: 

a. Traps (corrals) and holding facilities shall be constructed of portable panels, the 

top of which shall not be less than 72 inches high for horses and 60 inches for 

burros, and the bottom rail of which shall not be more than 12 inches from 

ground level. All traps (corrals) and holding facilities shall be oval or round in 

design. 

b. All loading chute sides shall be a minimum of 6 feet high and shall be fully 

covered, plywood, metal without holes. 

c. All runways shall be a minimum of 30 feet long and shall be covered with 

plywood, burlap, plastic snow fence or like material a minimum of 1 foot through 

5 feet above ground level for burros and 1 foot through 6 feet for horses. The 

location of the government furnished portable fly chute to restrain, age, or 

provide additional care for the animals shall be placed in the runway in a manner 

as instructed by or in concurrence with the RM. 

d. All crowding pens including the gates leading to the runways shall be covered 

with a material which prevents the animals from seeing out (plywood, burlap, 

plastic snow fence, etc.) and shall be covered a minimum of 1 foot through 5 feet 

above ground level for burros and 2 feet through 6 feet for horses 

e. All pens and runways used for the movement and handling of animals shall be 

connected with hinged self-locking gates. 

4. No modification of existing fences will be made without authorization from the RM. The 

Contractor shall be responsible for restoration of any fence modification that he has 

made. 

5. When dust conditions occur within or adjacent to the trap (corral) or holding facility, the 

Contractor shall be required to wet down the ground with water. 

6. Alternate pens, within the holding facility shall be furnished by the Contractor to separate 

mares or jennies with small foals, sick and injured animals, and strays from the other 

animals. Animals shall be sorted as to age, number, size, temperament, sex, and 

condition when in the holding facility so as to minimize, to the extent possible, injury due 

to fighting and trampling. Under normal conditions, the government will require that 

animals be restrained for the purpose of determining an animal’s age, sex, or other 

necessary procedures. In these instances, a portable restraining chute may be necessary 

and will be provided by the Contractor. Alternate pens shall be furnished by the 

Contractor to hold animals if the specific gathering requires that animals be released back 

into the capture area(s). In areas requiring one or more satellite traps (corrals), and where 

a centralized holding facility is utilized, the contractor may be required to provide 

additional holding pens to segregate animals transported from remote locations so they 

may be returned to their traditional ranges. Either segregation or temporary marking and 

later segregation will be at the discretion of the RM. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix H. Horse and Burro Population Control Methods H-3 

7. Horses or burros held in the traps (corrals) and/or holding facilities shall be provided with 

a continuous supply of fresh, clean water at a minimum rate of 10 gallons per animal per 

day. Animals may occasionally be temporarily without access to water while being 

moved between pens, during capture operations and loading, during other types of 

handling procedures, or as prescribed by a licensed veterinarian. If water is not 

accessible to the animals at all times, it will be provided as often as is necessary for the 

health and comfort of the animal. Consistent with 9 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

3.130, frequency of watering shall consider the weather conditions, age, species, 

condition, size, and type of the animal. Animals held for 10 hours or more in the traps 

(corrals) or holding facilities shall be provided good-quality hay at the rate of not less 

than 2 pounds of hay per 100 pounds of estimated body weight per day. An animal that 

is held at a temporary holding facility after 5 p.m. and through the night is defined as a 

horse/burro feed day. An animal that is held for only a portion of a day and is shipped or 

released does not constitute a feed day. 

8. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to provide security to prevent loss, injury or death 

of captured animals until delivery to final destination. 

9. The Contractor shall restrain sick or injured animals if treatment is necessary. The RM 

will determine if injured animals must be destroyed and provide for euthanasia of such 

animals in a humane fashion. A veterinarian will be available on site or on call for 

consultation or treatment of animals as needed. The Contractor may be required to 

humanely euthanize animals in the field and to dispose of the carcasses as directed by the 

RM. 

10. Animals shall be transported to final destination from temporary holding facilities within 

24 hours after capture unless prior approval is granted by the RM for unusual 

circumstances. Animals to be released back onto the Refuge following gather operations 

may be held up to 21 days or as directed by the RM. Animals shall not be held in traps 

(corrals) and/or temporary holding facilities on days when there is no work being 

conducted except as specified by the RM. Animals shall not be allowed to remain 

standing on trucks while not in transport for a combined period of greater than three (3) 

hours. Animals that are to be released back into the capture area may need to be 

transported back to the original trap (corral) site. This determination will be at the 

discretion of the RM. 

Capture Methods That May Be Used in the Performance of a Gather 

1. Capture attempts may be accomplished by utilizing bait (feed or water) to lure animals 

into a temporary trap (corral). If the contractor selects this method, the following applies: 

a. Finger gates shall not be constructed of materials such as "T" posts, sharpened 

willows, etc., which may be injurious to animals. 

b. All trigger and/or trip gate devices must be approved by the RM prior to capture 

of animals. 

c. Traps (corrals) shall be checked a minimum of once every 24 hours. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

H-4 Appendix H. Horse and Burro Population Control Methods 

2. Capture attempts may be accomplished by utilizing a helicopter to drive animals into a 

temporary trap (corral). If the contractor selects this method, the following applies: 

a. A minimum of two saddle-horses shall be immediately available at the trap 

(corral) site to accomplish roping if necessary. Roping shall be done as 

determined by the RM. Under no circumstances shall animals be tied down for 

more than one hour. 

b. The contractor shall assure that foals shall not be left behind, and orphaned. 

3. Capture attempts may be accomplished by utilizing a helicopter to drive animals to 

ropers. If the contractor with the approval of the RM selects this method, the following 

applies: 

a. Under no circumstances shall animals be tied down for more than one hour. 

b. The contractor shall assure that foals shall not be left behind, or orphaned. 

c. The rate of movement and distance the animals travel shall not exceed limitations 

set by the RM who will consider terrain, physical barriers, weather, condition of 

the animals and other factors. 

Use of Motorized Equipment 

1. All motorized equipment employed in the transportation of captured animals shall be in 

compliance with appropriate State and Federal laws and regulations applicable to the 

humane transportation of animals. The Contractor shall provide the RM with a current 

safety inspection (less than one year old) for all motorized equipment and tractor-trailers 

used to transport animals to final destination. 

2. All motorized equipment, tractor-trailers, and stock trailers shall be in good repair, of 

adequate rated capacity, and operated so as to ensure that captured animals are 

transported without undue risk or injury. 

3. Only tractor-trailers or stock trailers with a covered top shall be allowed for transporting 

animals from trap (corral) site(s) to temporary holding facilities, and from temporary 

holding facilities to final destination(s). Sides or stock racks of all trailers used for 

transporting animals shall be a minimum height of 6 feet 6 inches from the floor. Single 

deck tractor-trailers 40 feet or longer shall have two (2) partition gates providing three (3) 

compartments within the trailer to separate animals. Tractor-trailers less than 40 feet 

shall have at least one partition gate providing two (2) compartments within the trailer to 

separate the animals. Compartments in all tractor-trailers shall be of equal size plus or 

minus 10 percent. Each partition shall be a minimum of 6 feet high and shall have a 

minimum 5 foot wide swinging gate. Consistent with 9 CFR 88.3, horses or burros will 

not be transported in any conveyance that has the animal cargo space divided into two or 

more stacked levels. 

4. All tractor-trailers used to transport animals to final destination(s) shall be equipped with 

at least one (1) door at the rear end of the trailer that is capable of sliding either 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix H. Horse and Burro Population Control Methods H-5 

horizontally or vertically. The rear door(s) of tractor-trailers and stock trailers must be 

capable of opening the full width of the trailer. Panels facing the inside of all trailers 

must be free of sharp edges or holes that could cause injury to the animals. The material 

facing the inside of all trailers must be strong enough so that the animals cannot push 

their hooves through the side. The RM shall do final approval of tractor-trailers and 

stock trailers used to transport animals. 

5. Floors of tractor-trailers, stock trailers and loading chutes shall be covered and 

maintained with wood shavings to prevent the animals from slipping. 

6. Animals to be loaded and transported in any trailer shall be as directed by the RM and 

may include limitations on numbers according to age, size, sex, temperament and animal 

condition. The following minimum square feet per animal shall be allowed in all trailers: 

 11 square feet per adult horse (1.4 linear foot in an 8 foot wide trailer); 

8 square feet per adult burro (1.0 linear foot in an 8 foot wide trailer); 

 6 square feet per horse foal (.75 linear foot in an 8 foot wide trailer); 

 4 square feet per burro foal (.50 linear feet in an 8 foot wide trailer). 

7. The RM shall consider the condition and size of the animals, weather conditions, distance 

to be transported, or other factors when planning for the movement of captured animals. 

Unless otherwise approved by the RM, transportation shall be limited in sequence to a 

maximum of 24 hours followed by a minimum of 5 hours of on-the-ground rest with 

adequate feed and water. The RM shall provide for any brand and/or inspection services 

required for the captured animals. 

8. If the RM determines that dust conditions are such that the animals could be endangered 

during transportation, the Contractor will be instructed to adjust speed. 

Safety and Communications 

1. The Contractor shall have the means to communicate with the RM and all contractor 

personnel engaged in the capture of wild horses and burros utilizing a VHF/FM 

Transceiver or VHF/FM portable Two-Way radio. If communications are ineffective the 

government will take steps necessary to protect the welfare of the animals. 

a. The proper operation, service and maintenance of all contractor furnished 

property is the responsibility of the Contractor. The Service reserves the right to 

remove from service any contractor personnel or contractor furnished equipment 

which, in the opinion of the RM violate contract rules, are unsafe or otherwise 

unsatisfactory. In this event, the Contractor will be notified in writing to furnish 

replacement personnel or equipment within 48 hours of notification. All such 

replacements must be approved in advance of operation by the RM or his/her 

representative. 

b. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary FCC licenses for the radio system 

c. All accidents occurring during the performance of any task order shall be 

immediately reported to the RM. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

H-6 Appendix H. Horse and Burro Population Control Methods 

2. Should the contractor choose to utilize a helicopter the following will apply: 

a. The Contractor must operate in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations, 

Part 91. Pilots provided by the Contractor shall comply with the Contractor's 

Federal Aviation Certificates, applicable regulations of the State in which the 

gather is located. 

b. Fueling operations shall not take place within 1,000 feet of animals. 

Requirements for Adoption Agents and Adoptees 

All potential adoption agents must have a favorable background check conducted and 

contract/cooperative agreement established before receiving any horses or burros. 

Background checks will include the following: 

1. A site visit will be completed by Refuge staff to assure that facilities are adequate to 

prevent escape or injury to the animals or visitors during holding, viewing, feeding, 

loading and unloading. 

2. A determination will be made by the Refuge Manager as to whether or not the agent has 

the necessary skills and knowledge of horses and burros to safely handle, feed, and load 

and unload them. 

3. A list of adopters will be required and certification and follow up will be conducted by 

Refuge Staff to ensure proper placement. 

4. Refuge staff will also conduct phone interviews with at least two character witnesses and 

receive a recommendation from a local veterinarian regarding the Agent’s ability to 

accomplish the adoption process. 

Adoption agents are required to make a reasonable effort to prevent horses and burros from going to 

slaughter and to screen potential adoptees for good homes. Agents must meet all applicable State 

and Federal regulations for transport and exchange of livestock and equines. 

Archaeological and Historical Site Clearances 

1. Personnel working at gather sites will be advised of the illegality of collecting artifacts. 

2. Prior to setting up a trap (corral) or temporary holding facility, Service will conduct all 

necessary clearances (archaeological, T&E, etc). All proposed site(s) must be inspected 

by Service staff. The regional archaeologist will be notified of the selected site if cultural 

or historic artifacts are observed. Once archaeological clearance has been obtained, the 

trap (corral) or temporary holding facility may be set up. Said clearance shall be 

arranged for by the RM or other Service employees. 

3. Gather sites and temporary holding facilities would not be constructed on wetlands or 

riparian zones. 

Animal Characteristics and Behavior 

When animals are released onto Sheldon Refuge in unfamiliar areas, releases would occur 

near available water. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix H. Horse and Burro Population Control Methods H-7 

Public Participation 

Opportunities for public viewing (i.e., media, interested public) of gather operations will be 

made available to the extent possible. However, the primary consideration will be to protect 

the health and welfare staff/contractors and the animals being gathered. The public must 

adhere to guidance from the on-site Service representative. It is Service policy that the public 

will not be allowed to come into direct contact with horses or burros being held in Service 

facilities. Only authorized Service personnel or its contractors may enter the corrals or 

directly handle the animals. The general public may not enter the corrals or directly handle 

the animals at anytime or for any reason during Service operations. 

Responsibility and Lines of Communication 

Lakeview Office – Project Leader 

Lakeview Office - Deputy Project Leader 

Sheldon Refuge – Refuge Manager 

The RM has the direct responsibility to ensure the Contractor’s compliance with the contract 

stipulations. The RM will take an active role to ensure the appropriate lines of 

communication are established between the field and the Lakeview Office. All employees 

involved in the gathering operations will keep the best interests of the animals and safety of 

personnel at the forefront at all times. 

All publicity, formal public contact and inquiries will be handled through the Project Leader. 

This individual will be the primary contact and will coordinate the contract to ensure animals 

are being transported from the capture site in a safe and humane manner and are arriving in 

good condition. 

The contract specifications require humane treatment and care of the animals during removal 

operations. These specifications are designed to minimize the risk of injury and death during 

and after capture of the animals. The specifications will be vigorously enforced. 

Should the Contractor show negligence and/or not perform according to contract stipulations, 

they will be issued written instructions, issued a stop work order, or other appropriate 

measures. 

 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

H-8 Appendix H. Horse and Burro Population Control Methods 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix I. Establishing and Acquisition Authorities I-1 

Appendix I. Sheldon Refuge Establishing and Acquisition 

Authorities 

Establishment Authorities 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge was established by Executive Order (EO). The key source for the 

Refuge establishment authorities is as follows: 

With EO 5141 (20 June 1929) President Hoover temporarily withdrew 31,399 acres of present-day 

Little Sheldon from “settlement, location, sale or entry, subject to prior valid claims, for 

classification as to their suitability for game refuge purposes” on recommendation by the Department 

of Agriculture and Department of the Interior. 

In 1931 President Hoover signed the EO officially establishing the Charles Sheldon Wildlife Refuge. 

EO 5540 (26 January 1931) “reserved and set apart for use of the Dept. of Agriculture” the same 

area as described in EO 5141 “as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and birds, subject to 

existing valid rights.” EO 5540 declared that “It is unlawful within this reservation (a) to hunt, trap, 

capture, willfully disturb, or kill any wild animal or bird of any kind whatever, to take or destroy the 

nests or eggs of any wild bird, to occupy or use any part of the reservation, or to enter thereon for any 

purpose, except under such rules and regulation as may be prescribed by the Secretary of 

Agriculture; (b) to cut, burn, or destroy any timber, underbrush, grass, or other natural growth; (c) 

willfully to leave fire or to suffer it to burn unattended near any forest, timber, or other inflammable 

material; (d) after building a fire in or near any forest, timber, or other inflammable material, to leave 

it without totally extinguishing it; and (e) willfully to injure, molest, or destroy any property of the 

United States.” The EO designated the name of this land as the “Charles Sheldon Wild Life Refuge.” 

EO 6910 (26 November 1934) withdrew 3,840 acres for “classification and other purposes all 

vacant, unreserved, and unappropriated public lands in the states of Nevada and Oregon and certain 

other states.” (Currently we do not have a copy of EO 6910 but will continue the research.) 

EO 7178 (6 September 1935) set aside the lands for the Hart Mountain Game Range, which 

included the present-day Hart Mountain National Antelope Range and Big Sheldon: “it is ordered 

that the following described lands, insofar as title thereto is in the United States, be, and they are 

hereby withdrawn from settlement, location, sale, or entry and reserved and set apart for the 

conservation and development of natural wildlife resources....for wild-life conservation purposes 

such lands shall become part of the preserve, but the grazing rights thereon shall accrue primarily to 

the use of wild-life, and such lands shall not be homesteaded, sold, exchanged, or patented under any 

law or regulation relating to public lands or the establishment of wild-life refuges.” 

EO 7364 (6 May 1936) states that “in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (45 stat. 1222), it is ordered that, subject to valid existing rights, all the public 

lands of the United States in the following-described area be, and they are hereby, withdrawn from 

settlement, location, sale, entry, or other form of appropriation and reserved and set apart for the use 

of the Department of Agriculture as an addition to the existing Charles Sheldon Wildlife Refuge, 

established by” EO 5540. It further states that “The reservation made by this order supersedes as to 

the above-described lands the temporary withdrawl [sic] for classification and other purposes made 

by EO 6910 of November 26, 1934, as amended.” This land was added so the area could be fenced 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

I-2 Appendix I. Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

effectively, according to Rudolf Dieffenbach, Chief of the Division of Land Acquisition, in a letter to 

Doren Woodward dated 10 October 1935. 

EO 7522 (21 December 1936) revoked the lands in Nevada established as the Hart Mountain Game 

Range under EO 7178 and established them as the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range. 

Section 1: “Executive Order No. 7178 of September 6, 1935, which reserved and set apart 

certain lands in Oregon and Nevada as the Hart Mountain Game Range, is Hereby revoked as 

to the following lands in Nevada:” 

Section 2: “Subject to the condition expressed in the above-mentioned acts and to all 

existing valid rights, the lands described in section 1 of this order are hereby 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; Provided, That nothing herein contained shall 

restrict prospecting, locating, developing, mining, entering, leasing, or patenting the mineral 

resources of the lands under the applicable laws: Provided further, That any lands within the 

described area that are otherwise withdrawn or reserved will be affected hereby only so far as 

may be consistent with the uses and purposes for which such prior withdrawal or reservation 

was made: And provided further, That upon the termination of any private right to, or 

appropriation of, any public lands within the exterior limits of the area included in this order, 

or upon the revocation of prior withdrawals unless expressly otherwise provided in the order 

of revocation, the lands involved shall become part of this preserve.” 

Section 3: “This range or preserve, so far as it relates to conservation and development of 

wildlife, shall be under the joint jurisdiction of the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, 

and they shall have power jointly to make such rules and regulation for its protection, 

administration, regulation, and improvement, and for the removal and disposition of surplus 

game animals, as they may deem necessary to accomplish its purposes, and the range or 

preserve, being within a grazing district duly established pursuant to the provisions of the act 

of June 28, 1934 (ch. 865, 48 stat. 1269) , as amended by the act of June 26, 1936 (Public No. 

827, 74th Congress), shall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior so 

far as it relates to the public grazing lands and natural forage resources thereof; Provided, 

however, That the natural forage resources therein shall be first utilized for the purpose of 

sustaining in a healthy condition a maximum of three thousand five hundred (3500) antelope, 

the primary species, and such nonpredatory secondary species in such numbers as may be 

necessary to maintain a balanced wildlife population, but in no case shall the consumption of 

forage by the combined population of the wildlife species be allowed to increase the burden 

of the range dedicated to the primary species: Provided further, That all the forage resources 

within this range or preserve shall be available, except as herein otherwise provided with 

respect to wildlife, for domestic livestock under rules and regulation promulgated by the 

Secretary of the Interior under the authority of the aforesaid act of June 28, 1934, as 

amended: And provided further, That land within the exterior limits of the area herein 

described, acquired and to be acquired by the United States for the use of the Department of 

Agriculture for conservation of migratory birds and other wildlife, shall be and remain under 

the exclusive administration of the Secretary of Agriculture and may be utilized for public 

grazing purposes only to such extent as may be determined by the said Secretary to be 

compatible with the utilization of said lands for the purposes for which they were acquired as 

aforesaid under regulations prescribed by him.” 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix I. Establishing and Acquisition Authorities I-3 

Section 4: “This preserve shall be known as the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range.” 

Proclamation 2416 (30 July 1940) changed the name of Charles Sheldon Wildlife Refuge to 

Sheldon National Antelope Refuge. 

On December 4, 1974, the President transmitted the Sheldon Wilderness proposal to the U.S. 

Congress (House Document No. 93-403). The initial proposal at that time (prior to the August 1974 

modifications) encompassed 277,200 acres in 11 areas. The President recommended designating 

20,100 acres at that time and remanding the remainder to study under a mineral survey. Public 

hearings and further review modified (August 1974) the wilderness proposal to include 341,500 acres 

in nine areas on Sheldon Refuge, which was included in the 1974 transmittal to Congress. Further 

action on the wilderness proposal was suspended until a mineral survey was completed and the 

mineral estate was withdrawn on areas considered for wilderness designation. The mineral survey 

was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey and published in 1984 (Geological Survey Bulletin 

1538). The Service completed an environmental assessment on the proposed mineral withdrawal, 

with a Finding of No Significant Impact issued in February 1984. The action culminated with a 

Public Land Order (PLO) for the withdrawal of 445,766 acres of the mineral estate for Sheldon 

Refuge from claims under the 1872 Mining Law (see PLO 6849 below). We found no further action 

on the Sheldon Wilderness Proposal, neither Record of Decision nor Final Environmental Impact 

Statement nor congressional action. 

PLO 5497 (25 April 1975) transferred management of the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range “to the 

sole jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management”. 

The Game Range Act (Public Law 94-223, February 27, 1976) amended the Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 to give sole jurisdiction for management of refuges to the Secretary of 

Interior through the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Act states: “For the purpose of consolidating the 

authorities relating to the various categories of areas that are administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species that are threatened with 

extinction, all lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, 

areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, 

wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl production areas are hereby 

designated as the ‘National Wildlife Refuge System’ which shall be subject to the provisions of this 

section and shall be administered by the Secretary through the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service.” 

The Congressional reports that define each branch’s intent for the law (House Report No. 94-334; 

Senate Report No. 94-593) emphasize the priority for wildlife (over grazing or other uses) and 

specifically name several species as the purpose of the game ranges. For example, House Report 94-

334 states: “During the 1930’s President Franklin D. Roosevelt established four wildlife ranges as 

part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in order to protect species such as the desert big-horn 

sheep, the pronghorn antelope, the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon and the prairie falcon.” The 

report then names Cabeza Prieta, Charles M. Russell, Charles Sheldon, and Kofa Game Range 

refuges. Pronghorn were named as the primary species for management at Sheldon Refuge in its 

establishing executive order, and it is the only refuge of the four listed where prairie falcons are 

common. 

PLO 5634 (25 April 1978) 1(a) revoked PLO 5497 and transferred sole jurisdiction of the Charles 

Sheldon Antelope Range to the USFWS: (b) “the operation and administration of the Charles 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

I-4 Appendix I. Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

Sheldon Antelope Range, including grazing, was to be administered, and is now being administered, 

in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act...” (NWRSAA), 

“except that, those holding grazing privileges validly issued by the BLM and in effect on February 

27, 1976, are permitted to continue such privileges under term and conditions imposed by the Taylor 

Grazing Act, and implementing regulations, until those privileges expire. The renewal or initiation 

of grazing privileges subsequent to February 27, 1976, is in accordance with the NWRSAA and 

implementing regulations”; (c) EO 7522 ....[was] modified to the extent necessary for it to conform 

to the provisions of (a) and (b) above.” 

PLO 6849 (22 April 1991) withdrew approximately 445,766 acres of the Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge from mining location in order for the USFWS to protect the wildlife habitat and unique 

resource values of the refuge lands. 

1. “Subject to valid existing rights, the following described Sheldon National Wildlife refuge 

lands are hereby withdrawn from location under the United States mining code (30 U.S.C. 

Chapter 2), but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect the wildlife habitat 

and unique resource values.” 

2. The PLO describes private lands of “3145.7 acres” that are within Sheldon Refuge, that if 

the United States “subsequently acquires the private lands with the mineral interests through 

purchase, exchange, or donation, the mineral estate will be subject” to the withdrawal 

specified in the PLO. 

3. “This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order unless, as a 

result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to section 204(f) of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, U.S.C. 1714 (f), the Secretary determines 

that the withdrawal shall be extended, except that the withdrawal on any land in this order 

that Congress does not designate as wilderness will expire 1 year after Congress has 

completed action on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge wilderness proposal.” 

Land Exchange (3 August 1994) finalized the Harry Wilson Land Exchange adding 2,240 acres to 

Sheldon Refuge. The Acquisition Authority was the Endangered Species Act. 

The 2006 Fiscal Year Summary states that Sheldon Refuge encompasses 572,876.15 acres (Annual 

Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as of September 30, 2006). 

Summary of Land Acquisition for Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge as of 9/30/2006 

Reserved From Public 

Domain 

Device or Gift Purchased Total 

514,356.82 4,775.66 25,745.67 572,876.15 

Refuge Establishment and Purposes 

The following are establishment and purpose excerpts from statutes, executive orders, public land 

orders, and other supporting documents: 

EO 5141 (20 June 1929): “under and pursuant to the provisions of the act of Congress approved 

June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 847), as amended by the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 497), hereby 

ordered that the public lands within the following described area [Sheldon Refuge] in Nevada be, and 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix I. Establishing and Acquisition Authorities I-5 

they are hereby, temporarily withdrawn from settlement, location, sale or entry, subject to prior valid 

clams, for classification as to their suitability for game refuge purposes.” 

EO 5540 (26 January 1931): “It is hereby ordered that the following described area [Sheldon 

Refuge] be ....reserved and set apart for the use ....as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals 

and birds, subject to existing valid rights. It is unlawful within this reservation (a) to hunt, trap, 

capture, willfully disturb, or kill any wild animal or bird of any kind whatever, to take or destroy the 

nests or eggs of any wild bird, to occupy or use any part of the reservation, or to enter thereon for any 

purpose, except under such rules and regulation as may be prescribed by the Secretary of 

Agriculture; (b) to cut, burn, or destroy any timber, underbrush, grass, or other natural growth; (c) 

willfully to leave fire or to suffer it to burn unattended near any forest, timber, or other inflammable 

material; (d) after building a fire in or near any forest, timber, or other inflammable material, to leave 

it without totally extinguishing it; and (e) willfully to injure, molest, or destroy any property of the 

United States.” 

The Refuge shall be known as the Charles Sheldon Wildlife Refuge. 

EO 7178 (6 September 1935), which reserved and set apart certain lands in Nevada [Sheldon 

Refuge]: “Subject to the conditions expressed and to all existing valid rights, it is ordered that the 

following described lands, insofar as title thereto is in the United States, be, and they are hereby 

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; Provided, That upon the termination of any private right 

to, or appropriation of, any public lands within the exterior limits of the area included in this order, 

such lands shall become part of this preserve: And provided further, That upon the acquisition by the 

United States of title to any private lands within such limits for wild-life conservation purposes such 

lands shall become part of the preserve, but the grazing rights thereon shall accrue primarily to the 

use of wild-life, and such lands shall not be homesteaded, sold, exchanged, or patented under any law 

or regulation relating to public lands or the establishment of wild-life refuges or grazing districts.” 

EO 7522 (21 December 1936): “This range or preserve, so far as it relates to conservation and 

development of wildlife” and “so far as it relates to the public grazing lands and natural forage 

resources thereof; Provided, however, That the natural forage 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 non-predatory secondary species in such numbers as 

may be necessary to maintain a balanced wildlife population, but in no case shall the consumption of 

forage by the combined population of the wildlife species be allowed to increase the burden of the 

range dedicated to the primary species: Provided, further, That all the forage resources within this 

range or preserve shall be available, except as herein otherwise provided with respect to wildlife, for 

domestic livestock under rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior under the 

authority of the aforesaid act of June 28, 1934. Land within the exterior limits of the area herein 

described, acquired and to be acquired by the United States for the use of the Department of 

Agriculture for conservation of migratory birds and other wildlife, shall be and remain under the 

exclusive administration of the Secretary of Agriculture for conservation of migratory birds and 

other wildlife ...and may be utilized for public grazing purposes only to such extent as may be 

determined by the said Secretary to be compatible with the utilization of said lands for the purposes 

for which they were acquired as aforesaid under regulations prescribed by him.” 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

I-6 Appendix I. Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

The following EO 7364 is recorded in The National Archives Federal Register, Volume I, Number 

41, dated May 6, 1936: “By virtue of and pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of June 

25, 1910, c. 421, 36 Stat. 847, as amended by the Act of August 24, 1912, c. 369, 37 Stat. 497, and as 

President of the United States, and in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (45 Stat. 1222) , it is ordered that, subject to valid existing rights, all the public 

lands of the United States in the following-described area [Sheldon Refuge] be, and they are hereby, 

withdrawn from settlement, location, sale, entry, or other form of appropriation and reserved and set 

apart for the use of the Department of Agriculture as an addition to the existing Charles Sheldon 

Wildlife Refuge, established by Executive Order No. 5540 of January 26,1931.” 

An early memorandum (Memorandum Number 9, ca. 1937) stated: “The Charles Sheldon 

Antelope Refuge was established in September 1936 as an addition to the already existing Charles 

Sheldon Wildlife Refuge. The primary purpose of this area is the conservation of antelope. An 

excellent opportunity is also afforded, however, for the restoration in suitable numbers of native deer, 

sage grouse, and fur-bearing animals, and for the development of desirable feeding and nesting 

places for migratory waterfowl.” 

Another early memorandum (Memorandum No. 14, January 12, 1937) stated: “The Charles 

Sheldon Wildlife Refuge as originally established [EO 5540, 26 January 1931] embraced 31,399 

acres of public land. Through Executive Order [thought to be EO 7364 May 6, 1936] in September 

1936 the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range was established under joint jurisdiction of the Secretaries 

of Agriculture and Interior. 

“The purchase of the alienated lands within these antelope ranges is to control the water and hay 

producing areas essential to the perpetuation of the antelope and other wildlife. While these areas are 

primarily for the conservation of antelope, they also offer great opportunity to restore in suitable 

numbers the native deer, prairie chickens, sage grouse, and fur animals. There is also excellent 

opportunity to develop extensive waterfowl nesting and feeding places.” 

In Memorandum Number 9 (ca. 1937) it states: “At the January 1937 meeting one ownership 

(Dufurrena) involving 17,984 acres was approved for purchase. An 80 acre tract in the same 

ownership, which was overlooked when the other lands were optioned, is now being presented for 

consideration.” 

Proclamation No. 2416 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 30 July 1940 in the Federal Register 

states: “Whereas certain areas of land and water in the United States, [Sheldon Refuge] have been 

reserved and set aside from time to time as refuges and breeding grounds for native birds, migratory 

waterfowl, wild animals, and other forms of wildlife, on which it is unlawful for any person to hunt, 

trap, capture, willfully disturb or kill any bird or wild animal of any kind whatsoever to take or 

destroy the nests or eggs of any wild bird, or to occupy or use any part of such reservations or to 

enter thereon for any purpose except as permitted by law or by rules and regulations of the Secretary 

of the Interior in order that the conservation and development of the natural wildlife resources may 

contribute to the economic welfare of the Nation and provide opportunities for wholesome recreation 

to the citizens of the United States.” 

March 25, 1941: Sheldon National Antelope Refuge and Range was enlarged by a gift of 2,495.66 

acres from the Audubon Society, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approved 

purchase of 23,328.76 acres. Executive orders have set aside for refuge purposes a total of 

556,399.48 acres of public domain. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix I. Establishing and Acquisition Authorities I-7 

The Game Range Act (Public Law 94-223, February 27, 1976) amended the Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 to give sole jurisdiction for management of refuges to the Secretary of 

Interior through the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Act states: “For the purpose of consolidating the 

authorities relating to the various categories of areas that are administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species that are threatened with 

extinction, all lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, 

areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, 

wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl production areas are hereby 

designated as the ‘National Wildlife Refuge System’ which shall be subject to the provisions of this 

section and shall be administered by the Secretary through the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service.” 

The Congressional reports that define each branch’s intent for the law (House Report No. 94-334; 

Senate Report No. 94-593) emphasize the priority for wildlife (over grazing or other uses) and 

specifically name several species as the purpose of the game ranges. For example, House Report 94-

334 states: “During the 1930’s President Franklin D. Roosevelt established four wildlife ranges as 

part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in order to protect species such as the desert big-horn 

sheep, the pronghorn antelope, the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon and the prairie falcon.” The report 

then names Cabeza Prieta, Charles M. Russell, Charles Sheldon and Kofa Game Range refuges. 

Pronghorn were named as the primary species for management at Sheldon Refuge in its establishing 

executive order, and it is the only refuge of the four where prairie falcons are common. 

On December 4, 1974, the President transmitted the Sheldon Wilderness proposal to Congress 

(House Document No. 93-403). The initial proposal (prior to the August 1974 modifications) 

encompassed 277,200 acres in 11 areas. The President recommended designating 20,100 acres at 

that time and remanding the remainder to study under a mineral survey. Public hearings and further 

review modified (August 1974) the wilderness proposal to include 341,500 acres in nine areas on 

Sheldon Refuge, which was included in the 1974 transmittal to Congress. Further action on the 

wilderness proposal was suspended until a mineral survey was completed and the mineral estate was 

withdrawn on areas considered for wilderness designation. 

CFR Public Land Order 6849 (22 April 1991) Mineral Withdrawal of a Portion of the Sheldon 

National Wildlife Refuge; Nevada: This order withdraws approximately 445,766 acres of the 

Sheldon Refuge from mining location for the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the wildlife habitat 

and unique resource values of the refuge lands. The lands have been and remain open to mineral 

leasing. 

March 8, 1994: The Harry Wilson Land Exchange encompassing 2,240 acres was purchased by the 

Conservation Fund. The Acquisition Authority was the Endangered Species Act. Service personnel 

inspected the lands offered and desired in the exchange and determined the exchange would be 

biologically beneficial to Sheldon Refuge. With this land in refuge status, the Service would have 

the authority needed to exercise the control deemed necessary over migratory bird, wildlife, and land 

management objectives relative to this area. The Service would receive the water and water rights 

appurtenant to the Wilson lands. These lands are ecologically unique on Sheldon Refuge and have 

been proposed for classification as a wilderness area. One primitive road leads partway into the area, 

which provides vistas and other wilderness qualities that are extraordinary. The area has abundant 

wildlife with representative examples such as birds, bighorn sheep, mountain lions, mule deer, and 

native fishes and amphibians. Archaeologically, the area is rich; one site alone contains the greatest 

lithic scatter of all sites on Sheldon Tefuge. With the above acres in refuge status or in combined 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

I-8 Appendix I. Establishing and Acquisition Authorities 

refuge-wilderness status, the longstanding problem of the Service’s inability to exert any control over 

migratory bird, wildlife, and land management objectives relative to this area was resolved. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance J-1 

Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance 

International Treaties

The international treaties that affect Sheldon Refuge are migratory bird treaties with Canada, Mexico, 

Japan, and Russia, and the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Conservation in the 

Western Hemisphere. These treaties differ in emphasis and species of primary concern, but 

collectively provide clear mandates for identifying and protecting important habitats and ecosystems, 

and protecting and managing certain species. 

Treaties for migratory bird protection include management provisions such as: 

 Prohibiting disturbance of nesting colonies 

 Directing each nation to undertake, to the maximum extent possible, measures necessary to 

protect and enhance migratory bird environments and prevent and abate pollution or 

detrimental alteration of their habitats 

 Requiring each nation to provide immediate notification to the other when pollution or 

destruction of habitats occurs or is expected 

 Stipulation that each nation shall, to the extent possible, establish preserves, refuges, 

protected areas, and facilities for migratory birds and their habitats and manage them to 

preserve and restore natural ecosystems 

 Stipulating that special habitats outside the jurisdictional boundaries (territorial limits) may 

be designated in which, to the maximum extent, persons under each nation’s jurisdiction shall 

act in accordance with the principles of the treaty (for instance, this stipulation might require 

U.S. oil tankers to avoid or prevent pollution of special seabird areas on the high seas) 

 Providing that protective measures under the treaty may be applied to species and subspecies 

not listed in the specific convention, but which belong to one of the families containing listed 

species. Of the migratory bird species of concern in the treaties, those that use the Sheldon 

Refuge include swans, geese, ducks, hawks, eagles, harriers, falcons, cranes, plovers, 

sandpipers, gulls, owls, and passerines. 

Laws and Acts 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee; Refuge 

Administration Act) 

Of all the laws governing activities on National Wildlife Refuges, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) undoubtedly exerts the greatest influence. The 

Improvement Act amended the Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, by including a unifying 

mission for all National Wildlife Refuges to be managed as a System, a new process for determining 

compatible uses on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge will be managed under a 

comprehensive conservation plan, developed in an open public process. 

The Improvement Act states that the Secretary of the Interior shall provide for the conservation of 

fish, wildlife and plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System as well as ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained. House 

Report 105–106 accompanying the Improvement Act states ‘‘...the fundamental mission of our 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

J-2 Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance 

System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.’’ Biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health are critical components of wildlife conservation. As 

later explained in the Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health Policy (see section 

1.5B), “the highest measure of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health is viewed as 

those intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife populations that existed during historic 

conditions.” 

Under the Improvement Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System mission as 

well as the specific purposes for which it was established. The Act requires the Service to monitor 

the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. 

Additionally, the Act identifies six priority wildlife dependent recreational uses (“Big Six”). These 

uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. Through the Improvement Act, the U.S. Congress directed the Service to grant these 

six wildlife-dependent public uses special consideration in the planning for, management of, and 

establishment and expansion of units of the Refuge System. In addition, when determined 

compatible on a refuge-specific basis, these six uses assume priority status over any other uses 

proposed or occurring on a refuge. The Service is to make extra efforts to facilitate priority wildlifedependent public use opportunities. 

When preparing a CCP, Refuge Managers must re-evaluate the compatibility of all general public, 

recreational, and economic uses (even those occurring to further refuge habitat management goals) 

proposed or occurring on a refuge. No activity may be allowed or continued unless it is determined 

to be an appropriate refuge use and compatible with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and the purposes for the refuge. A compatible use is one that, in the sound professional 

judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. The authority to make the determination 

is delegated to the Refuge Manager. Updated compatibility determinations for existing and proposed 

uses for Sheldon Refuge are in Appendix D of this CCP/EIS. 

The Improvement Act also required that, in addition to formally established guidance, the CCP must 

be developed with the participation of the public. Issues and concerns articulated by the public play 

a role in guiding alternatives considered during the development of the CCP, and with the formal 

guidance, can play a role in selection of the preferred alternative. 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1231-1544)

The Endangered Species Act provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered species of 

fish, wildlife, plants, and their critical habitats by Federal action and by encouraging the 

establishment of state programs. Although not specifically addressing the System, it does directly 

affect management activities on national wildlife refuges. It directs Federal agencies to take actions 

that would further the purposes of the act and to ensure that actions they carry out, authorize, or fund 

do not jeopardize endangered species or their critical habitat (Section 7). 

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4, as amended) 

This act requires that any recreational use on areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System be 

compatible with the primary purpose(s) for which the area was acquired or established. This act also 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance J-3 

requires that sufficient funding be available for the development, operation, and maintenance of 

recreational uses that are not directly related to the area’s primary purpose(s). 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), and the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) 

NEPA is the basic national charter for protection of the environment. The procedural provisions in 

CEQ regulations require Federal agencies to integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the 

earliest possible time whenever taking a major Federal action that may significantly affect the human 

environment in order to provide a systematic interdisciplinary approach; identify and analyze the 

environmental effects of their actions; describe appropriate alternatives to the proposal; involve the 

affected state and Federal agencies, tribal governments, and the affected public in the planning and 

decision-making process; and fully integrate all refuge proposals that may have an impact on the 

environment with the provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1501.2). Implementation of any one of the 

alternatives in this CCP for managing Sheldon Refuge is such an action. Therefore, this planning 

process is subject to NEPA requirements. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, 

(Public Law [P.L.] 95-217; 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387, et seq., as amended; 33 CFR 320 ff; 40 CFR 

15, 100-400, 220-233, 400-471) 

This act regulates the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. The act protects fish 

and wildlife, establishes operation permits for all major sources of water pollution, and limits the 

discharge of pollutants or toxins into water. The act makes it unlawful for any person to discharge 

any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under the Clean 

Water Act. 

Clean Air Act of 1990 as amended (42 USC 7401-7661) 

This act established Federal standards for various pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources 

and to provide for the regulation of polluting emissions via state implementation plans. In addition, 

the amendments are designed to prevent significant deterioration in certain areas where air quality 

exceeds national standards, and to provide for improved air quality in areas which do not meet 

Federal standards (“nonattainment” areas). 

This act also requires Federal agencies to prevent significant deterioration of air quality and, in 

particular, to preserve air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, 

and national seashores (42 U.S.C. 7470). 

Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431-433); Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-

95; 16 U.S.C. 470as, et seq., as amended; 43 CFR 50-58); and the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., as amended) 

These laws make reference to cultural resources or govern the management of cultural resources on 

Federal lands. The various historic preservation laws, in general, do the following: 

 Vest ownership of historic and prehistoric properties and of materials collected from such 

sites with the state and Federal governments. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

J-4 Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance 

 Protect archeological and historic sites from unauthorized disturbance and prescribe penalties 

for individual who damage (or collect from) such sites. 

 Provide for issuing of permits to qualified individuals and institutions to conduct scientific 

research. 

 Mandate the inventory and evaluation of all sites on government-owned and managed lands. 

Inventory is the responsibility of the individual Federal agency involved. 

 Require that all projects with state or Federal involvement be conducted in such a way as to 

protect any significant cultural resources that may be present. This includes, but is not 

limited to, the performance of archeological surveys, site evaluations, and, if necessary, 

mitigation of adverse impacts on such resources. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (P.L. 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001-13; 

104 Stat. 3042) 

 Establishes requirements for the treatment of Native American human remains and sacred or 

cultural objects found on Federal land. 

 Requires Federal agencies to provide notice to affected Tribes of any such item is found that 

can be associated with a specific Tribe or groups of Tribes. 

 Requires that such items be returned upon request to an associated Tribe or Tribes. 

General Mining Act of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.) 

 Commonly known as the Mining Law of 1872, this Act the foundation of the existing system 

for acquiring rights in public mineral lands, and is solely applicable to “locatable” minerals. 

 Provides for locating and patenting mining claims where a discovery has been made for 

locatable minerals on public lands. 

Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 as amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) 

 Also known as the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, this Act is solely applicable to “leasable” 

minerals. Among the laws affecting the exploration and development of leasable minerals 

are the Act of July 31, 1947, as amended (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); the Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands, as amended (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.); the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as 

amended (30 U.S.C. 1001-1027); and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). 

Many other laws govern the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Refuge System lands. A list and 

brief description of each can be found at http://laws.fws.gov. 

Executive Orders

Executive Order 11644 as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec 4321 et seq.) 

Section 1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this order to establish policies and provide for procedures 

that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as 

to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to 

minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance J-5 

Sec. 3. Zones of Use. (a) Each respective agency head shall develop and issue regulations and 

administrative instructions, within six months of the date of this order, to provide for administrative 

designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road vehicles may 

be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be permitted, and set a date by 

which such designation of all public lands shall be completed. Those regulations shall direct that the 

designation of such areas and trails will be based upon the protection of the resources of the public 

lands, promotion of the safety of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. The regulations shall further require that the designation of such areas 

and trails shall be in accordance with the following – 

(1) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or 

other resources of the public lands. 

(2) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant 

disruption of wildlife habitats. 

(3) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and 

other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to 

ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into 

account noise and other factors. 

(4) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated Wilderness Areas or Primitive 

Areas. Areas and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park system, Natural Areas, 

or National Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head 

determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, 

aesthetic, or scenic values. 

Regulation

50 CFR Sec. 27.31 General provisions regarding vehicles 

Travel in or use of any motorized or other vehicles, including those used on air, water, ice, snow, is 

prohibited on national wildlife refuges except on designated routes of travel, as indicated by the 

appropriate traffic control signs or signals and in designated areas posted or delineated on maps by 

the refuge manager and subject to the following requirements and limitations... 

(f) The operation of a vehicle which does not bear valid license plates and is not properly 

certified, registered, or inspected in accordance with applicable State laws is prohibited. 

(g) Driving or permitting another person to drive a vehicle without valid license is prohibited. 

A valid driver's or operator's license must be displayed upon the request of any authorized 

official... 

(l) A motor vehicle shall not be operated at anytime without proper brakes and brake lights, 

or from sunset to sunrise without working headlights and taillights which comply with the 

regulations for operation on the roads of the State within whose boundaries the refuge is 

located. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

J-6 Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance 

Policy

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management direction for all national wildlife refuges is contained in 

the Refuge Manual chapters, Director’s orders, national policy issuances, handbooks, Director’s 

memoranda, and Regional directives. Some of the Refuge Manual chapters relevant to the CCP 

include feral horse and burro management (7 RM 6); off-road vehicle management (8 RM 7); and 

management of non-wildlife-dependent public uses (8 RM 9). Over the last few years, the Service 

has developed or revised numerous policies and Director’s Orders to reflect the mandates and intent 

of the Improvement Act. Some of these key policies include the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 

Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3); the Compatibility Policy; the Refuge Planning Policy; 

Mission, Goals, and Purposes (601 FW 1), Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 1); WildlifeDependent Public Uses (605 FW 1); Wilderness Stewardship Policy (610 FW 1); and the Director’s 

Order for Coordination and Cooperative Work with State Fish and Wildlife Agency Representatives 

on Management of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These policies and others in draft or under 

development can be found at http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html. 

In developing a CCP, a refuge must consider these broader laws and policies as well as Refuge 

System and ecosystem goals and visions. The CCP must be consistent with these and also with the 

refuge purpose. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3) 

Section 4(a)(4)(B) of the Refuge Improvement Act states, “in administering the [NWRS], the 

Secretary shall...ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the 

[NWRS] are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” This 

legislative mandate represents an additional directive to be followed while achieving refuge purposes 

and the NWRS mission. The Act requires the consideration and protection of a broad spectrum of 

fish, wildlife, plant, and habitat resources found on a refuge. Service policy guiding implementation 

of this statutory requirement provides a refuge manager with an evaluation process to analyze his/her 

refuge and recommend the best management direction to prevent further degradation of 

environmental conditions and, where appropriate, and in concert with refuge purposes and NWRS 

mission, to restore lost or severely degraded resource components. Within the Biological Integrity, 

Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3[3.7B]), the relationships among biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health; NWRS mission; and refuge purposes are explained as 

follows: “each refuge will be managed to fulfill refuge purpose(s) as well as to help fulfill the 

[NWRS] mission, and we will accomplish the purpose(s) and our mission by ensuring that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of each refuge are maintained and where 

appropriate, restored.” 

When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound 

professional judgment to determine their refuge’s contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field 

experience, an understanding of the refuge’s role within an ecosystem, and the knowledge of refuge 

resources, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with resource experts 

both inside and outside the Service. 

The priority public uses of the NWRS are not in conflict with this policy when they have been 

determined to be compatible. The directives of this policy do not envision or necessitate the 

exclusion of visitors or the elimination of visitor use structures from refuges; however, maintenance 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance J-7 

and/or restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health may require spatial or 

temporal zoning of visitor use programs and associated infrastructures. General success in 

maintaining or restoring biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health will produce higherquality opportunities for providing wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 

Feral Horse and Burro Policy (7 RM 6) 

6.2 Policy. It is the policy of the Service that feral horse and burro populations will not be 

maintained on Sheldon, Hart Mountain, and Kofa National Wildlife Refuges. Feral horses and 

burros on these refuges will be removed in accordance with the provision of 50 CFR 30.12 and 

Section 6.9, below. 

6.9 On Sheldon, Hart Mountain, and Kofa National Wildlife Refuges, the preferred methods of 

control are biological control or live capture. If neither is feasible, surplus animals may be destroyed, 

provided the methods are approved by the regional director. All control activities will be conducted 

as humanely as possible. 

Exotic Species Policy (7 RM 8) 

8.1 Policy. The National Wildlife Refuge System exists for the protection and management of plants 

and animals native to the United States. The policy of the Service is to prevent further introduction 

of exotic species on national wildlife refuges except where and exotic species would have value as a 

biological control agent and would be compatible with the objectives of the refuge. The continued 

existence, or management of exotic plants and animals on refuge lands will be permitted only if: 

A. An exotic species has become established and its elimination, while desirable, is no 

longer practicable, or 

B. An exotic species has become established and maintained on a non-augmented basis for at 

least 25 years and does not conflict with refuge objectives. 

Wilderness Stewardship Policy (610 FW 1) 

This policy provides guidance on administrative and public activities on wilderness areas, proposed 

wilderness areas, and wilderness study areas within the NWRS. The purpose of the policy is to 

provide “an overview and foundation for implementing the Wilderness Act and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (Administration Act)” (610 FW 1 1.1A). 

The policy states that we will manage proposed wilderness areas as if they were designated 

wilderness (610 FW 1 1.5T). 

1.4 What are the priorities in implementing this policy? We will consider three main priorities in 

the following order when administering refuge wilderness areas: The Administration Act, the 

Endangered Species Act, and the Wilderness Act. We initially determine what needs to be 

accomplished to meet refuge purposes, then ensure that these activities comply with the Endangered 

Species Act, and then ensure that these activities comply with the Wilderness Act. 

1.14 What are the principles for administering wilderness? We observe five key principles in 

administering wilderness: 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

J-8 Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance 

A. Accomplish Administration Act purposes, refuge purposes, including Wilderness Act 

purposes, and the Refuge System mission. The Administration Act, refuge purposes, and 

Wilderness Act purposes tell us what to accomplish on a refuge. The Wilderness Act, 

however, may affect how we accomplish these purposes and the Refuge System mission. 

B. Secure “an enduring resource of wilderness” by maintaining and, where appropriate, 

restoring, a wilderness area’s biological integrity, diversity, environmental health, and 

wilderness character. 

C. Administer wilderness areas to provide a wide variety of public benefits “for the use and 

enjoyment of the American people” (Wilderness Act, section 2(a)) in a manner that is 

appropriate and compatible with the Administration Act, refuge purposes, including 

Wilderness Act purposes, and the Refuge System mission; retains wilderness character; is 

consistent with the nondegradation principle; and leaves the areas “unimpaired for future use 

and enjoyment as wilderness.” 

D. Use restraint in our administration of wilderness. As a place “where the earth and its 

community of life are untrammeled by man,” we minimize actions for administration of 

wilderness areas. We may allow exceptions to the generally prohibited uses if the uses are 

the minimum requirement for administering the area as wilderness and are necessary to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, including Wilderness Act purposes. We may limit 

even nonmotorized refuge management activities to protect wildness. 

E. Provide opportunities for primitive recreation, giving priority to compatible wildlifedependent activities that are enhanced by a wilderness setting. Provide physical, social, and 

administrative settings that are conducive to experiencing opportunities for solitude, 

adventure, challenge, inspiration, and other aspects of wilderness character that the American 

people can use and enjoy. 

1.16 What activities does the Service prohibit in wilderness? 

A. Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act prohibits commercial enterprises and permanent roads 

within wilderness, except as specifically provided by legislation and subject to existing 

private rights. Section 4(d)(6) of the Wilderness Act, however, allows commercial services 

in wilderness, but only when they are “necessary for activities which are proper for realizing 

the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.” We may allow commercial 

services, such as outfitter and guide services, in wilderness where they are necessary to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, including Wilderness Act purposes. (See 610 FW 2 

for more information about what we allow and prohibit in wilderness.) 

B. Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act also lists a number of generally prohibited uses in 

wilderness, subject to existing private rights: 

(1) “[E]xcept as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area 

for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health 

and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor 

vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of 

mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.” 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance J-9 

(2) We may allow exceptions to the generally prohibited uses for refuge management 

activities if the prohibited uses are the minimum requirement for administering the area as 

wilderness and are necessary to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, including Wilderness 

Act purposes. (See section 1.18.) 

C. Area-specific wilderness legislation may permit uses that the Wilderness Act generally 

prohibits, and we comply with the provisions of those laws. 

1.17 How do refuge managers accomplish both the establishing purpose(s) of a refuge and the 

purposes of the Wilderness Act? 

A. The wilderness portion of a refuge is encompassed both within the Refuge System and 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. Refuge System laws, regulations, and policies 

apply to refuge wilderness, but we carry them out in ways that preserve wilderness character 

and comply with the Wilderness Act’s prohibitions. Refuge purposes and Wilderness Act 

purposes tell us what to accomplish on a refuge. The Wilderness Act, however, may affect 

how we accomplish these purposes and the Refuge System mission. 

(1) For instance, on a refuge established for migratory birds, the refuge manager may conduct 

a census on foot within designated wilderness, while using motor vehicles on other portions 

of the refuge. 

(2) We continue to fulfill the establishing purposes of the refuge and the mission of the 

Refuge System while complying with the Wilderness Act, and we adjust our management 

strategies and techniques to prevent degradation of the wilderness character. 

B. We adhere to a much stricter standard than usual for approving actions in wilderness so 

that we maintain the natural and untrammeled condition of the wilderness. We do not 

authorize generally prohibited uses in refuge wilderness except when the use is: 

(1) Allowed under the terms of the area-specific wilderness legislation and the Wilderness 

Act; 

(2) The minimum requirement for administering the area as wilderness and necessary to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, including Wilderness Act purposes; or 

(3) An emergency involving the health and safety of a person or people within the area. 

1.18 How does the Service determine if a proposed refuge management activity is the minimum 

requirement for administering the area as wilderness and necessary to accomplish the purposes 

of the refuge, including Wilderness Act purposes? We conduct and document a minimum 

requirement analysis (MRA) for all proposed refuge management activities that involve a generally 

prohibited use (also see section 1.19). The MRA clarifies the need for and impacts of a proposed 

action. We authorize an activity only if we demonstrate that it is necessary to meet the minimum 

requirement for administering the area as wilderness and necessary to accomplish the purposes of the 

refuge, including Wilderness Act purposes. 

A. We identify and analyze alternative ways to accomplish refuge purposes, including 

Wilderness Act purposes, in order to determine whether the proposed refuge management 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

J-10 Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance 

activity is necessary and to identify the techniques that will minimize impacts to the 

wilderness resource. At a minimum, we evaluate the impacts of: 

(1) An alternative where we take no management action, 

(2) An alternative allowing no generally prohibited uses, and 

(3) Alternative(s) to conduct the activities inside the wilderness and outside the wilderness. 

B. We consider the full range of wilderness values and character when evaluating the 

alternatives. These values include the undeveloped and untrammeled natural condition of 

wilderness, cultural resources, outstanding opportunities for solitude, the potential for the 

public to have a primitive and unconfined type of recreational experience, and other 

components of wilderness character. 

C. We consider the direct impacts of the proposed refuge management activity under each of 

the alternatives. We also consider the indirect impacts associated with the action and the 

cumulative impacts of the action when it is conducted in conjunction with other existing or 

planned uses or actions within or adjacent to and affecting the wilderness areas. Under the 

nondegradation principle, the conditions prevailing in an area at the time of wilderness 

designation establish a benchmark for assessing the significance of a proposed action’s 

beneficial and adverse impacts on wilderness character. 

D. Our refuge management activities preserve wilderness character and only rarely involve 

generally prohibited uses. The alternative that has the least impact on the area’s wilderness 

character, including intangible aspects of wilderness character, and accomplishes refuges 

purposes, including wilderness purposes, constitutes the minimum requirement. We do not 

use cost or convenience as a factor in determining the minimum requirement or minimum 

tool. We use primitive tools when possible. 

1.22 What effects do emergencies involving the health and safety of people have on the uses 

generally prohibited by the Wilderness Act? In an emergency involving the health and safety of 

people, we may use or authorize the use of motorized vehicles and equipment, mechanical transport, 

or aircraft. A Minimum Requirements Analysis is not required, but we take all reasonable measures 

to minimize impacts on the wilderness character. 

Appropriate Use Policy (603 FW 1) 

1.4 What are the objectives of this chapter? 

A. Refuges are first and foremost national treasures for the conservation of wildlife. 

Through careful planning, consistent Refuge Systemwide application of regulations and 

policies, diligent monitoring of the impacts of uses on wildlife resources, and preventing or 

eliminating uses not appropriate to the Refuge System, we can achieve the Refuge System 

conservation mission while also providing the public with lasting opportunities to enjoy 

quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation. 

B. Through consistent application of this policy and these procedures, we will establish an 

administrative record and build public understanding and consensus on the types of public 

uses that are legitimate and appropriate within the Refuge System. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance J-11 

A. Appropriate Use. 

A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four conditions. 

(1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

(2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or 

goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, 

the date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

(3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

(4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11. 

1.8 What is the relationship between appropriateness and compatibility? This policy describes 

the initial decision process the refuge manager follows when first considering whether or not to allow 

a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find a use is appropriate before undertaking a 

compatibility review of the use. This policy clarifies and expands on the compatibility policy (603 

FW 2.10D(1)), which describes when refuge managers should deny a proposed use without 

determining compatibility. If we find a proposed use is not appropriate, we will not allow the use 

and will not prepare a compatibility determination. By screening out proposed uses not appropriate 

to the refuge, the refuge manager avoids unnecessary compatibility reviews. By following the 

process for finding the appropriateness of a use, we strengthen and fulfill the Refuge System mission. 

Section 1.11 describes the appropriateness finding process. Although a refuge use may be both 

appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager retains the authority to not allow the use or modify 

the use. For example, on some occasions, two appropriate and compatible uses may be in conflict 

with each other. In these situations, even though both uses are appropriate and compatible, the 

refuge manager may need to limit or entirely curtail one of the uses in order to provide the greatest 

benefit to refuge resources and the public. See the compatibility policy (603 FW 2.11G) for 

information concerning resolution of these conflicts. 

Compatibility Policy (603 FW 2) 

Lands within the NWRS are different from other multiple-use public lands in that they are closed to 

all public uses unless specifically and legally opened. The Refuge Improvement Act states that “the 

Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a Refuge or expand, renew, or extend an existing 

use of a [refuge], unless the Secretary has determined that the use is a compatible use and that the use 

is not inconsistent with public safety.” The Refuge Improvement Act also states that “compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses [hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or 

environmental education and interpretation] are the priority general public uses of the [NWRS] and 

shall receive priority consideration in [refuge] planning and management.” 

In accordance with the Refuge Improvement Act, the Service has adopted a Compatibility Policy 

(603 FW 2) that includes guidelines for determining if a use proposed on a national wildlife refuge is 

compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. A compatible use is defined in 

the policy as a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of an 

national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere with 

or detract from the fulfillment of the NWRS mission or the purposes for which the refuge was 

established and contributes to the maintenance of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

J-12 Appendix J. Legal and Policy Guidance 

health. The policy also includes procedures for documentation and periodic review of existing refuge 

uses. 

The Compatibility Policy does not apply to overflights above a refuge or to activities authorized, 

funded, or conducted by a Federal agency (other than the Service) that has primary jurisdiction over a 

refuge or portion of a refuge, if the management of those activities is in accordance with a 

Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretary or the Director and the head of the Federal 

agency with primary jurisdiction over the refuge governing the use of the refuge. 

The first step in determining if a use is compatible is to determine if the use is appropriate (refer to 

previous discussion of 603 FW 1). If a use is not appropriate, the use is not further considered, and a 

compatibility determination is not required. If a use is determined to be appropriate, the Service 

must prepare a compatibility determination. When a determination is made as to whether a proposed 

use is compatible or not, this determination is provided in writing and is referred to as a compatibility 

determination. 

An opportunity for public review and comment is required for all compatibility determinations. For 

compatibility determinations prepared concurrently with a CCP or step-down management plan, the 

opportunity for public review and comment is provided during the public review period for the draft 

plan and associated NEPA document. Appropriateness findings and the compatibility determinations 

prepared in association with this CCP/EIS are provided in Appendices C and D. 

Fishery Resource Management Policy (7 RM 10) 

10.6 Stocking refuge waters. Stocking of fish in refuge waters would be limited to measures aimed 

at maintaining balanced fish populations or replacing populations decimated by unusually severe or 

atypical losses due to climatic or environmental factors. (See 7 RM 12, Propagation and Stocking.) 

Stocking refuge waters with catchable-size sport fish specifically to support recreational fishing is 

prohibited. Such a practice conflicts with the objectives of providing a quality, wildlife-oriented 

experience. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix K. Planning Team Members K-1 

Appendix K. Planning Team Members and Work Experience 

Name Position 

(USFWS Start 

and End Dates) 

CCP Roles and 

Responsibilities 

Education Experience 

Gail Collins Complex 

Supervisory 

Wildlife Biologist 

(April 2007-

present) 

Affected environment for 

wildlife, water resources; 

environmental consequences; 

Wilderness Minimum Tool 

Analysis review 

M.S. Wildlife 

Biology 

Wildlife biology 

16 years 

Aaron Collins Complex Park 

Ranger 

(July 2009-

present) 

Lead planner; affected 

environment for public uses; 

environmental consequences 

for public uses, cultural 

resources; wilderness review; 

Wilderness Minimum Tool 

Analysis 

B.S. Natural 

Resource Science 

Conservation 

planning 11 years, 

outdoor recreation 

management 9 

years, wilderness 

management 6 

years, botany 2 

years 

Brian Day Sheldon Refuge 

Manager 

(September 2006-

present) 

Facilities, public use, fish and 

wildlife, habitat, compatibility 

determinations, wilderness 

inventory and study, 

environmental consequences 

B.S. Wildlife 

Biology 

Wildlife biology 

6 years, refuge 

management 15 

years 

Andy Goheen Complex Fire 

Management 

Officer 

(September 2006- 

September 2009) 

Fire management, fire ecology, 

cultural resources 

B.S. 

Environmental 

Management 

Fire management 

13 years, fire 

ecology 10 years, 

cultural resource 

management 8 

years 

Sue Goheen Complex Natural 

Resource Planner 

(September 2006- 

July 2009) 

CCP team lead, wilderness 

inventory and study, soils, 

geology 

B.S. Natural 

Resource 

Management, 

B.S. Soil Science 

Soil science 21 

years, biological 

and physical 

sciences 6 years, 

natural resource 

planning 3 years, 

recreation 

management 1 

year 

John Kasbohm Project Leader 

(2011- present) 

Final proposed action and 

Preferred Alternative, 

appropriateness 

determinations, compatibility 

determinations 

Ph.D. Wildlife 

Science, M.S. 

Entomology, B.S. 

Biology 

Refuge 

management 16 

years, wildlife 

biology 25 years, 

threatened and 

endangered 

species recovery 

5 years 

Damien Miller Deputy Project 

Leader 

(January 2010-

April 2012) 

Refuge management 

alternatives 

M.S. Wildlife 

Science, B.S. 

Wildlife 

Management 

Supervision 

13years, project 

management 13 

years, habitat 

management 7 

years, wildlife 

research 6 years, 

Endangered 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

K-2 Appendix K. Planning Team Members 

Name Position 

(USFWS Start 

and End Dates) 

CCP Roles and 

Responsibilities 

Education Experience 

Species Act 5 

years, National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 1 year 

Betsy Schenk Complex Fire 

Management 

Officer 

(March 2010-

present) 

Fire management, fire ecology, 

Wilderness Minimum Tool 

Analysis review 

B.S. Supervision, 

B.S. Wildlife and 

Forest 

Management 

Wildland fire 19 

years, fuels 

management 9 

years 

Paul Steblein Complex Project 

Leader 

(September 2006- 

October 2010) 

Management alternatives, feral 

horses and burros 

M.S. Biology, 

B.S. Wildlife 

Science 

Refuge 

Management 7 

years, wildlife 

biology 3 years, 

wildlife research 

9 years 
Appendix L. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting Criteria L-1 Appendix L. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting Criteria Adapted from the U.S. Forest Service 1982 ROS Users Guide Remoteness Criteria* Primitive Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized Semi-Primitive Motorized Roaded Natural Rural 

At least 3 miles from all roads or trails with motorized use 1⁄2-3 miles from all roads or trails with motorized use Within 1⁄2 mile of primitive roads or trails with motorized use Within 1⁄2 mile of improved roads No distance criteria *Natural barriers, screening, and other features can be used to modify these criteria. Evidence of Humans Primitive Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized Semi-Primitive Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Setting is essentially an unmodified natural environment; evidence of humans is not noticeable to the casual observer or visitor Setting may have subtle modifications that are noticeable but do not draw the attention of the casual observer Setting may be moderately altered, but alterations would not draw the attention of motorized observers Modifications to the environment range from easily noticeable to dominating the setting, but are generally not noticeable from more primitive setting areas Human modifications dominate the setting, but most are primarily modifications to land use and appearance rather than constructed buildings and features Structures are extremely rare Structures are rare and isolated Structures are rare and isolated Structures are generally scattered, remaining visually subordinate or unnoticed to the casual observer; structures may include power lines, cell phone towers, etc. Structures are readily apparent and may range from scattered to small, dominant clusters including power lines, cell phone towers, ski areas, and recreation sites 
L-2 Appendix L. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting Criteria 

Social Setting* Primitive Semi-Primitive NonMotorized Semi-Primitive Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Usually less than 6 parties per day encountered on trails and less than 3 parties visible from campsites 

Usually 6-15 parties per day encountered on trails and 6 or fewer parties visible from campsites 

Frequency of contact with other visitors low to moderate 

Frequency of contact with other visitors moderate to high on roads, but low to moderate on trails and away from roads 

Frequency of contact with other visitors moderate to high in and around developed sites, but moderate away from developed sites 

*Criteria apply during the typical use season. Peak use days or seasons may exceed these limits. Managerial Setting Primitive Semi-Primitive NonMotorized Semi-Primitive Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Control* and regulation of visitor use is primarily offsite; few or no on-site controls apparent 

On-site control of visitor use present but subtle 

On-site control of visitor use present but subtle 

On-site control of visitor use noticeable but in harmony with the natural environment 

On-site control of visitor use obvious and numerous but largely in harmony with the constructed environment 

*Controls may be physical (i.e., barriers) or regulatory (i.e., permits). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-1 

Appendix M. References 

Adams, A.W. 1975. A brief history of juniper and shrub populations in southern Oregon. Wildlife 

Research Report Number 6. Oregon State Wildlife Commission. Corvallis, OR. 33 pp. 

Adelman, B., T. Heberlein, and T. Bonnicksen. 1982. Social psychological explanations for the 

persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences 5:45-61. 

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Alessa, L. and C.G. Earnhart. 2000. Effects of soil compaction on root and root hair morphology: 

implications for campsite rehabilitation. Pages 99-104 in: D.N. Cole, S.F. McCool, W.T. 

Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, compilers. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. 

Vol. 5. Wilderness ecosystems, threats and management. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 

Altman, B. and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of 

eastern Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 97 pp. 

American Bird Conservatory. 2007. Top 20 most threatened bird habitats in the U.S. American Bird 

Conservatory. The Plains, VA. 48 pp. 

Anderson, E.W. 1984. Trend in ecological status 1978-1984 on the Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge in Nevada. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SheldonHart Mountain National Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Anderson, E.W. and D. Franzen. 1978. Changes in ecological condition 1964-1978, Sheldon 

National Antelope Refuge, Nevada. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Andrews, K.M. and J.W. Gibbons. 2005. How do highways influence snake movement? Behavioral 

responses to roads and vehicles. Copeia 2005:772-782. 

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. 2004. Wildlife water developments and desert bighorn sheep 

in the southwestern United States. Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. Mesa, AZ. 

Arjo, W.M., E.M. Gese, T.J. Bennett, and A.J. Kozlowski. 2007. Changes in the kit fox–coyote–prey 

relationships in the Great Basin Desert, Utah. Western North American Naturalist 67:389-

401. 

Armentrout, D.J., F.H. Hall, M. Dobel, and the Northeastern California Sage-Grouse Working 

Group. 2004. Conservation strategy for Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophansianus). Bureau 

of Land Management, Eagle Lake Field Office. Susanville, CA. 

Auble, G.T., J.M. Friedman, and M.L. Scott. 1994. Relating riparian vegetation to present and future 

streamflows. Ecological Applications 4(3):544-554. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-2 Appendix M. References 

Autenrieth, R.E. 1981. Sage grouse management in Idaho. Sage grouse. Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game, Boise, ID. 

Autenrieth, R.E. 1982. Pronghorn fawn habitat use and vulnerability to predation. Pronghorn 

Antelope Workshop Proceedings 10:112-131. 

Autenrieth, R.E., W. Molini, and C.E. Braun.1982. Sage-grouse management practices. Western 

Sage-grouse Committee Technical Bulletin 1. Twin Falls, ID. 

AZGFD (Arizona Game and Fish Department). 2004. Studies of wildlife water developments in 

southwestern Arizona: wildlife use, water quality, wildlife diseases, wildlife mortalities, and 

influences on native pollinators. Tech Guidance Bulletin No. 8. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department Research Branch. Phoenix, AZ. 

Bachelet, D., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, and R.J. Drapek. 2001. Climate change effects on 

vegetation distribution and carbon budget in the United States. Ecosystems 4:164-185. 

Baker, M.F., R.L. Eng, J.S. Gashwiler, M.H. Schroeder, and C.E. Braun. 1976. Conservation 

committee report on effects of alteration of sagebrush communities on the associated 

avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88:165-171. 

Baldwin, C.K., F.H. Wagner, and U. Lall. 2003. Water resources. Pages 79-112 in: F.H. Wagner, ed. 

Rocky Mountain/Great Basin regional climate change assessment report of the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program. Utah State University. Logan, UT. 

Ballard, J. 2002. Fire monitoring on Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, 1978-2000. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National 

Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Barnett, J. 2002. Monitoring feral horse and burro impacts on habitat, Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart 

Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Barrett, S.W., S.F. Arno, and J.P. Menakis. 1997. Fire episodes in the Inland Northwest (1540-1940) 

based on fire history data. General Technical Report INT-GTR-370. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 17 pp. 

Bartelt, G.A. 1987. Effects of disturbance and hunting on the behavior of Canada goose family 

groups in east central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management. 51:517-522. 

Bartley, D.M. and G.A.E. Gall. 1991. Genetic identification of native cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarkii) and introgressive hybridization with introduced rainbow trout (O. mykiss) in streams 

associated with the Alvord Basin, Oregon and Nevada. Copeia 1991:854-859. 

Barton, D.C. and A.L. Holmes. 2007. Off-highway vehicle trail impacts on breeding songbirds in 

northeastern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1617-1625. 

Bartos, D.L. and R.B. Campbell. 1998. Decline of quaking aspen in the Intermountain West—

examples from Utah. Rangelands 20:17-24. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-3 

Bedunah, D.J., K.D. Pflug, and T.E. Jones. 2004. Antelope bitterbrush flowering, survival, and 

regeneration following ponderosa pine forest restoration treatments. Pages 149-155 in: A.L. 

Hild, N.L. Shaw, S.E. Meyer, D.T. Booth, and E.D. McArthur, compilers. Seed and Soil 

Dynamics in Shrubland Ecosystems. Proceedings #RMRS-P-31. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 216 pp. 

Beever, E.A. and P.F. Brussard. 2000. Examining ecological consequences of feral horse grazing 

using exclosures. Western North American Naturalist 60:236-254. 

Beever, E.A. and J.E. Herrick. 2006. Effects of feral horses in Great Basin landscapes on soils and 

ants: direct and indirect mechanisms. Journal of Arid Environments 66:96-112. 

Beever, E.A., J.L. Wilkening, D.E. McIvor, S.S. Weber, and P.F. Brussard. 2008. American pikas 

(Ochotona princes) in northwestern Nevada: A newly discovered population at a lowelevation site. Western North American Naturalist 68:8-14. 

Beever, E.A., P.F. Brussard, and J. Berger. 2003a. Patterns of apparent extirpation among isolated 

populations of pikas (Ochotona princeps) in the Great Basin. Journal of Mammalogy 84:37-

54. 

Beever, E.A., R.J. Tausch, and P.F. Brussard. 2003b. Characterizing grazing disturbance in semiarid 

ecosystems across broad scales, using diverse indices. Ecological Applications 13:119-136. 

Beever, E.A., R.J. Tausch, and W.E. Thogmartin. 2007. Multi-scale responses of vegetation to 

removal of horse grazing from Great Basin mountain ranges. Plant Ecology 196(2):163-184. 

Belnap, J. 1995. Surface disturbances: their role in accelerating desertification. Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment 37:39-57. 

Belsky, A.J. and J.L. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock grazing and weed invasions in the arid West. Oregon 

Natural Desert Association. Bend, OR. 31 pp. 

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and 

riparian ecosystems in the Western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 

54:419-431. 

Berlow, E.L., C.M. D’Antonio, and S.A. Reynolds. 2002. Shrub expansion in montane meadows: the 

interaction of local-scale disturbance and site aridity. Ecological Applications 12:1103-1118. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2003. Lakeview resource management plan and record of 

decision. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon. 

BLM. 2006. South Steens Allotment management plan environmental assessment OR-06-027-060. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. Burns District Office, 

Andrews Resource Area. Burns, OR. 

BLM. 2007a. Vegetation treatments using herbicides. Final programmatic EIS. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington Office. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-4 Appendix M. References 

BLM. 2007b. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Vol 

2. Surprise Field Office, Bureau of Land Management. Cedarville, CA. 

BLM. 2011. Wild Horse and Burro Program Data. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/herd_management/Data.html. Accessed 

March 2012. 

BLM. 2012. Wild Horse and Burro Program Myths and Facts. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/myths_and_facts.html. 

Accessed March 2012. 

Bock, C.E., J.H. Bock, and H.M. Smith. 1993a. Proposal for a system of feral livestock exclosures on 

public rangelands in the western United States. Conservation Biology 7:731-733. 

Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1993b. Effects of livestock grazing o 

neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. Pages 296-309 in: D.M. Finch 

and P.W. Stangel, eds. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. General 

Technical Report RM-229. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 422 pp. 

Bovee, K.D. and M.L. Scott. 2002. Implications of flood pulse restoration for Populus regeneration 

on the upper Missouri River. River Research and Applications 18:287-298. 

Bragg, A.C. 1976. Humboldt County 1905. Winnemucca, NV: North Central Nevada Historical 

Society. 

Braña F., L. Frechilla, and G. Orizoala. 1996. Effect of introduced fish on amphibian assemblages in 

mountain lakes of northern Spain. Herpetological Journal 6:145-148. 

Braun, C.E. 1987. Current issues in sage-grouse management. Proceedings of the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 67:134-144. 

Braun, C.E. (compiler). 1991. Western states sage grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 

questionnaire survey, 1988-1990. Western States Sage Grouse and Columbian Sharp-Tailed 

Grouse Technical Committee. 

Braun, C.E. 1993. The status of the sage grouse: are they endangered, threatened, or? Abstract. First 

joint meeting prairie grouse technical council and western states sage and Columbian sharptailed grouse workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Fort Collins, CO. 

Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? 

Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78:139-156. 

Braun, C.E., M.F. Baker, R.L. Eng, J.W. Gashwiler, and M.H. Schroeder. 1976. Conservation 

committee report on effects of alteration of sagebrush communities on the associated 

avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88:165-171. 

Britton, C.M. and R.G. Clark. 1985. Effects of fire on sagebrush and bitterbrush. Pages 22-25 in: K. 

Sanders and J. Durham, eds. Rangeland Fire Effects: A Symposium. Idaho State Office and 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Boise, ID. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-5 

Brown, T.J, B.L. Hall, and A.L. Westerling. 2004. The impact of twenty-first century climate change 

on wildland fire danger in the western United States: an applications perspective. Climate 

Change 62:365-388. 

Broyles, B. 1995. Desert wildlife water developments: questioning use in the southwest. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 23(4):663-675. 

Bunting, S.C., L.F. Neuenschwander, and G.E. Gruell. 1985. Fire ecology of bitterbrush in the 

northern Rock Mountains. Pages 48-57 in: J.E. Lotan, and J.K. Brown, compilers. 

Proceedings of the Fire’s Effects on Wildlife Habitat Symposium. General Technical Report, 

INT-186. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Ogden, UT. 

Burkhardt, J.W. and E.W. Tisdale. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology 

76:154-158. 

Burkhardt, J.W., D.A. Klebenow, E. Smith, and R. Beall. 1982. Mule deer of the Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge. Report #14-16-00178086. University of Nevada, Reno. Reno, NV. 

Cain, J.W., III, P.R. Krausman, J.R. Morgart, B.D. Jansen, and M.P. Pepper. 2008. Responses of 

desert bighorn sheep to removal of water sources. Wildlife Monograph 171. 

Call, M.W. and C. Maser. 1985. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands: the Great Basin of 

southeastern Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-187. USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR. 30 pp. 

CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2005. The sagebrush bird conservation plan: A strategy for 

protecting and managing sagebrush habitats and associated birds in California. Version 1.0. 

PRBO Conservation Science. Stinson Beach, CA. 81 pp. 

Carr, L.W. and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. 

Conservation Biology 15:1071-1078. 

Carrier, W.D. and B. Czech. 1996. Threatened and endangered wildlife and livestock interactions. 

Pages 39-47 in: P.R. Krausman, ed. Rangeland wildlife. Denver, CO: Society for Range 

Management. 

Cassirer, E.F. and A.R.E Sinclair. 2007. Dynamics of pneumonia in a bighorn sheep metapopulation. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1080-1088. 

Chambers, J.C. 2008. Climate change in the Great Basin. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Fort Collins, CO. 

Chaney, E.W., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Denver, CO. 45 pp. 

Champlin, M. R. and A. H. Winward. 1982. The effect of simulated fire on emergence of seeds 

found in the soil of big sagebrush communities. Abstract. Society for Range Management. 

Calgary, Alberta. 37 pp. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-6 Appendix M. References 

Chartkoff, J. L. 1983. A rock feature complex from Northern California. American Antiquity 

48(4):745-760. 

Clark, L., J. Hall, R. Mclean, M. Dunbar, K. Klenk, R. Bowen, and C. Smeraski. 2006. Susceptibility 

of greater sage-grouse to experimental infection with West Nile virus. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases 42:14–22. 

Clark, R.G. and E.E. Starkey. 1990. Use of prescribed fire in rangeland ecosystems. Pages 81-94 in: 

J.D. Walstad, S.R. Rdosevich, and D.V. Sandberg, eds. Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific 

Northwest forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

Clary, W.P. and D.E. Medin. 1999. Riparian zones—the ultimate ecosystems? Pages 49-55 in: E.D. 

McArthur, W.K. Ostler, and C.L. Wambolt, compilers. Proceedings: Shrubland Ecotones. 

RMRS-P-11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. Ogden, UT. 

Clements, D. and J. Young. 2006. Loss of critical browse communities on the Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge. Abstract. Proceedings of the Society for Range Management 59:46-47. 

Cole, D.N. 1981. Vegetational changes associated with recreational use and fire suppression in the 

Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon: some management implications. Biological Conservation 

20:247-270. 

Cole, D.N. 1985. Recreational trampling effects on six habitat types in western Montana. Research 

Paper INT-350. USDA Forest Service. 43 pp. 

Cole, D.N. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. Pages 

135-177 in: R. C. Lucas, compiler. Proceedings, National Wilderness Research Conference: 

Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions. General Technical Report INT-220. U.S. 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 

Cole, D.N. 1989. Some principles to guide wilderness campsite management. Pages 181-187 in: 

D.W. Lime, ed. campsite management and monitoring in wilderness. St. Paul, MN: 

Minnesota Extension Service and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of 

Minnesota. 

Cole, D.N. 1995. Experimental trampling of vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 32:215-224. 

Cole, D.N. 2004. Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review. Available at: 

http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/docs12/Ecotourism.pdf. Accessed January 31, 

2011. 

Cole, D.N. and R.L. Knight. 1990. Impacts of recreation on biodiversity in wilderness. Utah State 

University. Logan, Utah. 

Cole, D.N. and T.E. Hall. 1992. Trends in campsite condition: Eagle Cap Wilderness, Bob Marshall 

Wilderness and Grand Canyon National Park. Research Paper INT-453. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 40 pp. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-7 

Cole, D. N. and J.L. Marion. 1988. Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the eastern United 

States. Environmental Management 12: 99-107. 

Cole, D.N. and C.A. Monz. 2002. Trampling disturbance of high-elevation vegetation, Wind River 

Mountains, Wyoming, U.S.A. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 34:365-376. 

Collins, G.H. 2008a. Results of the July 2008 aerial survey of Hart Mountain National Antelope 

Refuge. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Collins, G.H. 2008b. Status of population trend, harvest, and translocation activities of greater sagegrouse populations on Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex—February 

2008. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart 

Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Collins, G.H. 2009. Survey of springs and water developments on Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Collins, G.H. 2010. Status of population trend, harvest, and translocation activities of greater sagegrouse populations on Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex – February 

2010. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart 

Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of 

greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. Cheyenne, WY. 

Connelly, J.W., J.H. Gammonley, and J.M. Peek. 2005. Harvest management. Pages 658-690 in: C.E. 

Braun, ed. Techniques for wildlife investigations and management. Bethesda, MD: The 

Wildlife Society. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage 

grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985. 

Conway, C.J., V. Garcia, M.D. Smith, and K. Hughes. 2008. Factors affecting detection of burrowing 

owl nests during standardized surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:688-696. 

Cox, M., D.W. Lutz, T. Wasley, M. Fleming, B.B. Compton, T. Keegan, D. Stroud, S. Kilpatrick, K. 

Gray, J. Carlson, L. Carpenter, K. Urquhart, B. Johnson, and C. McLaughlin. 2009. Habitat 

guidelines for mule deer: intermountain west ecoregions. Mule Deer Working Group, 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Crane, M.F. and W.C. Fischer. 1986. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of central Idaho. 

General Technical Report INT-218. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

Ogden, UT. 86 pp. 

Crawford, J.A. 2008. Survival, movements, and habitat selection of pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus 

idahoensis) on the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon and northwest Nevada. Thesis. 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-8 Appendix M. References 

Crawford, J.A., M.A. Gregg, M.S. Drut, and A.K. Delong. 1992. Habitat use by female sage grouse 

during the breeding season in Oregon. Final report. Submitted to the Bureau of Land 

Management. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Cubashi, U., G.A. Meehl, and G.J. Boer. 2001. Projections of future climate change. Pages 525-582 

in: J.T. Houghton et al., eds. Climate Change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of the 

Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY. 881 

pp. 

Daszak, P., A.A. Cunningham, and A.D. Hyatt. 2000. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife—

threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287:443-449. 

Daszak, P., L. Berger, A.A. Cunningham, A.D. Hyatt, D.E. Green, and R. Speare. 1999. Emerging 

infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infectious Diseases 5:735-

748. 

Davis, P. 1995. Management recommendations for the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge offered by 

the Sheldon Scientific Working Group. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lakeview, OR. 21 pp. 

Daw, S.K. and S. DeStefano. 2001. Forest characteristics of northern goshawk nest stands and postfledging areas in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:59-65. 

Day, B. 2009. Personal communication between Brian Day, Sheldon Refuge Manager, and Gail 

Collins, Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex Supervisory Biologist. October 2009. 

Deacon, J.E., G. Kobetich, J.D. Williams, and S. Centreras. 1979. Fisheries of North America: 

endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Fisheries 4:29-44. 

Dechant, J.A., A.L. Zimmerman, D.H. Johnson, C.M. Goldade, B.E. Jamison, and B.R. Euliss. 2002. 

Effects of management practices on wetland birds: American avocet. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds. A literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures. Page 114 in: Appendix L, Stillwater National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision (Vol. II). Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

Demarchi, R.A. 2004. Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Accounts and measures for managing 

identified wildlife: Accounts V. 2004. British Columbia, Canada. 

Deming, O.V. 1954. The Hart Mountain–Sheldon antelope kid-marking project. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Deming, O.V. 1959. The status of sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) on the Charles Sheldon 

Antelope Refuge and Range. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-9 

Dobkin, D.S. 1994. Conservation and management of neotropical migrant landbirds in the northern 

Rockies and Great Plains. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press. 

Dobkin, D.S., A.C. Rich, J.A. Pretare, and W.H. Pyle. 1995. Nest-site relationships among cavitynesting birds of riparian and snowpocket aspen woodlands in the northwestern Great Basin. 

Condor 97:694-707. 

Dobkin, D.S. and J.D. Sauder. 2004. Shrubsteppe landscapes in jeopardy: distributions, abundances, 

and the uncertain future of birds and small mammals in the Intermountain West. High Desert 

Ecological Research Institute. Bend, OR. 

Donahue, D.L. 1999. Western range revisited: removing livestock from public lands to conserve 

native biodiversity. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 

Douglas, C.L. and T.L. Hurst. 1993. Review and annotated bibliography of feral burro literature. 

Report no. 044/02. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Nevada, 

Las Vegas. Las Vegas, NV. 132 pp. 

Douglas, C.L. and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 1996. Feral animals on rangelands. Pages 281-292 in: P.R. 

Krausman, ed. Rangeland wildlife. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 

Drut, M.S., W.H. Pyle, and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Technical note: diets and food selection of sagegrouse chicks in Oregon. Journal of Range Management 47:90-93. 

Dryer, D., R. O’Beck, and G.L. Noller. 2007. Antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentate). Plant guide. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, Plant Materials 

Center. Lockeford, CA. 

Dunham, J.B., M.M. Peacock, B.E. Reiman, R.E. Schroeter, and G.L. Vinyard. 1999. Local and 

geographic variation in the distribution of stream-living Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:875-889. 

Dunham, J.B., D.S. Pilliod, and M.K. Young. 2004. Assessing the consequences of nonnative trout in 

headwater ecosystems in western North America. Fisheries 29(6)18-26. 

Dusek, R. 2008. Personal communication between Robert Dusek, U.S. Geological Survey, and Gail 

Collins, Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex Supervisory Biologist. May 2008. 

Earnst, S.L., J. Ballard, and D. Dobkin. 2001. Riparian songbird monitoring on Hart Mountain and 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuges – 2000-2001 and a comparison to 1991-1993. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Geological Service, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science 

Station. Boise, ID. 

Eckert, R.E., Jr., M.K. Wood, W.H. Blackburn, and F.F. Peterson. 1979. Impacts of off-road vehicles 

on infiltration and sediment production of two desert soils. Journal of Range Management 

32:394-397. 

Efroymanson, R.A., W.H. Rose, S. Nemeth, and G.W. Suter II. 2000. Ecological risk assessment 

framework for low-altitude overflights by fixed-wing and rotary-wing military aircraft. 

ORNL/TM-2000/280, ES-5048. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN. 115 pp. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-10 Appendix M. References 

Elston, R.G. and P.I. Earl. 1979. A cultural resources overview for the Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge. On file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cultural Resources Office, Region 1, 

Sherwood, OR. 

EOARC (Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center). Unpublished data. Eastern Oregon 

Agricultural Research Station, Burns, Oregon, jointly operated by Oregon State University 

and USDA Agricultural Research Service. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Thousand-Virgin Watershed—16040205—

watershed profile. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=16040205. 

Epps, C.W., D.R. McCullough, J.D. Wehausen, V.C. Bleich, and J.L. Rechel. 2004. Effects of 

climate change on population persistence of desert-dwelling mountain sheep in California. 

Conservation Biology 18:102-113. 

Evans, C.C. 1986. The relationship of cattle grazing to sage-grouse use of meadow habitat on the 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. M.Sc. thesis. University of Nevada, Reno. 

Fagerstone, K.A. and C.A. Ramey. 1996. Rodents and lagomorphs. Pages 84-123 in: P.R. Krausman, 

ed. Rangeland wildlife. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 

Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 61:603-610. 

Fallon, L.E. 1941. Range reconnaissance of the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, 1940-1941. Report 

in files. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart 

Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2010. Ruby Pipeline Project final environmental 

impact statement: FERC/EIS–0232F. Office of Energy Projects. Washington, D.C. 

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation 

Biology 8:629-644. 

Floyd, T., C.S. Elphick, G. Chisholm, K. Mack, R.G. Elston, E.M. Ammon, and J.D. Boone. 2007. 

Atlas of the breeding birds of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road network in the United 

States. Conservation Biology 14:31-35. 

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review 

of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. 

Fowler, C.S., ed. 1989. Willard Z. Park’s ethnographic notes on the Northern Paiute of Western 

Nevada, 1933-1944. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 114. Salt Lake City, 

UT. 

Fowler, C.S. and S. Liljeblad. 1986. Northern Paiute. Pages 435-465 in: W.L. d’Azevedo, ed. Great 

Basin. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-11 

Fox, M.D. and T.L. Clayton. 1988. Catnip Dam Federal inventory no. NV 10127 formal SEED 

inspection report. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sheldon 

National Wildlife Refuge. Washoe County, NV. 

Franson, J.C., E.K. Hofmeister, G.H. Collins, and R.J. Dusek. In review. Seroprevalence of West 

Nile virus in feral horses. 

Freeman, A.M. 1993. The measurement of environmental and resource values, theory and methods. 

Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. 

Frey, N. and M.R. Conover. 2006. Habitat use by meso-predators in a corridor environment. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 70:1111-1118. 

Gambill, P. 1996. Multi-use trail management policy: user-group conflict and resource impact issues. 

The Wheaton Center, Wheaton, IL. 

Ganskopp, D., T. Svejcar, F. Taylor, and J. Farstvedt. 2004. Can spring cattle grazing among young 

bitterbrush stimulate shrub growth? Journal of Range Management 57:161-168. 

Gedney, D.R., D.L. Azuma, C.L. Bolsinger, and N. McKay. 1999. Western juniper in eastern 

Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-464. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 53 pp. 

Gelbard, J.L. and S. Harrison. 2003. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: interactions 

with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecological Applications 13:404-415. 

Gerstung, E.R. 1986. Status, life history, and management of the Lahontan cutthroat trout. Pages 

93-106 in: Gresswell, R.E. (ed). Status and management of interior stocks of cutthroat trout. 

Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. 

Goodrich, S. 1999. Range plants of the Uinta Basin and adjacent areas of Utah, Wyoming and 

Colorado. In preparation. 245 pp. 

Gregg, M. 2007. Personal communication with Michael Gregg, Land Management Research 

Demonstration Biologist, USFWS, May 2007. 

Gregg, M.A. 2006. Greater sage-grouse reproductive ecology: linkages among habitat resources, 

maternal nutrition, and chick survival. Ph.D. dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Griffith, B. and J.M. Peek. 1989. Mule deer use of seral stage and habitat type in bitterbrush 

communities. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:636-642. 

Gruell, G.E. 1986. Post-1900 mule deer irruptions in the Intermountain West: principle causes and 

influences. General Technical Report INT-206. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. 

Gruell, G.E. 1995. Historic role of fire on Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, Oregon, and 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-12 Appendix M. References 

Gullion, G.W. and G.C. Christensen. 1952. A review of the distribution of gallinaceous game birds in 

Nevada. Condor 59(4):128-138. 

Gustavson, T.C., V.T. Holliday, and S.D. Hovorka. 1995. Origin and development of playa basins, 

sources of recharge to the Ogallala aquifer, Southern High Plains, Texas and New Mexico. 

Report of Investigations No. 229. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas. Austin, 

TX. 

Hagen, C.A. and T.M. Loughin. 2008. Productivity estimates from upland bird harvests: estimating 

variance and necessary sample sizes. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1369-1381. 

Hammerson, G. 2005. Species account for the Great Basin spadefoot, Spea intermontana. Available 

at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed January 2009. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D. N. Cole. 1987. Wildland recreation ecology and management. New York: 

John Wiley and Sons. 

Hanley, T.A. and W.W. Brady. 1977. Feral burro impact on a Sonoran Desert range. Journal of 

Range Management 30(5):374-377. 

Hansen, M.C. 1982. Status and habitat preference of California bighorn sheep on Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Harniss, R.O. and R.B. Murray. 1973. 30 years of vegetal change following burning of sagebrushgrass range. Journal of Range Management 26:322-325. 

Harrington, J.L. and M.R. Conover. 2006. Characteristics of ungulate behavior and mortality 

associated with wire fences. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1295-1305. 

Hartley, E.A. 1999. Visitor impact at Logan Pass, Glacier National Park: a thirty-year vegetation 

study. Pages 297-305 in: D. Harmon, ed. On the frontiers of conservation. Hancock, MI: 

George Wright Society. 

Haukos, D.A. and L.M. Smith. 1993. Seed-bank composition and predictive ability of field 

vegetation in playa lakes. Wetlands 13:32-40. 

Haukos, D.A. and L.M. Smith. 2003. Past and future impacts of wetland regulations on playa 

ecology in the southern Great Plains. Wetlands 23(3):577-589. 

Havlick, D.G. 2002. No place distant—roads and motorized recreation on America’s public lands. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Haynal P. 2000. The influence of sacred rock cairns and prayer seats on modern Klamath and Modoc 

religion and world view. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 22(2):170-185. 

Heltzel, J.M. and S.L. Earnst. 2006. Factors influencing nest success of songbirds in aspen and 

willow riparian areas in the Great Basin. Condor 108:842-855. 

Henke, S.E. and F.C. Bryant. 1999. Effects of coyote removal on the faunal community of western 

Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1066-1081. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-13 

Herbst, D.B. 1996. Aquatic invertebrate biodiversity on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, 

Nevada. University of California, Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory. Mammoth 

Lakes, CA. 

Hershler, R. 1989. Springsnails (Gastropoda: Hyrobiidae) of Owens and Amargosa River (exclusive 

of Ash Meadows) drainages, Death Valley System, California-Nevada. Proceedings of the 

Biological Society of Washington 102:176-248. 

Hironaka, M., M.A. Fosberg, and A.H. Winward. 1983. Sagebrush-grass habitat types of southern 

Idaho. Bulletin No. 35. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 

Moscow, ID. 44 pp. 

Houston, D.B. 1973. Wildfires in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 54:1109-1117. 

Hurd, B., N. Leary, R. Jones, and J. Smith. 1999. Relative regional vulnerability of water resources 

to climate change. Journal of the American Planning Associations 35:1399-1409. 

Huwer, S.L., D.R. Anderson, T.E. Remington, and G.C. White. 2008. Using human-imprinted chicks 

to evaluate the importance of forbs to sage-grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1622-

1627. 

Ibáñez, I., E.W. Schupp, and J.L. Boettinger. 1999. Successional history of a curlleaf mountain 

mahogany stand: a hypothesis. Pages 102-107 in: E.D. McArthur, W.K. Ostler, and C.L. 

Wambolt, compilers. Proceedings: Shrubland Ecotones. RMRS-P-11. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Industrial Economics, Inc. 1998. Economic assessment for the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge 

comprehensive conservation plan. Industrial Economics, Inc. Cambridge, MA. 

Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010. Economic assessment in support of comprehensive conservation 

planning at Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Industrial Economics, Inc. Cambridge, MA. 

Inkley, D.B., M.G. Anderson, A.R. Blaustein, V.R. Burkett, B. Felzer, B. Griffith, J. Price, and T.L. 

Root. 2004. Global climate change and wildlife in North America. Technical Review 04-2. 

Wildlife Society. Bethesda, MD. 

Iverson, R.M., B.S. Hinckley, R.M. Webb, and B. Hallet. 1981. Physical effects of vehicular 

disturbances on arid landscapes. Science 212:915-917. 

Kaltenecker, J.H., M.C. Wicklow-Howard, and R. Rosentreter. 1999. Biological soil crusts in three 

sagebrush communities recovering from a century of livestock trampling. Pages 222-226 in: 

E.D. McArthur, W.K. Ostler, and C.L. Wambolt, compilers. Proceedings: Shrubland 

Ecotones. RMRS-P-11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. Ogden, UT. 

Kauffman, J.B. 1990. The ecology of fire in rangelands: historical and current contexts. Pages 2-6 in: 

T.T. Bedell, ed. Proceedings, 1990. Pacific Northwest Range Management Short Course: Fire 

in Pacific Northwest Ecosystems. Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State 

University. Corvallis, OR. 145 pp. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-14 Appendix M. References 

Kim, D.H., R.D. Slack, and F. Chavez-Ramirez. 2008. Impacts of El Niño–Southern Oscillation 

events on the distribution of wintering raptors. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:231-239. 

Kipfmueller, K.F. and T.W. Swetnam. 2000. Fire-climate interactions in the Selway-Bitterroot 

Wilderness Area. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol 5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 

Klebenow, D.A. and J.W. Burkhardt. 1982. Sage grouse on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. 

Report #14-16-00178107. University of Nevada. Reno, NV. 

Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Shaffer, S.R. Sheffield, and T.S. 

Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western burrowing owl in 

the United States. Biological Technical Publication #BTP-R6001-2003. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 

Knapp, P.A. 1996. Cheat grass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the Great Basin desert: history, 

persistence, and influences to human activities. Global Environmental Change 6:37-52. 

Knick, S.T. and J.T. Rotenberry. 1995. Landscape characteristics of fragmented shrubsteppe 

landscapes and breeding passerine birds. Conservation Biology 9:1059-1071. 

Knick, S.T. and J.T. Rotenberry. 2002. Effects of habitat fragmentation on passerine birds breeding 

in intermountain shrubsteppe. Studies in Avian Biology 25:130-140. 

Knick, S.T., D.S. Dobkin, J.T. Rotenberry, M.A. Schroeder, W.M. Vander Haegen, and C. van 

Ripper III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for 

avifauna of sagebrush habitats. Condor 105:611-634. 

Knick, S.T., A.L. Holmes, and R.F. Miller. 2005. The role of fire in structuring sagebrush habitats 

and bird communities. Studies in Avian Biology 30:63-75. 

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 71-79 in: R.L. Knight 

and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and 

research. Washington, D.C: Island Press. 

Koniak, S. 1985. Succession in piñon-juniper woodlands following wildfire in the Great Basin. Great 

Basin Naturalist 45:556-566. 

Krausman, P.R., S.S. Rosenstock, and J.W. Cain III. 2006. Developed waters for wildlife: science, 

perception, values, and controversy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(3):536-569. 

Krutilla, J.V. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review 57:777-786. 

LANDFIRE. 2007. LANDFIRE national vegetation dynamics models, zone 9, draft. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior. 

LaRouche, G.P. 2007. Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge spring inventory/level 1 survey. Draft 

unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lakeview, OR. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-15 

Larrucea, E.S. and P.F. Brussard. 2008. Habitat selection and current distribution of the pygmy rabbit 

in Nevada and California. Journal of Mammalogy 89:691-699. 

Layton, T.N. 1970. High rock archaeology: an interpretation of the prehistory of the northwestern 

Great Basin. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University. Cambridge, MA. 

Layton, T.N. 1977. Massacre! What massacre? An inquiry into the Massacre of 1850. Nevada 

Historical Society Quarterly 20(4):241-251. 

Layton, T.N. 1978. From pottage to portage: A perspective on aboriginal horse use in the northern 

Great Basin prior to 1850. Nevada State Historical Society Quarterly 21(4):242-257. 

Leach, M. 1988. Subsistence intensification and settlement change among prehistoric hunters and 

gatherers of the northwestern Great Basin. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Los 

Angeles. 

Leckenby, D.A., D.P. Sheehy, C.H. Nellis, R.J. Scherzinger, I.D. Luman, W. Elmore, J.C. Lemos, L. 

Doughty, and C.E. Trainer. 1982. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands—the Great Basin 

of southeastern Oregon: mule deer. General Technical Report PNW-139. USDA Forest 

Service. 

Lederer, R.J. 1977. Winter territoriality and foraging behavior of the Townsend’s solitaire. American 

Midland Naturalist 97:101-109. 

Liddle, M. 1997. Recreation ecology. London: Chapman and Hall. 

Link, S.O., C.W. Keeler, R.W. Hill, and E. Hagen. 2006. Bromus tectorum cover mapping and fire 

risk. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15:113-119. 

Littlefield, C.D. 1995. Sandhill crane nesting habitat, egg predators, and predator history on 

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 76:137-143. 

Littlefield, C.D. and G.L. Ivey. 2002. Sandhill crane recovery plan. Washington Department of 

Wildlife, Wildlife Program. Olympia, WA. 

Logan, J.A. 2006. Climate change induced invasions by native and exotic pests. Extended abstract. 

Keynote Address for the 17th USDA Interagency Research Forum on Gypsy Moth and Other 

Invasive Species. Annapolis, MD. 

Longland, W.S. and S.L. Bateman. 2002. Viewpoint: the ecological value of shrub islands on 

disturbed sagebrush rangelands. Journal of Range Management 55:571-575. 

Lubow, B. 2009. Sheldon horse refuge aerial survey analysis. U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado 

State University. Fort Collins, CO. 

Lyman, R.L. 1988. Was there a last supper at Last Supper Cave? Pages 81-104 in: Danger Cave, Last 

Supper Cave, and Hanging Rockshelter: the faunas. Anthropological Papers of the American 

Museum of Natural History 66(1). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-16 Appendix M. References 

Mac, J.J., P.A. Opler, E.P. Haecker, and P.D. Doran. 1998. Status and trends of the nation’s 

biological resources. Volume 2. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Reston, VA. 

MacArthur, R.A., R.H. Johnson, and V. Geist. 1979. Factors influencing heart rate in free ranging 

bighorn sheep: a physiological approach to the study of wildlife harassment. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 57:2010-2021. 

Maher, C.R. 1991. Activity budgets and mating system of male pronghorn antelope at Sheldon 

National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. Journal of Mammalogy 72:739-744. 

Main, M. B. and B.E. Coblentz. 1996. Sexual segregation in Rocky Mountain mule deer. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 60:497-507. 

Manning, R. and W. Valliere. 2002. Coping in outdoor recreation: causes and consequences of 

crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research 33(4):410-

426. 

Marion, J.L. and D.N. Cole. 1996. Spatial and temporal variation in soil and vegetation impacts on 

campsites. Ecological Applications 6:520-530. 

Martin, R.E. and C.H. Driver. 1983. Factors affecting antelope bitterbrush reestablishment following 

fire. General Technical Report INT-152. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. 

Marzluff, J.M, S.T. Knick, M.S. Vekasy, L.S. Schueck, and T.J. Zarriello. 1997. Spatial use and 

habitat selection of golden eagles in southwestern Idaho. Auk 114:673-687. 

Masters, R.A. and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Principles and practices for managing rangeland invasive 

plants. Journal of Range Management 54:502-517. 

McGrann, M.C., G.R. Wright, R.J. Dial, and A.M. McGrann. 2006. Off-highway vehicle impact on 

the flat-tailed horned lizard, Phrynosoma mcallii, in the Colorado Desert of southern 

California. California Fish and Game 92:67-80. 

McKenzie, D., Z.M. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climate change, wildfire, and 

conservation. Conservation Biology 18:890-902. 

McKnight, T.L. 1958. The feral burro in the United States: distribution and problems. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 22:163-179. 

McNay, M.E. 1980. Causes of low pronghorn fawn:doe ratios in the Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge, Nevada. M.S. thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 

Meeker, J.O. 1979. Interactions between pronghorn antelope and feral horses in northwest Nevada. 

M.S. thesis. University of Nevada, Reno. 

Mezquida, E.T., S.J. Slater, and C.W. Benkman. 2006. Sage-grouse and indirect interactions: 

potential implications of coyote control on sage-grouse populations. Condor 108(4):747-759. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-17 

Miller, R.F. and L.L. Eddleman. 2001. Spatial and temporal changes of sage grouse habitat in the 

sagebrush biome. Technical Bulletin 151. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State 

University. Corvallis, OR. 

Miller, R.F. and J.A. Rose. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in 

southeastern Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 55:37-45. 

Miller, R.F. and J.A. Rose. 1998. Pre- and post-settlement fire return intervals on intermountain 

sagebrush-steppe. Pages 16-17 in: Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Annual 

Report 1998. Special Report 991. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University. 

Corvallis, OR. 

Miller, R.F. and J.A. Rose. 1999. Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sagebrush steppe. 

Journal of Range Management 52:550-559. 

Miller, R., C. Baisan, J. Rose, and D. Pacioretty. 2001. Pre- and post-settlement fire regimes in 

mountain big sagebrush and aspen: the Northwestern Great Basin. Final report to the 

National Interagency Fire Center. 

Miller, R.F., J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, F.B. Pierson, and L.L. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, ecology, and 

management of western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). Technical Bulletin 152. 

Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Miller, R.F., T.J. Svejcar, and J.A. Rose. 2000. Impacts of western juniper on plant community 

composition and structure. Journal of Range Management 53:574-585. 

Miller, R.F., T.J. Svejcar, and N.E. West. 1994. Implications of livestock in the intermountain 

sagebrush region: plant composition. Pages 101-146 in: M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and R.D. 

Piper, eds. Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the West. Society for Range 

Management. Denver, CO. 

Miller, R.F., R.J. Tausch, E.D. McArthur, D.D. Johnson, and S.C. Sanderson. 2008. Age structure 

and expansion of pinon-juniper woodlands: a regional perspective in the Intermountain West. 

Research Paper RMRS-RP-69. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 15 pp. 

Miller, R.F., R.J. Tausch, E.D. McArthur, D. Johnson, and S.C. Sanderson. In Press. Development of 

post-settlement piñon-juniper woodlands in the Intermountain West: A regional perspective. 

General Technical Report RMRS-FTR-TBD. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 

Monti, P. and E.E. Mackintosh. 1979. Effect of camping on surface soil properties in the boreal 

forest region of northwestern Ontario, Canada. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43, 

1024-1029. 

Moore, R.L. 1994. Conflicts on multiple-use trails: Synthesis of the literature and state of the 

practice. Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 

Mosnier, A., D. Boisjoly, R. Courtois, and J. Ouelett. 2008. Extensive predator space use can limit 

efficacy of a control program. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:483-491. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-18 Appendix M. References 

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in 

western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86:39-49. 

Murphy, D.D. and S.B. Weiss. 1992. Effects of climate change on biological diversity in western 

North America: species losses and mechanisms. Chapter 26 in: R.L. Peters and T.E. Lovejoy, 

eds. Global warming and biological diversity. Castleton, NY: Hamilton Printing. 

Murray, R.B. 1983. Response of bitterbrush to burning and spraying in southeastern Idaho. General 

Technical Report INT-152. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. 

Nachlinger, J. and A. Tiehm. 1996. Rare plant survey of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. 

Report submitted to U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SheldonHart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Lakeview, OR. 

NatureServe, compiler. 2004. Landcover descriptions for the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis 

project. Ecological Systems. 

Naugle, D.E., C.L. Aldridge, B.L. Walker, K.E. Doherty, M.R. Matchett, J. McIntosh, T.E. Cornish, 

and M.S. Boyce. 2005. West Nile virus and sage-grouse: what more have we learned? 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:616-623. 

Naugle, D.E., C.L. Aldridge, B.L. Walker, T.E. Cornish, B.J. Moynahan, J.J. Holloran, K. Brown, 

G.D. Johnson, E.T. Schmidtman, R.T. Mayer, C.Y. Kato, M.R. Matchett, T.J. Christiansen, 

W.E. Cook, T. Creekmore, R.D. Falise, E.T. Rinkes, and M.S. Boyce. 2004. West Nile virus: 

pending crisis for Greater sage-grouse. Ecology Letters 7:704-713. 

Neel, L.A. 1999. Nevada Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Partners in Flight. 

NDOW (Nevada Department of Wildlife). 1997. Nevada elk species management plan. Nevada 

Department of Wildlife. Reno, NV. 

NDOW. 2009. Western Nevada angler guides. Available at: 

www.ndow.org/fish/where/waters/west.shtm. Accessed May 5, 2010. 

NDOW. 2010. Top western Nevada fishable waters. Available at: 

http://www.ndow.org/fish/where/waters/west.shtm. Accessed April 29, 2010. 

NDOW. 2011. Written correspondence from Mark Freese, NDOW Supervisory Habitat Biologist to 

Damien Miller, Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex Project Leader. February 14, 2011. 

NDOW. 2011a. Nevada Department of Wildlife 2010- 2011 big game status. M. Cox, T. Wasley, L. 

Gibertson, M. Dobel, K. Gray, S. Kimble, and R. Woolstenhulme, eds. Nevada Department 

of Wildlife. Reno, NV. 

NFPORS (National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System). 2009. National Fire Plan 

Operations and Reporting System [online database]. Available at: www.nfpors.gov. Accessed 

December 2009. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-19 

Nordquist, M.K., S.L. Petersen, T.F. Robinson, R.L. Larse, and G.H. Collins. In Preparation. Stable 

isotope diet reconstruction on feral horses on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, 

USA. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American waterfowl 

management plan strategic guidance 2004: strengthening the biological foundation. Canadian 

Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos 

Naturales. 22 pp. 

Noson, A.C. 2002. Avian communities in relation to habitat influenced by fire in sagebrush steppe 

landscape. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Norton, J.B., T.A. Monaco, J.M. Norton, D.A. Johnson, and T.A. Jones. 2004. Cheatgrass invasion 

alters soil morphology and organic matter dynamics in big sagebrush-steppe rangelands. 

Pages 57-63 in: A.L. Hild, N.L. Shaw, S.E. Meyer, D.T. Booth, and E.D. McArthur, 

compilers. Seed and soil dynamics in shrubland ecosystems. Proceedings #RMRS-P-31. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Noss, R.F. and R.L. Peters. 1995. Endangered ecosystems: a status report on America’s vanishing 

habitat and wildlife. Defenders of Wildlife. Washington, D.C. 

NVSHPO (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office). 2001. Letter from Deputy Nevada State 

Historic Preservation Officer to Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuges Manager concurring with 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determination of eligibility. November 14, 2001. 

O’Gara, B.W. and J.D. Yoakum. 1994. Pronghorn: ecology and management. The Wildlife 

Management Institute, University of Press Colorado, Boulder, CO. 

O’Gara, B.W. and J.D. Yoakum, editors. 2004. Pronghorn ecology and management. The Wildlife 

Management Institute, University of Press Colorado, Boulder, CO. 

Ohmart, R.D. 1994. The effects of human-induced changes on the avifauna of western riparian 

habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 15:273-285. 

Ohmart, R.D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife resources 

in western riparian habitats. Pages 246-274 in: P.R. Krausman, ed. Rangeland wildlife. 

Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 

Olson, B.E. 1999. Impacts of noxious weeds on ecologic and economic systems. Pages 4-18 in: R.L. 

Sheley and J.K. Petroff, eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon 

State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 

Oring, L., L. Neel, and K. Oring. 2006. U.S. shorebird conservation plan: intermountain west 

regional shorebird conservation plan. Version 1.0 

Osterkamp, W.R. and W.W. Wood. 1987. Playa-lake basins on the Southern High Plains of Texas 

and New Mexico: part I. hydrologic geomorphic, and geologic evidence for their 

development. Geological Society of America Bulletin 99:215-223. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-20 Appendix M. References 

Pacific Flyway Council. 2010. Management plan abstracts. Available at: 

http://pacificflyway.gov/Abstracts.asp#rmts. 

Paige, C. and S.A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird 

communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group. Boise, ID. 

Palmer, S. 1993. Pahranagat lake water rights issues-legal opinion. internal memorandum. 

FWS.PS.5005.1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. Sacramento, CA. 3 

pp. 

Poddar, S. and R.J. Lederer. 1982. Juniper berries as an exclusive winter forage for Townsend’s 

solitaires. American Midland Naturalist 108:34-40. 

Pyle, W.H. and M.F. Smith. 1990. Species management report for pronghorn—draft. U.S. 

Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: a cultural history of wildland and rural fire. Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press. 

Quinsey, S.D. 1984. Fire and grazing effects in western juniper woodlands of central Oregon. M.S. 

thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. 

Raymond, A. 2000. Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge: cultural resources inventory of the Badger 

Fire 1999. On file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cultural Resources Office, Region 1, 

Sherwood, OR. 

Raymond, A., V. Parks, and N. Valentine. 2007. Management of feral horses on Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. On file at the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cultural Resources Office, Region 1, Sherwood, OR. 

Records of the Civilian Conservation Corps (Record Group #35) 1933-42 “Camp Inspection Report,” 

Box 133. On file at National Archives, College Park, MD. 

Reese, K.P. and J.W. Connelly. 2011. Harvest management for Greater Sage-grouse: a changing 

paradigm for game bird management. In: S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, eds. Ecology and 

conservation of Greater Sage-grouse: a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology 38. 

Reeves, C.C., Jr. and J.A. Reeves. 1996. The Ogallala Aquifer (of the Southern High Plains). 

Lubbock, TX: Estacado Books. 

Reid, M.S., K.A. Schulz, P.J. Comer, M.H. Schindel, D.R. Culver, D.A. Sarr, and M.C. Damm. 

1999. An alliance level classification of vegetation of the coterminous western United States. 

Final report to the University of Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and 

National Gap Analysis Program. Cooperative Agreement #1434-HQ-97-AG-01779. The 

Nature Conservancy, Western Conservation Science Department. Boulder, CO. 

Rice, C.L. 1983. A literature review of the fire relationships of antelope bitterbrush. Presentation at 

the Bitterbrush and Cliffrose Symposium, April 13-15, 1982. Salt Lake City, UT. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-21 

Rice, B. and M. Westoby. 1978. Vegetative response of some Great Basin shrub communities 

protected against jack-rabbits or domestic stock. Journal of Range Management 31:28-39. 

Riitters, K.H. and J.D. Wickham. 2003. How far to the nearest road? Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 1:125-129. 

Roberts, R.F., B.A. Keleman, and B.A. Zamora. 1989. Even-age bitterbrush through prescribed fire: 

a management philosophy. Pages 147-149 in: D.M. Baumgartner, D.W. Breuer, B.A. 

Zamora, L.F. Neuenschwander, and R.H. Wakimoto, eds. Proceedings of the Prescribed Fire 

in the Intermountain Region: Forest Site Preparation and Range Improvement Symposium. 

Washington State University. Pullman, WA. 

Rogers, B.S. and A. Tiehm. 1979. Vascular plants of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Report 

submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

OR. 

Rose, J. and R. Miller. 1998. Monitoring response of mountain big sagebrush and low sagebrush 

plant communities to burning: annual report from Badger and Catnip burns and Catnip 

Canyon low sagebrush site. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eastern Oregon Agricultural 

Research Center. Burns, OR. 

Rosentreter, R. and D.J. Eldridge. 2004. Monitoring rangeland health: using a biological soil crust 

stability index. Pages 74-76 in: A.L. Hild, N.L. Shaw, S.E. Meyer, D.T. Booth, and E.D. 

McArthur, compilers. Seed and soil dynamics in shrubland ecosystems. Proceedings 

#RMRS-P-31. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 

Rost, G.R. and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 43:634-641. 

Rotenberry, J.T. 1998. Avian conservation research needs in western shrublands: exotic invaders and 

alteration of ecosystem processes. Pages 262-272 in: J.M. Marzluff and R. Sallabanks, eds. 

Avian conservation: research and management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Rouse, C.H. 1942. Survey of the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, Nevada, 1940-1941. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Rouse, C.H. and L.E. Fallon. 1940. Grazing survey of the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, Nevada. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Rush, W.M. 1936. Range conditions on the Sheldon. On file at Sheldon-Hart Mountain National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Lakeview, OR. 

Saab, V.A. and T.D. Rich. 1997. Large-scale conservation assessment for neotropical migratory land 

birds in the interior Columbia River Basin. General Technical Report #PNW-GTR-399. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 56 pp. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-22 Appendix M. References 

Saab, V.A., C.E. Bock, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1995. Livestock grazing effects in western 

North America. Pages 311-353 in: T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch, eds. Ecology and 

management of migratory birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Sada, D.W. and J.L. Nachlinger. 1996. Spring Mountains ecosystem: vulnerability of spring-fed 

aquatic and riparian systems to biodiversity loss. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Reno, NV. 

Sada, D.W. and J.L. Nachlinger. 1998. Spring Mountains ecosystem: vulnerability of spring-fed 

aquatic and riparian systems to biodiversity loss. Part II. Springs sampled in 1997. 

Unpublished report to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Las Vegas, NV. 

Sada, D.W. and G.L. Vinyard. 2002. Anthropogenic changes in historical biogeography of Great 

Basin aquatic biota. Pages 277-295 in: R. Herschler, D.B. Madsen, and D.R. Currey, eds. 

Great Basin aquatic systems history. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences 33. 

Sada, D.W., D.B. Herbst, and F.J. Smith. 2000. A survey of springs on Ruby Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge (Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada) and the influence of habitat alteration on the 

structure of aquatic animal communities. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Ruby Valley, NV. 

Sada, D.W., J.E. Williams, J.C. Silvey, A. Halford, J. Ramakka, P. Summers, and L. Lewis. 2001. 

Riparian area management: a guide to managing, restoring, and conserving springs in the 

Western United States. Technical Reference 1737-17. Bureau of Land Management. Denver 

CO. 70 pp. 

Sage-grouse Conservation Team. 2004. Greater sage-grouse conservation plan for Nevada and 

eastern California. Nevada Department of Wildlife. Reno, NV. 

Sage-grouse Conservation Team. 2007. Nevada sage-grouse conservation project. Federal Aid 

Number W-64-R-7. Nevada Department of Wildlife. Reno, NV. 

Salwasser, H. 1979. The ecology and management of the Devil’s Garden interstate deer herd and its 

range. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. 

Salwasser, H. 1980. Pronghorn antelope population and habitat management in northwestern Great 

Basin environments. Interstate Antelope Conference. Alturas, CA. 

Sanchez, D.M and J.L. Rachlow. 2008. Spatio-temporal factors shaping diurnal space use by pygmy 

rabbits. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1304-1310. 

Scheldt, R.S. and E.W. Tisdale. 1970. Ecology and utilization of curlleaf mountain mahogany in 

Idaho. Station Note Number 15. University of Idaho. Moscow, ID. 

Schier, G.A. 1975. Deterioration of aspen clones in the middle Rocky Mountains. Research Paper 

INT-170. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Ogden, UT. 

Scott, J.M., R.S. Adamcik, D.M. Ashe, B. Czech, R.L. Fischman, P. Gonzalez, B. Griffith, J.J. 

Lawler, A.D. McGuire, and A. Pidgorna. In review. Adaptation options for climate-sensitive 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-23 

ecosystems and resources—National Wildlife Refuges. Draft. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

Seegmiller, R.F. and R.D. Ohmart. 1981. Ecological relationships of feral burros and desert bighorn 

sheep. Wildlife Monographs 78. 

Shafer, S.L., P.J. Bartlein, and R.S. Thompson. 2001. Potential changes in the distributions of 

western North America tree and shrub taxa under future climate scenarios. Ecosystems 

4:200-215. 

Siegel-Thines, N.J., L.A. Shipley, and R.D. Sayler. 2004. Effects of cattle grazing on ecology and 

habitat of Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis). Biological Conservation 

119:525-534. 

Sinclair, W.C. 1963a. Ground water appraisal of the Long Valley Massacre Lake Region, Washoe 

County, Nevada. Ground Water Reconnaissance Series,Report 15. U.S. Geological Survey. 

Carson City, NV. 26 pp. 

Sinclair, W.C. 1963b. Ground water appraisal of the Pueblo Valley-Continental Lake Region, 

Humboldt County, Nevada. Ground Water Reconnaissance Series, Report 22. U.S. 

Geological Survey. Carson City, NV. 25 pp. 

Smith, R.C., P.M. Hones, J.R. Roney, and K.E. Pedrick 1983. Prehistory and history of the 

Winnemucca District: a cultural resources overview. Cultural Resources Series, Monograph 

No. 5. Bureau of Land Management. Reno, NV. 

Solomonson, M.G. and R.P. Balda. 1977. Winter territoriality of Townsend’s solitaire (Myadestes 

townsendi) in a piñon-juniper-ponderosa pine ecotone. Condor 79:148-161. 

Speulda, L. 1995. Evaluation report of the Virgin Valley Campground bath house. On file at the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Cultural Resources Office, Region 1, Sherwood, OR. 

Speulda, L. 1998. Historic properties identification, evaluation, and assessment of effects report of 

the Virgin Valley Ranch clean-up project. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Speulda, L. 2000. Evaluation report of the Dufurrena Sandstone Quarry. On file at the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Cultural Resources Office, Region 1, Sherwood, OR. 

Speulda, L. 2002. Last Chance Ranch stabilization project— 2000-2001, Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge, Nevada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. On file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Cultural Resources Office, Region 1, Sherwood, OR. 

Squires, J.R. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest site preference of northern goshawks in southcentral 

Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:170-177. 

St. George, B., D. St. George, and B. Pyle. 1993. Assessment of wildlife resources and habitat 

condition in the Fish Creek and south Catnip Mountain grazing allotments, Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-24 Appendix M. References 

Steblein, P.F. 2007. Photo documentation of horse and burro impacts on Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart 

Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

Steffen, J.E. and R.A. Anderson. 2006. Abundance of long-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia 

wislizeni) is influenced by shrub density and cover in southeast Oregon. American Midlands 

Naturalist 156:201-207. 

Steward, J.H. 1938. Basin plateau aboriginal socio-political groups. Bureau of American Ethnology 

Bulletin 120. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. 

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2004. Changes in snow melt timing in western North 

America under a “business as usual” climate change scenario. Climate Change 62:217-232. 

Stewart, O.C. 1939. The Northern Paiute bands. University of California Anthropological Records 

2(3). 

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. 

McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater sage-grouse comprehensive conservation 

strategy. Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Cheyenne, 

WY. 

Stohlgren, T.J. and D.J. Parsons. 1986. Vegetation and soil recovery in wilderness campsites closed 

to visitor use. Environmental Management 10: 375-380. 

Stokowski, P.A. and C.B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and social effects of ATVs and ORVs: An 

annotated bibliography and research assessment. School of Natural Resources, University of 

Vermont. 31 pp. Available at: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/atv_nov20_final.pdf. 

Storm, R.M. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Pages 59-82 

in: R.A. Tubb, compiler. Survey of fishes, amphibians, and reptiles on the Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge. Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Corvallis, 

OR. 

Stubbs, C.J. 1998. Feral burro removal: new solutions to an old problem. Natural Resource Year in 

Review. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2 pp. 

Suring, L.H., M.J. Wisdom, R.J. Tausch, R.F. Miller, M.M. Rowland, L. Schueck, and C.W. Meinke. 

2005a. Modeling threats to sagebrush and other shrubland communities. Pages 114-149 in: 

M.J. Wisdom, M.M. Rowland, and L.H. Suring, eds. Habitat threats in the sagebrush 

ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, 

KS: Alliance Communications Group. 

Suring, L.H., M.M. Rowland, M.J. Wisdom, L. Schueck, and C.W. Meinke. 2005b. Vegetation 

communities. Pages 94-113 in: M.J. Wisdom, M.M. Rowland, and L.H. Suring, eds. Habitat 

threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and applications in the 

Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance Communications Group. 

Svejcar, T. 1997. Riparian zones: 2) history and human impacts. Rangelands 19:8-12. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-25 

Sverdrup Corporation. 1991. Advanced project planning for the repair of Catnip Dam at the Sheldon 

National Wildlife Refuge near Lakeview, Oregon. Prepared for Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 

Switalski, T.A, J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and 

impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:21-28. 

Tart, D.L. 1996. Big sagebrush plant associations of the Pinedale Ranger district. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest. Pinedale, WY. 97 pp. 

Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 

Thomas, C.L. 1978. Ecology of the California bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis californiana

Douglas) in Nevada. M.S. thesis. Humboldt State University. Arcata, CA. 

Trainer, C.E., M.J. Willis, G.P. Keister, Jr., and D.P. Sheehy. 1983. Fawn mortality and habitat use 

among pronghorn during spring and summer in southeastern Oregon. Research Paper No. 12. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. 

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. 

Tsukamoto, G.K. 1983. Nevada’s pronghorn antelope ecology, management, and conservation. 

Biological Bulletin No. 13. Nevada Department of Wildlife. Reno, NV. 41 pp. 

Tubb, R.A. 1980. Fishes of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Pages 1-54 in: Survey of fishes, 

amphibians, and reptiles on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, J.E. Williams, 

C.D. Williams, and C.E. Bond, eds. Final Report #14-16-0001-78025. 

Tull, J.C. and P.F. Brussard. 2007. Fluctuating asymmetry as an indicator of environmental stress 

from off-highway vehicles. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1944-1948. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census quickfacts. Available at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/41037.html. Accessed September 8, 2010. 

URS Corporation. 2002. Swan Lake Dam national inventory of dams No. NV 10130 low hazard, 

secondary resource value formal SEED inspection report. Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. 

Washoe County, NV. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1999. Purshia tridentata: botanical and ecological 

characteristics. Available at: http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed May 3, 1999. 

USDA. 2012. USDA Plants Database curveseed butterwort. Available at: 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch?keywordquery=ranunculus+testiculatus&mode=scin

ame. Accessed March 2012. 

USDI (U.S. Department of Interior). 1990. The juniper resources of eastern Oregon. U.S. Department 

of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-26 Appendix M. References 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program preventing and 

managing invasive plants final environmental impact statement. USDA Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1941. Sheldon National Antelope Refuge. Annual 

narrative report. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SheldonHart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 1942. Range management plan for the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 1948. Sheldon National Antelope Refuge. Annual narrative report. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 1952. Sheldon National Antelope Refuge. Annual narrative report. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 1956. Sheldon National Antelope Refuge. Annual narrative report. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 1962. Sheldon National Antelope Refuge. Annual narrative report. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 1968. Sheldon National Antelope Refuge. Annual narrative report. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 1971. Charles Sheldon Antelope Range unit resource analysis. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 1974. Sheldon wilderness proposal. U.S. Department of the Interior. Sheldon National 

Antelope Refuge and Charles Sheldon Antelope Range. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 1980. Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge renewable natural resources management plan. 

Final environmental impact statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 1985. Cultural resource inventory: Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge and Hart Mountain 

National Antelope Refuge. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 1995. Recovery plan for the Lahontan cutthroat trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 1. Portland, OR. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-27 

USFWS. 1998a. Opening waterfowl hunting on Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant impact. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, 

OR. 

USFWS. 1998b. Final revised Sonoran pronghorn recovery plan. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/recovery_plan/981203.pdf. 

USFWS. 2000. Letter from Sheldon Refuge Manager to Nevada State Historic Preservation Office 

reiterating eligibility of Overnight Cabin. May 19, 2000. 

USFWS. 2001a. Phase II inventory development report for Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, NV 

(Draft report). U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sheldon-Hart 

Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 2001b. Pronghorn management plan—Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge. 

environmental impact statement, preliminary draft supplemental. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 2002a. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management. 

Arlington, VA. 99 pp. 

USFWS. 2002b. Recovery criteria and estimates of time for recovery actions for the Sonoran 

pronghorn: a supplement and amendment to the final revised Sonoran pronghorn recovery 

plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2. Albuquerque, NM. 

USFWS. 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: final rule to list the Columbia Basin 

distinct population segment of the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) as endangered. 

Federal Register 68:10388-10409. 

USFWS. 2007a. Horse and burro management at Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Draft 

environmental assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lakeview, OR. 70 pp. 

USFWS 2007b. Investigative report and recommendations for the Kofa bighorn sheep herd. Kofa 

National Wildlife Refuge and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

USFWS. 2008a. Environmental assessment for horse and burro management at Sheldon National 

Wildlife Refuge. Final, revised. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 

USFWS. 2008b. Rising to the urgent challenges of a changing climate: strategic plan for responding 

to accelerating climate change in the 21st century. Internal discussion draft. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 2009. Fire management plan Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Lakeview, OR. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-28 Appendix M. References 

USFWS. 2010a. Proposed Rule for 12-month finding for petitions to list the Greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 75:13910-14014. 

USFWS. 2010b. Ruby Pipeline Project land exchange on Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge: 

supplemental information to the Ruby Pipeline Project final environmental impact statement. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 

USFWS. Undated report. Camping use days Virgin Valley Campground Sheldon NWR. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Lakeview, OR. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1984. Mineral resources of the Charles Sheldon wilderness study 

area, Humboldt and Washoe counties, Nevada, and Lake and Harney counties, Oregon. 

Bulletin 1538 Plate 1. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA. 

USGS. 2010a. National Water Information System: USGS 10361700 Badger Ck Trib NR VYA, NV. 

Available at: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=10361700&agency_cd=USGS. 

USGS. 2010b. National Water Information System: USGS 10353750 Mahogany Ck NR Summit 

Lake, NV. Available at: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nv/nwis/dv?referred_module=sw&search_site_no=10353750&sear

ch_site_no_match_type=beginning&format=station_list&sort_key=site_no&group_key=NO

NE&sitefile_output_format=html_table&column_name=agency_cd&column_name=site_no

&column_name=. 

Vale, T.R. 1975. Presettlement vegetation in the sagebrush-grass area of the Intermountain West. 

Journal of Range Management 28:32-36. 

Van Auken, O.W. 2000. Shrub invasions of North American semiarid grasslands. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics 31:197-215. 

Vander Haegen, W.M., F.C. Dobler, and D.J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and 

landscape variables in Eastern Washington, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 14:1145-1160. 

WAFWA (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). 2008. Greater sage-grouse 

population trends: an analysis of lek count databases 1965-2007. Sage and Columbian SharpTailed Grouse Technical Committee, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Cheyenne, WY. 

Wagner, F.H., ed. 2003. Preparing for a changing climate—the potential consequences of climate 

variability and change. Rocky Mountain/Great Basin regional climate change assessment. 

Report of the Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Regional Assessment Team for the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program. Utah State University. Logan, UT. 

Waichler, W.S., R.F. Miller, and P.S. Doescher. 2001. Community characteristics of old-growth 

western juniper woodlands. Journal of Range Management 54:518-527. 

Wall, T.G., R.F. Miller, and T.J. Svejcar. 2001. Juniper encroachment into aspen in the northwest 

Great Basin. Journal of Range Management 54:691-698. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-29 

Ward, J.P. and S.H. Anderson. 1988. Influences of cliffs on wildlife communities in southcentral 

Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:673-678. 

Webber, P.C. 1995. Report to the Board of Environmental Management on the policy for off-road 

vehicle use in Massachusetts forests and parks. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department 

of Environmental Management. Boston, MA. 

Wehausen, J.D. 1980. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep: history and population ecology. Ph.D 

dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 240 pp. 

Weiss, N.T. and B.J Verts. 1984. Habitat and distribution of pygmy rabbits (Sylvilagus idahoensis) 

in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 44:563-571. 

Welch, B.L. 2005. Big sagebrush: a sea fragmented into lakes, ponds, and puddles. General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-144. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 

Weldon C., L.H. du Preez, A.D. Hyatt, R. Muller, and R. Speare. 2004. Origin of the amphibian 

chytrid fungus. Emerging Infectious Diseases 10:2100-2105. 

West, N.E. 1996. Strategies for maintenance of and repair of biotic community diversity on 

rangelands. Pages 342-346 in: R.C. Szaro and D.W. Johnson, eds. Biodiversity in managed 

landscapes: theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press. 

West, N.E. 1999. Managing for biodiversity of rangelands. Pages 101-126 in: W.W. Collins and C.O. 

Qualset, eds. Biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

West, N.E. 2000. Synecology and disturbance regimes of sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Pages 15-26 

in: P.G. Entwistle, A.M. DeBolt, J.H. Kaltenecker, and K. Steenhof, compilers. Proceedings 

of the Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems Symposium, #BLM/ID/PT-001001+1150. U.S. 

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Publications. Boise, ID. 

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hildalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring 

increase U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943. 

Western Bat Working Group. 2009. White-nose syndrome in bats: what do we need to know before it 

comes West? Brochure. Western Bat Working Group. Rapid City, SD. 

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2010. Riparian areas. In: Wyoming State Wildlife 

Action Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

Whittaker, D. 2008. Personal communication between Don Whittaker, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Game, and Gail Collins, Sheldon-Hart Mountain Refuge Complex Supervisory Biologist. 

May 2008. 

Wilcox, B.A. and D.D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on 

extinction. American Naturalist 125:879-887. 

Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2006. Nevada wildlife action plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

Reno, NV. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-30 Appendix M. References 

Williams, G.W. 2002. Aboriginal use of fire: are there any “natural” plant communities? (revised). 

Pages 179-214 in: C.E. Kay and R.T. Simmons, eds. Wilderness and political ecology: 

aboriginal land management—myths and reality. University of Utah Press. Logan, UT. 

Williams, J.E. and C.E. Bond. 1981. A new subspecies of tui chub (Osteichthyes: Cyprinidae) from 

Guano Basin, Nevada and Oregon. Southwestern Naturalist 26:223-230. 

Williams, J.E., C.D. Williams, and C.E. Bond. 1980. Fishes of the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. 

Pages 1-58 in: R.A. Tubb, compiler. Survey of fishes, amphibians, and reptiles on the 

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and 

Wildlife. Corvallis, OR. 

Wilson, W.E. and J.E. Moore. 1998. Glossary of hydrology. Alexandria, VA: American Geological 

Institute. 

Winward, A.H. 1991. A renewed commitment to management of sagebrush grasslands. Pages 2-7 in: 

Management in the sagebrush-steppe. Special Report 880. Agricultural Experiment Station, 

Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Winward, A.H. 1985. Fire in sagebrush-grass ecosystems: the ecological setting. Pages 2-6 in: K. 

Sanders and J. Surham, eds. Rangeland fire effects, a symposium Nov. 27-29, 1984. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Boise, ID. 

Wisdom, M.J. and J.W. Thomas. 1996. Elk. Pages 158-176 in: P.R. Krausman, ed. Rangeland 

wildlife. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, D.C. Lee, B.C. Wales, W.J. Murphy, M.R. Eames, C.D. Hargis, 

V.A. Saab, T.R. Rich, F.B. Samson, D.A. Newhouse, and N. Warren. 1998. Source habitats 

for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and 

management implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 

Woodis, S.G. 1989. Dietary relationships of mule deer and cattle in northwestern Nevada. M.S. 

thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 

Wright, H.A. and A.W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 

Wurster, F. 2009. Water resources assessment report, Sheldon NWR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Water Resources Division. Portland, OR. 

Yensen, D.L. 1981. The 1900 invasion of alien plants into southern Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 

41:176-183. 

Yoakum, J.D., B.W. O’Gara, and V.W. Howard, Jr. 1996. Pronghorn on western rangelands. Pages 

211-224 in: P.R. Krausman, ed. Rangeland wildlife. Denver, CO: Society for Range 

Management. 

Young, J.A. 1994. History and use of semiarid plant communities—changes in vegetation. Pages 5-8 

in: S.B. Monsen and S.G. Kitchen, compilers. Proceedings—Ecology and Management of 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix M. References M-31 

Annual Rangelands. General Technical Report #INT-GTR-313. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Young, J.A. and A.E. Evans. 1981. Demography of fire history of a western juniper stand. Journal of 

Range Management 34:501-505. 

Young, J.A. and B.A. Sparks. 2002. Cattle in the cold desert. Expanded edition. Reno, NV: 

University of Nevada Press. 

Young, J.A., R.A. Evans, and J. Major. 1972. Alien plants in the Great Basin. Journal of Range 

Management 25:194-201. 

Young, R.P. 1990. Goals in fire management of natural ecosystems. Pages 16-20 in: T.E. Bedell, ed. 

Proceedings, 1990 Pacific Northwest Range Management Short Course: Fire on Pacific 

Northwest Ecosystems. Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University. 

Corvallis, OR. 145 pp. 

Zabinski, C.A. and J.E. Gannon. 1997. Effects of recreational impacts on soil microbial communities. 

Environmental Management 21:233-238. 

Zakharok, E.V. and J.J. Hellman. 2008. Genetic differentiation across a latitudinal gradient in two 

co-occurring butterfly species: revealing population differences in a context of climate 

change. Molecular Ecology 17:189-208. 

Zouhar, K. 2003. Bromus tectorum in Fire Effects Information System. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed April 15, 2008. 

Zunino, G.W. 1987. Harvest effect on sage grouse densities in northwestern Nevada. M.S. thesis. 

University of Nevada, Reno. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

M-32 Appendix M. References 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-1 

Appendix N. Comments Received During Public/Agency Review 

Period and Service Responses 

The comment period for the draft comprehensive conservation plan/environmental impact statement 

(CCP/EIS) consisted of both an informal comment period following release of the preliminary draft 

CCP/EIS alternatives in July 2011, and a formal public comment period upon release of the Draft 

CCP/EIS in September 2011. 

The Service issued a planning update summarizing the CCP/EIS preliminary draft alternatives for 

public comment and input on July 13, 2011. Through this planning update, the Service informed the 

public that comments and suggestions would be addressed along with other comments received 

during the formal public comment period required by the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The Service received 520 comment submissions between July 13 and September 8, 2011. 

The Service released the Draft CCP/EIS on September 9, 2011, for formal public review and 

comment. This comment period closed November 8, 2011. During the formal comment period, the 

Service received 401 comment responses from 1,709 agencies, organizations, and individuals1

. 

Comments received focused on the significant issues identified through public scoping and on the 

alternatives developed through public input. A large proportion of comments focused on 

respondents’ opinions toward one or more alternatives presented in the Draft CCP/EIS for 

management of feral horses and burros, management and manipulation of habitats, public access to 

public lands within Sheldon Refuge, sport hunting opportunities, and wilderness recommendations. 

Where the opinion expressed provided some level of detail or was based on a real or perceived fact, 

the Service has provided a response. Where the comment expressed solely an opinion and was not 

supported by any assertion, the Service considered the comment in selection of the preferred 

alternative, but did not respond to the comment in this appendix, other than to thank the writers for 

expressing their opinions and thoughts. 

A much smaller, but significant proportion of comments provided factual information (both real and 

perceived), questioned statements and facts presented in the Draft CCP/EIS, suggested additional 

actions for inclusion in one or more alternatives, or questioned the accuracy of information used in 

formulating the alternatives and/or conducting analyses as part of the EIS. 

Comments received were groups into 12 categories based upon management actions considered in 

the Draft CCP/EIS alternatives or based on topics of particular interest as indicated by comments 

themselves. These categories are: Coordination; Upland Habitat Management; Wildlife Population 

Management; Fisheries Population Management; Feral Horse and Burro Management; Invasive 

Species Management; Climate; Transportation Management; Wilderness Recommendations and 

Management; Landscape Level Planning and Land Acquisition; Miscellaneous Comments; and 

Editorial Comments. Comments as presented in this appendix have been paraphrased from the 

originals, and in some cases consolidated with others where the Service’s response is the same. 

 

1

 Identical copies of responses were submitted by 1,308 individuals. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-2 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

Coordination 

1. Comment: Several comments requested that the Service coordinate with other agencies and 

partners for future management of resources within Sheldon Refuge. 

Response: We agree that continued coordination between the Service and key partner 

agencies such as the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, and 

others responsible for resource management is essential. We will continue to work 

collaboratively on a wide range of projects throughout Sheldon Refuge for the benefit of not 

only natural resources and the public, but also the partnerships between agencies. 

Upland Habitat Management 

2. Comments: Several comments questioned the rationale for selecting management goals and 

objectives for habitats such as sagebrush-steppe communities or mountain mahogany and 

western juniper woodland, and asked how the Service would measure progress toward those 

goals and objectives. 

Response: Percentages presented for habitat management objectives presented under each 

alternative primarily represent Service estimates of effects associated with feral horse and 

burro management under corresponding alternatives and the amounts of each habitat type that 

could be restored given available resources. As noted in the rationale for habitat objectives, 

the precise conditions of habitats throughout Sheldon Refuge have not been quantified, but 

based on the results of vegetation surveys, site visits, and ongoing research projects, the 

primary factors currently influencing habitat conditions within Sheldon Refuge are feral 

horses and burros. The differences in management alternatives for horses and burros are 

reflected in the percentage of each habitat type that would meet the stated objective. In 

response to comments, a more detailed discussion of the relationship between horse and 

burro management and percentages of each habitat type the Service estimates would meet 

objectives for each alternative have been included in the Final CCP/EIS. 

The Service estimates western juniper is encroaching upon 8,000 to 10,000 acres of 

sagebrush habitat located primarily in the western portion of Sheldon Refuge (Section 

4.2.7.2). The objective for removal of an average of 1,500 acres per year will allow for 

annual variability in accomplishments, while still meeting the overall stated objective for 

restoration of sagebrush-steppe habitats during the lifetime of the plan. 

3. Comment: Standards and thresholds in CCP objectives are not scientifically supported and 

do not constitute the habitat type, natural plant communities, or a healthy ecosystem. 

Response: Standards and thresholds presented are not intended to represent all components 

of a particular habitat type, plant community, or healthy ecosystem. The standards presented 

characterize those aspects of each particular habitat type that, in the Service’s opinion, will 

meet habitat requirements identified for key indicator species and other benefiting species, 

will be most responsive and most directly affected by management actions, and could be 

most accurately and efficiently monitored. Standards and thresholds were developed through 

professional experience, review of available information and literature, and consultation and 

review by NDOW and other management agencies and experts. For additional explanation 

and clarification, we have included references used to support the selection of thresholds in 

the rationale for each habitat objective in the Final CCP/EIS. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-3 

4. Comment: One comment requested that the Service identify specific results from vegetation 

surveys and site visits cited in the rationale for several management objectives. 

Response: There are three primary sources of vegetation survey and site visit information. 

Figure 4.2 in the CCP/EIS represents the most recent and comprehensive landscape 

assessment of vegetation habitat types across the entire Sheldon Refuge using analysis of 

satellite and National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery. More detailed sitespecific data are presented primarily in three papers referenced in Appendix M: Barnett 

2002; Collins 2009; and LaRouche 2007. 

5. Comment: Statements and assertions made in a variety of comments indicate some 

respondents believe the Service allows the grazing of livestock within Sheldon Refuge, and 

that management for livestock is the rationale for actions in the preferred alternative, 

including removal of feral horses and burros. 

Response: While livestock grazing did historically occur throughout much of Sheldon 

Refuge, all grazing permits were purchased by a third party, donated, and retired by the 

Service in 1994. Since that time no commercial livestock grazing has been authorized within 

Sheldon Refuge. The Service is not proposing to allow livestock grazing in the future. 

6. Comment: A number of comments expressed support or opposition for management actions 

such as mowing, thinning, fire suppression, prescribed burning, natural processes, fuel 

breaks, etc. to restore or maintain various habitats under one or more alternatives presented in 

the Draft CCP/EIS. 

Response: The Service appreciates the range of opinions expressed. 

7. Comment: Several comments suggested we prioritize our management objectives and 

strategies presented in the Draft CCP/EIS for habitat protection and restoration, particularly 

for habitats considered less resilient, more significantly impacted, or at greater risk from 

threats such as feral animals, invasive plants, wildfire, and changes in climate. 

Response: One purpose of the CCP is to identify long-term directions and priorities for 

management. The objectives and strategies presented for each goal, including strategies for 

habitat protection and restoration, represent resource management priorities for Sheldon 

Refuge over the next 10 to 15 years. 

8. Comment: Various comments suggested studies indicate mowing of sagebrush can have 

detrimental effects and requested an explanation of when, why, and how sagebrush removal 

would occur. 

Response: As stated in the rationale for objectives 2b and 3a, a reduction in disturbance 

events has increased sagebrush encroachment into Great Basin wildrye stands and into 

emergent marsh and wet meadow habitats. Mechanical habitat treatments such as mowing or 

thinning would be emphasized in these habitats over other methods to reduce encroachment, 

increase native grass and forb production, reduce shrub cover, and maintain a low density of 

invasive plants. The preferred alternative emphasizes mowing along roads rather than 

grading or blading as has been done in the past to control invasive plants and provided added 

protection from wildfire. However, as stated in the description of the preferred alternative 

(page 2-7 of the Draft CCP/EIS), the major emphasis would be the removal of juniper 

encroaching into sagebrush habitat, primarily within the western portion of Sheldon Refuge. 

Manipulation of emergent marsh and wet meadow habitat would be suspended until 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-4 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

objectives for horses and burros are achieved. Therefore, we anticipate sagebrush would be 

removed from a small proportion of the acres stated under the objectives. In response to 

comments, management strategies for Great Basin wildrye have been discussed separately in 

the Final CCP/EIS for clarification. 

9. Comment: Several comments requested specific inventory and monitoring be conducted in 

conjunction with restoration actions proposed in the preferred alternative 

Response: The CCP is intended to provide overall long-term management direction for 

fulfilling the purposes of Sheldon Refuge, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and for addressing significant issues. While we agree that monitoring is critical to 

determining success and informing adaptive decision making, detailed discussion of 

monitoring strategies is beyond the scope of the CCP. We will develop and incorporate 

specific inventory and monitoring methodologies, protocols, and techniques as part of future 

step-down management plans, as identified in the CCP, including a habitat management plan 

and a cold-water fisheries management plan for Sheldon Refuge. 

Upland Habitat Management—Wildland Fire 

10. Comment: A few comments suggested the Service reconsider management direction to 

conduct thinning or prescribed fire in mountain mahogany woodland habitat. 

Response: The Service recognizes that mountain mahogany provides key habitat for a 

number of sensitive wildlife species, is susceptible to fire, and is slow to reestablish and 

recover after disturbance such as fire. Our intent is to use prescribed fire and thinning of 

vegetation in areas adjacent to mountain mahogany, not within stands, in an effort to provide 

additional long-term protection for these stands. Management direction for mountain 

mahogany has been edited in the Final CCP/EIS to clarify our intent. 

11. Comment: Comments questioned the effectiveness of fuel breaks and other methods for 

achieving habitat management goals and objectives and requested clarification of when and 

why fuel breaks would be used, including full analysis of associated impacts. 

Response: As stated in the rationale for Objective 7a and explained in Chapter 4, fire is a 

natural process that has helped shape the Sheldon Refuge ecosystem. However, fire can also 

be a threat to the safety of the public, natural and cultural resources, and, considering the 

presence of cheatgrass and other invasive plant species, the continued existence of the present 

ecosystem. Natural fire now has the potential to burn more intensely, more rapidly, and over 

larger areas than if overgrazing and continued fire suppression had not occurred—making 

fire management more difficult. 

Inevitably, some wildfires will burn within Sheldon Refuge despite even the most aggressive 

fire suppression efforts. The Service believes that well-planned and strategic creation of fire 

fuel breaks within Sheldon Refuge using a combination of fire-resistant natural features (rock 

cliffs and outcroppings, past fire scars, water bodies and wet riparian areas, etc.), areas with 

reduced fire fuels (created by mowing, cutting, thinning, etc.), and areas where fuels have 

been eliminated (e.g., roads) is one of the safest, most efficient, and most predictable ways in 

which to influence the size, pattern, and intensity of fire disturbance toward restoration of 

desired conditions across the landscape while at the same time achieving stated habitat 

objectives. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-5 

Analysis of the effects from creating and maintaining fuel breaks and from mechanically 

removing vegetation were evaluated and presented in the Environmental Consequences 

chapter (Chapter 6) of the Draft CCP/EIS. 

12. Comment: Several comments asked for clarification and definition of the term “appropriate 

management response.” 

Response: Appropriate management response is the response to a wildland fire based on an 

evaluation of risks to firefighter and public safety, the circumstances under which the fire 

occurs, including weather and fuel conditions, natural and cultural resource management 

objectives, protection priorities, and values to be protected. The evaluation must also include 

an analysis of the context of the specific fire within the overall local, geographic area or 

national wildland fire situation. The range of potential responses to wildfire includes 

anything from observation to aggressive direct fire suppression action with use of all 

resources and equipment available. We have clarified the meaning of this term as used in the 

Final CCP/EIS. 

13. Comment: Comments noted that past fires at Sheldon Refuge in the early 1990s, including 

prescribed fires, replaced shrub communities with grass, displaced sagebrush-obligate 

species, altered habitats (particularly winter habitat and habitat for sage-grouse), and were 

followed by increases in cheatgrass and other non-native weed presence. Comments stated 

that because these changes would likely continue, additional prescribed burning should not 

be conducted or repeated. Others questioned whether negative effects from prescribed fires 

were weighed against ecological benefits. 

Response: The Service agrees that disturbance from past fires has altered the size and 

distribution of habitats at various stages of plant community succession across Sheldon 

Refuge, and that these changes have affected the distribution of wildlife populations. 

However, as noted in the Draft CCP/EIS, it has been the lack of fire as a result of fire 

suppression that has contributed to adverse impacts to refuge habitats. At the scale of 

Sheldon Refuge, the disturbance of fire that maintains an irregular mosaic of habitats at 

various stages of plant community succession is beneficial to both individual species and 

ecosystem biodiversity providing long-term invasion by non-native plant species (e.g., 

cheatgrass) does not occur. 

The Service evaluated a full range of alternatives, including an alternative with emphasis on 

prescribed burning, an alternative with emphasis on natural wildfire, and the preferred 

alternative with emphasis on protection of key habitat types from large fires through 

increased use of mechanical means to remove fire fuels. Adverse and beneficial impacts both 

directly and indirectly resulting from prescribed burning were evaluated in the EIS (refer to 

Chapter 6). Factors considered as part of the analyses included effects to soil, air, water, 

climate, habitats, fish, wildlife, plants, invasive species, cultural and historic resources, 

recreation opportunity, visual resource values, and wilderness resource values. 

The CCP serves to provide overall long-term direction for management action, including the 

use of fire, to achieve specified habitat objectives. More detailed planning and site-specific 

analysis would be conducted as part of future habitat and fire management step-down plans. 

Individual site-specific prescribed fire prescriptions would also be developed per Service 

policy to maximize the likelihood of achieving desired conditions while minimizing or 

eliminating potential for adverse impacts. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-6 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

Wildlife Population Management 

14. Comment: Several comments stated the purpose for Sheldon Refuge was to manage for a 

maximum number of 3,500 antelope as stated in Executive Order 7522. 

Response: As stated in Executive Order 7522, Sheldon Refuge was established as an area

“...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....”

While maintaining a healthy pronghorn population is clearly important, the Service does not 

consider sustaining 3,500 pronghorn as a primary purpose for Sheldon Refuge. This 

population figure was included in Executive Order 7522 specifically to allocate a maximum 

amount of forage for pronghorn and other wildlife, with the remainder available for domestic 

livestock pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. Because Sheldon Refuge has not been 

administered by the BLM and pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act since 1976, and livestock 

grazing no longer occurs within Sheldon Refuge, the allocation of forage is neither 

appropriate nor necessary and the reference in the Executive Order is no longer applicable. 

The Service will continue to work to manage healthy wildlife populations within a natural 

range of variability consistent with Service policy for biological integrity, diversity, and 

ecological heath. 

15. Comment: Numerous comments suggested that altering wildlife species composition 

through removal of feral horses and burros, and reintroductions to augment and maintain 

unnaturally high populations of large animals such as pronghorn and bighorn sheep, is not 

appropriate and appears to be conducted primarily to benefit trophy big-game hunters, rather 

than to maintain or restore biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Response: The Service does not propose to reintroduce, augment, or alter wildlife species 

composition or increase hunting harvest under any of the alternatives presented in the 

CCP/EIS. Following their extirpation from Sheldon Refuge in the late 1920s due to a variety 

of human influences (refer to Section 4.2.5.3 of the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS), California 

bighorn sheep were reintroduced when natural recolonization was determined unlikely to 

occur. Bighorn sheep populations thrived and eventually reached a level where the Service 

and NDOW determined that relocating some animals to assist reintroduction efforts outside 

Sheldon Refuge and hunting for a relatively small number of animals would be compatible 

with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge and the long-term health and viability of the 

population. Currently, limited hunting for pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and mule deer is only 

allowed for about 95 days each year, while a large portion of Sheldon Refuge remains closed 

to all hunting. As discussed in Chapter 5, the majority of visitors to Sheldon Refuge 

participate in wildlife viewing, which occurs year-round and generates a much greater 

economic benefit to the region and surrounding communities than both hunting and fishing 

combined (see Section 6.5.2 of the Draft CCP/EIS). 

The Service evaluated three alternatives for management of feral horses and burros, including 

an alternative to maintain populations of feral horses and burros. Selection of the preferred 

alternative to remove horse and burro populations was based on the need to fulfill the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System, achieve the purposes for Sheldon Refuge, and 

eliminate the negative impacts of these non-native feral species to the biological integrity, 

diversity, and ecological health of all native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats within 

Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-7 

16. Comment: A number of comments suggested that control of large predators (e.g., mountain 

lion, bobcat, and coyote) is required by Section 3 of Executive Order 7522 and must be 

conducted to benefit wildlife within Sheldon Refuge. Other comments inferred that 

management of predators (either within or adjacent to the refuge) is adversely impacting prey 

populations within the Sheldon Refuge and should be addressed in the CCP/EIS. 

Response: Section 3 of the Executive Order allocated forage resources to pronghorn and 

other non-predatory species and to domestic livestock pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act. 

Because forage resources are no longer managed by the BLM or pursuant to the Taylor 

Grazing Act, and livestock grazing no longer occurs within Sheldon Refuge, the Service 

generally considers referenced portions in Section 3 of the Executive Order no longer 

applicable or appropriate and moot. 

The Service considers populations of wildlife, including pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and mule 

deer, within Sheldon Refuge to be healthy and within the natural range of population 

variability. As discussed in the rationale for Objective 6b, wildlife population numbers 

experience natural fluctuation and variability over time, but observation and research 

increasingly demonstrate the primary influences on prey populations within Sheldon Refuge 

are habitat quality/quantity and weather—not predation. Therefore, the Service believes that 

management actions including changes to big-game harvest levels and, specifically, reduction 

of predator populations are not necessary to maintain healthy prey populations and would be 

contrary to Service policies regarding maintaining biological diversity, biological integrity, 

environmental health, and wilderness character. 

17. Comment: Numerous comments suggested artificial water sources such as playa dug-outs, 

livestock water troughs, and water guzzlers are necessary to support wildlife populations, and 

the removal of water developments would be detrimental to sage-grouse, pronghorn, and 

other wildlife species. 

Response: Sheldon Refuge is somewhat unique within the Great Basin due to the number of 

water sources present. As stated in Chapter 6, the Service does not dispute that wildlife use 

and may benefit from free-standing water when available. However, the majority of these 

artificial water sources were specifically developed for commercial livestock use—a use that 

no longer exists. Further, as referenced in the CCP, research and studies indicate that wildlife 

native to the Great Basin are particularly well adapted to the relatively dry conditions and 

periodic drought that occur on the Refuge. 

Based on professional analysis and review of available information, scientific study, and 

literature, we have determined the removal of artificial water sources within Sheldon Refuge 

would restore the natural hydrology and be of greater benefit to a wider range of native 

wildlife species, and that such artificial water sources are not required to sustain currently 

healthy viable wildlife populations within their natural range of variability. Therefore, it is 

the Service’s opinion that the preferred alternative would best restore the biological integrity 

of spring, spring brook, stream, and playa habitats damaged and degraded from past 

development for commercial livestock use to achieve the stated objectives of the CCP for the 

long-term benefit of a full range and diversity of native wildlife and plant species. As stated 

in the rationale for Objective 3b, spring, spring brook, and stream restoration efforts would 

be determined by evaluation of individual site characteristics. 

18. Comment: A few comments stated the Service should not remove any water developments 

as long as horses and burros remain within Sheldon Refuge and until site-specific analysis 

and planning is conducted for each development. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-8 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

Response: We recognize that trade-offs may exist for any management action and that 

restoration efforts benefitting some species may be detrimental to others. For these reasons, 

we agree that further evaluation and review of specific water development removals and 

playa restoration efforts are warranted before individual projects are initiated. With 

assistance from NDOW and other partners, we would develop spring and playa restoration 

prescription(s) that further identify and analyze impacts of possible water development 

removal options, and we have added appropriate strategies under the relevant Final CCP/EIS 

objectives to reflect our intent. In addition, we have included additional explanation and 

rationale for Objective 3c strategies under the preferred alternative (page 2-29) to clarify the 

Service’s intent to conduct playa restoration only if methods are demonstrated to be effective 

in restoring natural habitat conditions for the benefit of native wildlife and plants. 

With respect to the timing of potential water development removal projects, we intend to 

retain the majority of existing water sources until horse and burro populations are 

significantly reduced. Timeframes for strategies under objectives 3b and 3c were intended to 

allow for removal of horses and burros prior to completing restoration of most springs, spring 

brooks, streams, and playas. Additional explanation of the relationship between the proposed 

schedules for horse and burro removal and habitat restoration efforts have been included in 

the rationale for these objectives. 

19. Comment: A few comments suggested the Draft CCP/EIS does not contain adequate 

information about wildlife population numbers that inhabit Sheldon Refuge and therefore 

suggest that the plan does not comply with NEPA. 

Response: Sheldon Refuge is remote and largely undeveloped, with relatively little public 

use and hunting. Overall, wildlife populations are primarily influenced by natural conditions 

such as habitat, weather, and the occurrence of non-native species (e.g., feral horses and 

burros). While general discussions of these influences and their effects on wildlife 

population trends for some species are included in Chapter 4, management direction in the 

CCP is intended to influence habitat conditions under the assumption that changes in habitat 

would indirectly influence all wildlife populations within their natural range of variability, 

not only those for whom population data exist. Therefore, precise population data and 

statistics for most species are not considered necessary for making informed decisions with 

respect to the alternatives and are not included in the CCP/EIS. 

20. Comment: A few comments stated management direction and the evaluation of the effects 

from fences, especially to Greater sage-grouse, are not adequate and should be further 

examined. 

Response: The Service anticipates Sheldon Refuge would have no interior wire fences by 

the end of 2012. Maintaining a wildlife-friendly boundary fence is a management priority 

identified in the management objectives to prevent the further movement of horses, burros, 

and livestock onto the Refuge. The Service would consider a full range of fencing materials 

and devices to minimize disturbance and injury to wildlife, including flagging, reflectors, and 

use of materials other than barbed wire. In response to comments, a more complete 

definition of wildlife-friendly fencing has been included in the Final CCP/EIS. 

21. Comment: One comment suggested the Service use nonlethal methods to estimate sagegrouse population parameters. 

Response: The Service coordinates with NDOW to collect population data using a 

combination of lethal and nonlethal methods. Sage-grouse lek attendance data are collected 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-9 

through observation for use in developing population size and trend estimates. Data collected 

from wings submitted by hunters are used in developing population sex and age ratios. 

Despite the limitations of wing data, they provide a means for assessing the effects of 

management actions on production at the state or local population management unit scale. 

However, if Greater sage-grouse harvest data are determined insufficient to accurately and 

precisely measure identified population parameters in the future, Sheldon Refuge would be 

closed to sport hunting for Greater sage-grouse. 

22. Comment: One comment suggested direct count of animals is not appropriate, and other 

methods should be used to more accurately census horses, burros, and wildlife. 

Response: The Service does not use direct count data to estimate horses, burros, and wildlife 

population size, but rather to monitor trends in sex ratios, productivity, and population over 

time. In coordination with BLM, a simultaneous double-count with sightability bias 

correction and other statistically robust methods are used to estimate population size for feral 

horse populations within Sheldon Refuge. 

23. Comment: Several comments asserted that pronghorn, bighorn sheep, mule deer, and elk are 

reintroduced native species that were killed or almost killed to extinction by humans or died 

off during the last ice age. 

Response: Fossil records show pronghorn, bighorn sheep, mule deer, and elk have been 

continuously present on the North American continent for at least 100,000 years—well 

before the last ice age (the Wisconsin glaciations, which occurred between 11,150 and 35,000 

years before present). Bighorn sheep were locally extirpated by human influences and 

reintroduced to Sheldon Refuge, but are considered native wildlife. The reader is referred to 

various articles printed in Mammalian Species for additional information 

(http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/msiaccounts.html). 

24. Comment: One comment requested the Service identify State of Nevada status for species 

listed in Appendix B. 

Response: We have amended Appendix B in the Final CCP/EIS to indicate state status for 

various species. 

Fisheries Population Management 

25. Comment: Comments suggested stocking of fish within Sheldon Refuge is not appropriate 

and appears to be conducted primarily to benefit anglers rather than to maintain or restore 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health, and should no longer be allowed. 

Response: Three alternatives were considered for management of fish populations within 

Sheldon Refuge, including an alternative to end stocking for recreation opportunity. Based 

on the analysis of effects from these alternatives, the Service has determined that continued 

limited stocking of appropriate fish populations to constructed ponds and reservoirs for sport 

fishing within Sheldon Refuge does not present significant risk to the health, diversity, or 

biological integrity of native fish, wildlife, plants, or their habitats. The Service will continue 

to coordinate closely with NDOW to ensure future stocking and augmentations remain 

compatible with the purposes, management goals, and objectives for Sheldon Refuge.

26. Comment: Some comments suggested Alvord cutthroat (either pure or hybrid strains) be 

considered for trout stocking efforts within Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-10 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

Response: The Service recognizes that while both redband and Lahontan cutthroat trout 

naturally occur within nearby watersheds, neither species is endemic to Sheldon Refuge. 

Therefore, we agree it is appropriate to consider Alvord cutthroat trout strains when 

coordinating future stocking efforts with NDOW. As in the past, any particular watershed 

would only be stocked with a single species to avoid unwanted hybridization. In response to 

comments, Alvord cutthroat trout have been included in Objective 8b of the Final CCP/EIS. 

27. Comment: One comment suggested managing stream reaches capable of producing cobble 

and gravel bottoms as such and not as soft-bottom sediment as currently stated in Objective 

3b. Managing for natural cobble and gravel bottoms would better support trout populations 

and reduce the need for re-stocking. 

Response: The Service’s intent for management of in-channel habitat included in Objective 

3b is to recognize management for native species (e.g., Sheldon tui chub, amphibians, and 

endemic invertebrates) as a priority for Sheldon Refuge. However, we did not intend to 

imply that we would convert natural cobble and gravel stream bottoms to soft-bottom 

sediment. In response to comments, additional clarification of management priorities, intent 

for habitat management objectives, and species affected are included in the Final CCP/EIS. 

In addition we will work with NDOW to identify those stream channel reaches appropriate 

for various management objectives, including restoration. 

28. Comment: One comment stated impacts to trout-rearing habitat from erosion as a result of 

overgrazing were overlooked in the analysis. 

Response: Causes for erosion and other impacts to stream and riparian habitats were 

discussed in Chapter 4; feral horses and burros were identified as a primary contributing 

factor. The Draft CCP/EIS identified continued erosion and turbidity as adverse impacts that 

would result from the continued presence of horses and burros under Alternative 1. 

29. Comment: Various comments suggested delaying eradication and not using piscicides to 

eradicate rainbow trout from Big Spring Reservoir. 

Response: As stated in the Draft CCP/EIS, Big Spring Reservoir has been dry for several 

years and no rainbow trout are currently present. The Service does not propose the use of 

piscicides to eliminate trout from any waters within Sheldon Refuge under any alternative in 

the CCP/EIS. 

30. Comment: The Service’s recommendation to develop Gooch Lake as a fishery should not 

be pursued. 

Response: The Service does not consider developing Gooch Lake as a fishery under any 

alternative in the CCP/EIS. 

Feral Horse and Burro Management 

31. Comment: Numerous submissions expressed either support or opposition to alternatives 

presented in the Draft CCP/EIS, including the Service’s preferred alternative for removal of 

horses and burros from Sheldon Refuge within five years. 

Response: The Service acknowledges and appreciates these comments. 

32. Comment: Several comments referenced the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 

1971 and related court decisions, or indicated horses and burros within Sheldon Refuge either 

are or should be managed under this Act. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-11 

Response: The Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 applies only to 

management of horses and burros within specific public lands managed by the BLM and the 

U.S. Forest Service. 

33. Comment: One comment requested the Service provide annual population and management 

data for feral horses and burros including population size, mortality, numbers gathered, and 

numbers adopted as required by NEPA. 

Response: Population information was presented in Section 4.1.1 of the Draft CCP/EIS. 

With respect to feral horses and burros, evaluation of the alternatives and selection of the 

preferred alternative were based on fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, achieving the purposes for Sheldon Refuge, and overall impact from the presence of 

feral horses and burros within Sheldon Refuge. Therefore, more detailed annual population 

information was not considered necessary for evaluating the effects of the alternatives 

presented or for making an informed decision in selecting the preferred alternative to remove 

all horses and burros from Sheldon Refuge. 

34. Comment: Several comments asserted horses and burros are reintroduced species, native to 

North America, that fill an ecological niche in the high desert environment. 

Response: Based on the fossil record and historical information, it is widely accepted that all 

horses in North America became extinct at least 8,000 to 10,000 years before present and that 

all horses found in North America today are descended from imported domesticated animals 

and are therefore, by definition, not native. Because native plants, wildlife, and their habitats 

continued to adapt and evolve for more than 8,000 years following the extinction of horses, 

there is no longer an ecological niche for these animals to fill. 

Even in the absence of prehistoric information, horses and burros within Sheldon Refuge are 

in fact feral. As noted in Section 4.1.1 of the Draft CCP/EIS, it is well documented that 

horses and burros were first released onto Sheldon Refuge and the surrounding area as 

domestic animals and were raised for ranch stock and sale to the U.S. Cavalry during the late 

1800s and early 1900s. Following the advent of motorized vehicles and mechanization of the 

Cavalry, the animals were simply abandoned. 

35. Comment: One comment asked when a non-native or introduced species such as horses or 

burros would be considered native. 

Response: By definition, the Service considers all species not presently or historically 

occurring in the United States except through the intervention of humans, intentionally or 

otherwise, to be non-indigenous exotic species (Refuge Manual 7 RM 8.4). Because horses 

and burros occur within the United States and Sheldon Refuge through the intentional 

intervention of humans, the Service will not consider them native. 

36. Comment: Several comments objected to the Service’s determination that feral horses and 

burros must be removed, while other non-native introduced species (e.g., chukar, trout, 

perch)—especially those determined to be causing adverse impact to Refuge resources—can 

remain on Sheldon Refuge. 

Response: Based upon evaluation of the alternatives and the impact analyses conducted, it is 

the Service’s opinion that allowing horses or burros to remain would interfere with 

accomplishing the purposes for Sheldon Refuge, and therefore action must be taken. 

Consistent with Refuge System policy for management of feral horses and burros within 

Sheldon Refuge, these populations must be removed rather than simply reduced. We have 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-12 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

determined other non-native introduced wildlife species are causing adverse impacts, but it is 

also our opinion that those impacts are relatively minor and not likely reach the threshold of 

interfering with our ability to accomplish the purposes for Sheldon Refuge. The Service 

requires no action to reduce or eradicate self-sustaining populations of non-native, noninvasive species (e.g., chukar) unless those species interfere with accomplishing refuge 

purpose(s). We do not, however, manage habitats to increase populations of these species 

unless such habitat management supports accomplishing refuge purposes (Service Manual 

601 FW 3). 

37. Comment: Multiple comments offered anecdotal information and observation of the 

impacts to wildlife, plants, and their habitats caused by feral horses and burros. 

Response: The Service appreciates first-hand observation and confirmation of numerous 

scientific studies and evaluations that have quantified adverse impacts caused by horses and 

burros (pages 6-9 through 6-11 and page 4-4 of the Draft CCP/EIS). These impacts to native 

fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats within Sheldon Refuge were primary considerations in 

the selection of the Service’s preferred alternative. 

38. Comment: Some comments suggested horses and burros enhance the ecosystem, 

complement grazing species within Sheldon Refuge, and do not require management by the 

Service because populations are naturally controlled. 

Response: An alternative that left horse and burro populations unmanaged was analyzed in 

the 2008 Horse and Burro Management Environmental Assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service [USFWS] 2008a) and was determined to be contrary to Service statutes, policy, and 

refuge purposes. For these reasons, a similar alternative was considered but not evaluated in 

detail in the Draft CCP/EIS. 

There are no predators found at Sheldon Refuge that are capable of limiting horse or burro 

populations, and there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that horses will naturally 

limit their own populations. Regular gathers conducted by the Service from the 1970s until 

the mid-1990s maintained populations near 400 animals. Due to a lack of sufficient funding 

for continued removal, the population increased rapidly to an estimated 2,000 animals in less 

than 10 years—at which time regular gathers resumed. If left unchecked, nature would 

regulate the horse and burro population through a boom-and-bust cycle, where the population 

increases dramatically, food and water becomes scarce, and the population crashes through 

dehydration and starvation—resulting in even greater and more lasting impacts to plants, 

their habitats, and the fish and wildlife that depend upon them. 

39. Comment: Comments stated the existing Sheldon Refuge perimeter fence is not adequate to 

prevent ingress or egress of horses. Maintenance of this fence should be a priority and 

modifications should be made to better prevent horse movement into and out of the refuge. 

Response: The Service identified maintenance of the Sheldon Refuge perimeter fence as a 

high priority for management under Objective 1a. Damage and vandalism of fences can 

allow horse movement. Efforts are continual and ongoing to monitor, repair, and modify the 

fence to reduce damage and limit horse movement into and out of Sheldon Refuge to the 

maximum extent practicable and allowed by available funding and staff. 

40. Comment: Some comments suggested the use of specific management strategies for 

maintaining natural horse and burro sex ratios, herd behavior, social structure, family units, 

and long-term genetic viability and herd health within Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-13 

Response: The Service considered Alternative 1 (the no action alternative) for long-term 

management of horses and burros within Sheldon Refuge. However, because the preferred 

alternative requires only short-term management of the animals, the Service determined that 

strategies to maintain specific population parameters or herd dynamics are not necessary or 

feasible. 

41. Comment: Several comments suggested using chemical fertility control porcine zona 

pellucida (PZP) vaccine to minimize horse and burro population growth. 

Response: Each alternative considered in the Draft CCP/EIS, including the preferred 

alternative will allow the use of safe, humane, and effective fertility controls to limit 

population growth. 

42. Comment: One comment stated that by evaluating only the current management alternative 

and two alternatives to remove horses and burros, the Draft CCP/EIS failed to consider a full 

range of alternatives. 

Response: In evaluating short-term management for horses and burros, a range of 

population sizes were considered under alternatives in the 2008 Horse and Burro 

Management at Sheldon Refuge environmental assessment (USFWS 2008a). In evaluating 

long-term management, the Service determined that any action alternative that does not 

include removal of horses and burros would fail to achieve the purposes and management 

goals and objectives for Sheldon Refuge. Therefore, while other alternatives (in addition to 

the no action alternative) that included long-term management for horses and burros were 

considered, these additional alternatives were not evaluated in further detail. 

43. Comment: A few comments requested that the Service use lethal control to eliminate horses 

and burros. 

Response: As noted in the Draft CCP/EIS, an alternative including lethal control was 

considered, but the Service determined the use of lethal control to be unnecessary to meet 

horse and burro population objectives. As a result, this alternative was not evaluated in 

further detail. 

44. Comment: Various comments stated that elimination of horses and burros does not have 

credible scientific justification, is environmentally unnecessary, and is unwarranted. 

Response: Based upon the review of scientific literature and assessment of conditions within 

Sheldon Refuge presented in the Draft CCP/EIS, it is the Service’s opinion there is sufficient 

credible scientific and empirical evidence to justify the preferred alternative to remove horses 

and burros from Sheldon Refuge. 

45. Comment: Some comments stated the Service’s preferred alternative to remove horses and 

burros is arbitrary. 

Response: To be arbitrary, a decision must be based on perception or feeling rather than 

objective fact, reasons, or principles. The reasons for the Service’s selection of the preferred 

alternative are to fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; to achieve the 

purposes for Sheldon Refuge; and to maintain consistency with Service policy. The 

underlying principles for the preferred alternative are restoring biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health toward conservation of native fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats. These principles are supported by facts and analyses presented in the CCP/EIS that 

demonstrate that feral horses and burros are causing significant adverse impact to fish, 

wildlife, plants, and their habitats within Sheldon Refuge. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-14 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

46. Comment: Some comments requested the Service make public adoption of horses and 

burros easier and include incentives such as tax credits. 

Response: Due to limited facilities, staff, and adoption demand at Sheldon Refuge, we select 

qualified organizations and businesses to provide extended care, advertise, and find suitable 

homes for 100% of horses and burros made available for adoption. We also issue press 

releases and updates to announce when gathers are conducted and where the public can 

request horses and burros for adoption. The Service does not have the authority to modify 

tax law to provide incentives for adoption. 

47. Comment: One comment suggested the Service conduct additional public outreach and 

communicate details regarding feral horse and burro gathers. 

Response: The Service has issued public announcements, press releases, interviews, fact 

sheets, and other information related to management of horses and burros at Sheldon Refuge 

through a variety of media. We strive to provide regular and consistent communication in the 

future. 

48. Comment: A few comments requested the Service identify potential consequences for 

horses or burros sold at auction if adoption were no longer a viable option. 

Response: The Service is committed to finding adoption homes for as many horses and 

burros as possible. We have spent millions of dollars and many thousands of staff hours to 

provide veterinary care, and public outreach and advertising to find homes for 100% of the 

more than 3,500 horses and burros from Sheldon Refuge made available for adoption. 

However, in the future, we anticipate homes might not be found for all animals because of 

the age, appearance, or health of an animal or because economic conditions prevent large 

numbers of horse from being placed. In these situations, it would then be necessary to sell 

these animals at auction. The Service would ensure animals are sent to reputable auctions 

and receive adequate and humane care. As with adoption, horses bought at auction would 

become private property, no longer under the control or jurisdiction of the Service, and it is 

possible animals could be bought at auction for slaughter. For this reason, the sale of horses 

at auction would be used only as a last resort. 

49. Comment: A few comments requested the Service designate horse and burro populations as 

historical and cultural resources and seek necessary legislative changes needed. 

Response: The no action alternative included long-term management for horses and burros 

within Sheldon Refuge. As stated in response to similar comments received on the 2008 

Horse and Burro Management Plan (USFWS 2008a), horses and burros themselves cannot be 

considered for protection as a cultural or historical resource, and the Service has determined 

horses and burros within Sheldon Refuge do not contribute to the significance of any historic 

properties; therefore, removal of these animals has no effect on cultural resources eligible for 

the National Register of Historic Places. Service action to propose legislation or propose 

changes to legislation that would provide legal protections would not fulfill the purposes of 

the Refuge or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

50. Comment: Some comments requested the Service include details regarding how horse and 

burro gathers would be conducted, how and where animals would be transported, and where 

animals would be held for sorting and while awaiting adoption. 

Response: Appendix H of the CCP/EIS details the standard operating procedures for horse 

and burro population control methods, including gathers, transportation, and adoption. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-15 

During sorting, animals are cared for by the Service under supervision of licensed 

veterinarians at facilities within Sheldon Refuge. Both the care and facilities provided are 

periodically reviewed by independent observers. Additional details are provided in the 2008 

Horse and Burro Management Plan (USFWS 2008a). 

51. Comment: One comment stated the cost of horse and burro removal and adoption is 

excessive and is far greater than revenues received through adoption. 

Response: As displayed in Figure 6.1 of the Draft CCP/EIS, costs for implementing the 

preferred alternative for management of horses and burros are expected to be less than half 

those of the other two alternatives considered. When the full costs are considered, including 

long-term impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, the cost of the preferred 

alternative is much less. The Service does not collect any fees or revenues through horse and 

burro adoptions. 

52. Comment: A number of comments stated wild horses and burros are imperiled, threatened, 

near extinction, or in jeopardy. 

Response: Wild horses and burros are managed by BLM and the U.S. Forest Service on 199 

Herd Management Areas encompassing 26.9 million acres of public lands outside Sheldon 

Refuge. There are 42 Herd Management Areas and Herd Areas within the region, including 

14 Herd Management Areas encompassing more than 1.27 million acres immediately 

adjacent to Sheldon Refuge, where BLM manages for long-term protection of 1,477 wild 

horses and 65 wild burros under the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 

(BLM 2011; USFWS 2008a). Actual population information shows wild horses and burros 

are not imperiled, in jeopardy, or at risk of extinction. The current on-the-range population 

of wild horses and burros (approximately 38,000) is greater than the number found roaming 

in 1971 (about 25,300) when wild horses first received Federal protection under the Wild 

Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act (BLM 2012). 

53. Comment: Numerous comments stated public observation and photography of horses and 

burros provides recreation opportunity and benefit to the local economy similar to wildlife 

observation and photography, and thus should be supported by the Service. Comments stated 

that the impacts to opportunity for viewing and photography of horses and burros from the 

Service’s preferred alternative were not adequately addressed. 

Response: We acknowledge that horses and burros provide opportunities for viewing and 

photography. Section 6.3.4 of the Draft CCP/EIS discussed impacts from the three 

alternatives to these opportunities in the context of priority opportunities for viewing and 

photographing native wildlife within Sheldon Refuge and similar opportunities to view and 

photograph horses and burros in adjacent BLM Herd Management Areas. We determined 

that impacts to horse and burro viewing and photography from each of the alternatives would 

be minor to negligible in this context, but that opportunities for the priority public use of 

wildlife observation and photography would be greatly enhanced by the preferred alternative. 

Invasive Species Management 

54. Comment: Some comments questioned why some proven and effective strategies for the 

control of weeds and other invasive species, particularly the use of non-native seed for 

restoration and rehabilitation efforts, were included in some alternatives, but not the preferred 

alternative. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-16 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

Response: Strategies identified for each alternative under Objective 5a (page 2-41) were 

intended to illustrate differences in management emphasis and were not intended to preclude 

the use of other strategies when and where they are determined more appropriate through 

adaptive management. The primary difference under the preferred alternative is a more 

systematic approach to detect and treat a substantially larger number of acres, rather than the 

minimal, opportunistic, and sometimes inconsistent approach that has been used in the past. 

In response to comments, wording of strategies and the objective rationale for the control of 

invasive species has been changed to clarify differences between management emphases in 

the three alternatives. 

After further consideration and in response to comments, we have modified our strategy for 

seeding under Objective 7b for the preferred alternative in the Final CCP/EIS to allow the use 

of non-native seed under specific and limited circumstances; however, we will maintain the 

management priority for the use of native seed whenever possible—especially for large-scale 

rehabilitation efforts and within proposed wilderness. 

55. Comment: A number of comments suggested specific restoration actions or requested the 

Service identify what rehabilitation and restoration techniques and tools would be used to 

meet the stated objectives, particularly with respect to riparian and stream channel habitats 

and threats from non-native weeds. 

Response: The Service proposes to allow a full range of habitat restoration and 

rehabilitation tools. Given the proportion of Sheldon Refuge that is managed to also preserve 

wilderness resources values, emphasis would be placed on the use of the least intrusive 

means necessary. Each restoration effort would likely require a review of the information 

and research available, a site-specific evaluation, and actions best suited to the particular 

conditions and concerns identified for the site. Therefore, it is the Service’s opinion that a 

general prescription for the rehabilitation and restoration of a particular habitat type, or 

following a particular type of event, is not appropriate for inclusion in the CCP/EIS, and 

identification of specific restoration tools and techniques without site-specific information 

and evaluation is premature. 

56. Comment: Some comments suggested the Service identify criteria for the use of weed 

control methods, such as avoiding or prohibiting broadcast herbicide application, identifying 

specific control methods, and specifying where and when methods would be used. 

Response: Decisions to use particular tools and techniques and criteria for their use are 

based on numerous factors and considerations (particular species being targeted, associated 

habitat types, proximity to sensitive resources and adjacent lands, etc.). While the CCP 

provides overall direction and priority for the control of invasive species, inclusion of 

specific treatments in the CCP/EIS is not appropriate and without site-specific information 

and assessment would be premature. As referenced in the rationale for Objective 5a, regional 

integrated pest management strategies, including procedures for evaluating pesticide use have 

been incorporated as part of the CCP/EIS. We have included further summary and 

explanation of the referenced integrated pest management strategies in the Final CCP/EIS. 

We have also provided a complete copy of the referenced integrated pest management 

document for public review on our planning website 

(http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/NV/docssheldon.htm). 

57. Comment: One comment suggested the use of volunteers and partnerships should be 

included as a management strategy for invasive species. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-17 

Response: Volunteers and partnerships have become increasingly important for 

implementation of nearly all refuge management activities, including the inventory, control, 

and monitoring of weeds and other invasive species. Through Objective 8g we identified 

increased involvement of volunteers and partnerships as a priority for management of 

Sheldon Refuge, including for the control of invasive species. 

58. Comment: One comment suggested the analysis in the EIS of impacts from the use of 

herbicides to treat up to 1,000 acres per year was not adequate. 

Response: Strategies identified under the preferred alternative for Objective 5a in the 

CCP/EIS state that a variety of methods (including herbicides) would be used to treat up to 

1,000 acres per year. The Service has not identified what proportion of acres might be 

treated with herbicide, but presumably it would be more than under the no action alternative, 

which identifies 50 to 100 acres for treatment per year. 

Consistent with the Service’s integrated pest management policy, a pesticide use proposal 

must be approved before any herbicide can be used within Sheldon Refuge. Pesticide use 

proposals require site-specific analysis, evaluation of chemical profiles, and evaluation of 

likely environmental effects. Based on scientific information and analyses documented in 

chemical profiles for pesticide use proposals, pesticides allowed for use on refuge lands 

would be of relatively low risk to non-target organisms as a result of low toxicity or short 

persistence in the environment. Thus, potential impacts to refuge resources and neighboring 

natural resources from pesticide applications under all alternatives are expected to be minor, 

temporary, or localized in nature. 

In response to comments, we have included additional explanation of our process for 

completing and approving pesticide use proposals. We also included additional discussion of 

potential impacts associated with herbicide use with other analyses in Chapter 6 of the Final 

CCP/EIS. We have provided a complete copy of the integrated pest management guidance 

document, which was incorporated by reference in the Draft CCP/EIS, for public review on 

our planning website (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/NV/docssheldon.htm). 

59. Comment: One comment suggested livestock grazing should be used to reduce fire danger 

and control invasive weeds. 

Response: As stated in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.4.2 of the Draft CCP/EIS, overgrazing by 

livestock and feral horses and burros has resulted in significant adverse impacts to refuge 

habitats. Therefore, the Service does not consider additional grazing an appropriate 

management strategy for achieving habitat management goals and objectives as part of the 

CCP/EIS. 

60. Comment: Bur buttercup (Ranunculus testiculatus) was not listed in Appendix B. 

Response: Bur buttercup has several synonyms (USDA 2012), and is listed in Appendix B 

as curveseed butterwort (Ceratocephala testiculata).

Climate 

61. Comment: A few comments requested explanation of how climatic changes and influences 

on habitat distribution, wildlife migration, natural fire regime, and wildlife populations were 

considered. Additional comments requested explanation of how anticipated influences of 

climate change were considered when evaluating impacts from the alternatives. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-18 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

Response: As discussed in Section 3.2, changes in climate are expected to exacerbate 

current threats such as cheatgrass and other non-native invasive species; fire size, frequency, 

and intensity; and habitat impacts from long-term wildfire suppression and feral horses and 

burros. We anticipate climate change would also magnify or enhance impacts from various 

actions proposed under the alternatives. These influences were considered in the 

development of the alternatives, analyses of the impacts, and selection of the preferred 

alternative, which places greater emphasis on minimizing impacts from public uses, control 

of invasive species, long-term and proactive measures such as fire breaks and removal of 

encroaching juniper to minimize the size and intensity of wildfire, increased protection and 

restoration of mountain mahogany and deciduous woodland habitats considered sensitive to 

changing conditions, and removal of environmental stressors and significant threats to refuge 

habitats—primarily feral horses and burros. 

Transportation Management 

62. Comment: Numerous comments expressed support or opposition for the alternatives, 

including the Service’s preferred alternative to designate roads and routes for public vehicle 

use throughout Sheldon Refuge. 

Response: The Service acknowledges and appreciates these comments. 

63. Comment: Several comments stated all-terrain vehicles and other off-highway vehicles 

(OHVs) should not be allowed, or should not be allowed off-road, or that only non-motorized 

vehicles should be allowed within Sheldon Refuge. 

Response: The Service considers the use of motorized vehicles on designated open routes 

appropriate for facilitating public access to remote portions of Sheldon Refuge and for 

providing a range of wildlife-dependent recreation opportunity settings. 

Many of the comments appear to have misinterpreted the actions included in the alternatives 

evaluated in the Draft CCP/EIS. Each of the three alternatives considers the designation of 

existing roads and routes for public use of vehicles. Such uses would be consistent with state 

laws and regulations for the use of motorized vehicles. None of the alternatives propose to 

allow vehicle use off-road or in areas other than on designated roads and routes, nor do any 

of the alternatives propose the establishment or construction of new roads or routes. 

There are three unpaved county roads within Sheldon Refuge. In accordance with Nevada 

statute (NRS 490.090), the operation of OHVs on public land, trails, ways, or unpaved 

county roads is authorized unless prohibited by a governmental entity having jurisdiction. 

The Service included designation of these roads for public vehicle use, including the use of 

OHVs, under each alternative evaluated in the CCP/EIS, which is consistent with state 

statute. 

64. Comment: A number of comments stated the system of vehicle routes proposed under the 

three alternatives evaluated were essentially the same, and therefore the CCP/EIS did not 

include an adequate range of management alternatives. Other alternatives for a much smaller 

number of roads and routes should have been evaluated. 

Response: As stated in Section 4.1.5.3, the Service estimates 850 miles of roads, routes, and 

trails currently exist within Sheldon Refuge. This includes 134 miles of state and county 

roads authorized by rights-of-way, several hundred miles of trails within proposed 

wilderness, remnants of abandoned roads rarely used, and closed roads. Furthermore, a large 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-19 

number of routes and roads provide access for private property, mining claims, and refuge 

administration—not for public use. 

The no action alternative included only roads and routes where vehicle use would be 

consistent with existing rights for use and access, proposed wilderness, and other closure to 

vehicle use, and that provide access for wildlife-dependent public use of Sheldon Refuge. 

The 134 miles of state and county roads, which are subject to existing rights, were designated 

under all alternatives. Therefore, of the 850 miles of roads, routes, and trails within Sheldon 

Refuge, only 231 miles were evaluated under all three alternatives. 

As stated in the rationale for Objective 8n, alternatives were developed based upon 

evaluation of a number of criteria—including erosion potential, habitats sensitive to 

disturbance and/or important for wildlife (e.g., riparian areas, aspen stands, mountain 

mahogany stands, and sage-grouse leks), wildlife disturbance, impacts to cultural and historic 

resources, natural appearance and revegetation, route restoration or modifications needed to 

minimize resource impacts, impacts to other recreation opportunities, redundancy with other 

routes, and connection to other routes (including trailheads). Based on an evaluation of each 

route using these criteria, fewer routes were proposed in the preferred alternative and 

Alternative 3 than in the no action alternative. It is the Service’s opinion the three 

alternatives evaluated provide a reasonable range of alternatives that include an appropriate 

balance between protecting and conserving wildlife and their habitats while maintaining 

adequate access to facilitate compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

65. Comment: A few comments stated the compatibility determinations prepared in conjunction 

with the Draft CCP/EIS do not adequately address road density or vehicle disturbance 

impacts from the Service’s preferred alternative. These comments also questioned how the 

Service determined that impacts under the preferred alternative would be less than under the 

no action alternative and requested additional justification for finding vehicle access under 

the preferred alternative compatible with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge. 

Response: Impacts from roads and motorized vehicle use to fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats were discussed in Section 6.1.2.1 of the Draft CCP/EIS. The discussion included an 

evaluation of direct and indirect impacts both from the network of roads and vehicle use of 

roads. Alternatives were developed based upon evaluation of several criteria listed in the 

rationale for Objective 8n by a planning team with more than 70 years of professional 

experience and first-hand knowledge of routes and vehicle use within Sheldon Refuge. It is 

the Service’s opinion that the preferred alternative provides an appropriate amount of vehicle 

access to support wildlife-dependent recreation, which is compatible with the purposes for 

Sheldon Refuge and is consistent with Service policies and directives. 

Effects from the action alternatives are evaluated in relation to those anticipated from the no 

action alternative. Because the preferred alternative proposes fewer roads, re-routing of 

roads out of sensitive areas, and seasonal closures to protect resources, and additional signage 

to inform the public of regulations and closures when compared to the no action alternative, 

we expect fewer impacts. In response to these and other comments, descriptions of public 

use activities and associated impacts in the Draft CCP/EIS have been incorporated into the 

appropriate final compatibility determinations for Sheldon Refuge, which are included with 

the Final CCP/EIS as Appendix D. 

66. Comment: One comment stated that impacts from the proposed road system to wilderness 

character were not addressed in the Draft CCP/EIS. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-20 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

Response: Section 6.6 includes an analysis of impacts to wilderness character from each 

alternative, including impacts to naturalness, solitude, and opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined recreation from roads and road use. 

67. Comment: One comment asserted that impacts from OHVs are greater than those from 

other vehicles, and therefore should be specifically addressed in the compatibility 

determinations. 

Response: Because OHV use would not be allowed off-road, the effects from OHVs were 

considered similar to those from other motorized vehicles when analyzing impacts. 

Therefore, we did not differentiate between impacts from OHVs and other vehicles when 

evaluating the alternatives in the CCP/EIS. 

68. Comment: One comment suggested using concessionaires to provide vehicle access for 

visitors, especially to sensitive areas. 

Response: Roads in sensitive areas and the amount of vehicle use occurring within Sheldon 

Refuge were considered in development of the alternatives and in the analysis of associated 

impacts included in the CCP/EIS. Based on these analyses, it is the Service’s opinion that the 

amount of public vehicle use expected to occur on roads designated under the preferred 

alternative would have only minor, localized adverse impacts. If vehicle use exceeds these 

impacts in the future, the Service would consider additional actions, including limiting the 

number or type of vehicles or seasonal closure. 

69. Comment: One comment requested explanation of how wildlife migration corridors and 

influences of changing climate were considered in evaluation of the transportation 

management alternatives. 

Response: The impact of roads and vehicle use on wildlife migration corridors was 

discussed on page 6-17 of the Draft CCP/EIS. 

70. Comment: Numerous comments requested the Service impose greater penalties and 

increase law enforcement efforts to deter off-road driving and other violations. 

Response: The Service anticipates that increased public outreach, better signage for 

designated routes, detailed maps, and increased law enforcement as proposed under the 

preferred alternative would reduce off-road driving and other violations. Changes to fines 

and penalties for violations of Federal regulations and laws are outside the scope of the CCP. 

71. Comment: One comment stated that because the State of Nevada already requires the 

registration of OHVs, the Service’s proposal to require registration of OHVs for use on 

refuge roads is not necessary. 

Response: We acknowledge the State of Nevada does require registration of OHVs. 

However, this registration system had not been implemented at the time the Draft CCP/EIS 

was finalized. We have updated the preferred alternative to reflect recent funding and 

implementation of the Nevada OHV registration program, and will allow use of registered 

OHVs on designated vehicle routes. 

72. Comment: One comment expressed additional concern about potential impacts to 

pronghorn and mule deer in the area of Catnip Mountain and impacts to sensitive mountain 

mahogany and brush habitats on Blowout Mountain. The comment suggested the Service not 

recommend these routes be re-opened to vehicle use if the Service’s wilderness 

recommendation under Alternative 2 is eventually accepted and approved. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-21 

Response: Impacts to wildlife and sensitive habitats were noted in our evaluation of both 

routes identified by the comment, and we identified several segments of these routes that 

would require realignment, rerouting, and/or rehabilitation before vehicle use could be 

allowed. We agree that continuing to allow only existing access on foot and by horseback to 

Catnip Mountain and Blowout Mountain would minimize impacts to the wildlife species and 

sensitive habitats identified and would avoid additional impacts from vehicle use such as 

increased soil erosion and rutting. In response to the comment, Alternative 2 (the Service’s 

preferred alternative) has been modified and no longer proposes these routes be re-opened. 

Because both routes are currently within areas proposed for wilderness designation, this 

change does not affect roads that would be designated open for public use as part of the 

Service’s final decision. 

Public Use 

73. Comment: One comment stated the Service should give equal consideration to the desires of 

all Americans instead of catering to hunters in developing management objectives. 

Response: Our priority to conserve wildlife for the benefit of all Americans requires all 

public uses, including sport hunting, must first be determined compatible. The compatibility 

determinations for sport hunting and commercial guiding within Sheldon Refuge include a 

number of regulations, restrictions, and limitations to ensure those uses do not substantially 

interfere with other wildlife-dependent public uses and do not materially interfere with or 

detract from fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes for 

Sheldon Refuge. 

74. Comment: Several comments stated the Service does not have jurisdiction to regulate 

hunting or fishing within Sheldon Refuge. 

Response: Considering the intent and actions of Congress (i.e., the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act, as amended [16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 668dd-ee]) and 

Department of Interior and Service regulations and policies (e.g., 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] 24), the Service maintains the authority to manage wildlife species, set 

hunting and fishing regulations, and open or close public uses on National Wildlife Refuge 

System lands provided we do so to the extent practicable and consistent with state laws, 

regulations, and management plans. Service authorities notwithstanding, we fully intend to 

continue close cooperation with NDOW to maintain consistency whenever possible between 

state and Federal regulations for public uses occurring within Sheldon Refuge and when 

promulgating Federal regulations for hunting and fishing. 

75. Comment: Some comments asserted the current regulations for hunting, fishing, and 

trapping within Sheldon Refuge, and particularly the fact that Service regulations do not 

allow hunting and trapping opportunities for mountain lion, cottontail rabbits, jackrabbits, 

badgers, skunks, fox, coyote, and bobcat, are inconsistent with regulations for the rest of 

Nevada, which do allow hunting and are therefore inconsistent with the Refuge Improvement 

Act and should be authorized. 

Response: Federal and state regulations for hunting, fishing, and trapping within Sheldon 

Refuge are consistent. Nevada state regulation (NAC 504.340) states hunting, fishing, and 

trapping are authorized on designated areas within Sheldon Refuge pursuant to 50 CFR 32.47 

(Federal regulations for fishing and hunting within Sheldon Refuge). No areas within 

Sheldon Refuge have been designated for trapping. The Service will continue to closely 

coordinate with the State of Nevada to determine appropriate and compatible opportunities 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-22 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

for hunting, trapping, and fishing and to maintain consistency whenever possible between 

state and Federal regulations for public uses occurring within the Refuge and when 

promulgating Federal regulations for hunting and fishing within the Refuge. 

76. Comment: A number of comments requested hunting seasons and trapping opportunities for 

additional wildlife species be established for Sheldon Refuge. 

Response: Alternatives that established hunting and trapping seasons for additional wildlife 

species were considered, but were not evaluated in detail. As explained in Section 2.1.1 of 

the Draft CCP/EIS, additional wildlife species such as coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Felis 

rufus), or mountain lion (Felis concolor) may be used for sport hunting or trapping within a 

National Wildlife Refuge (50 CFR 31). However, key demographic data for these 

populations and the associated habitat requirements on the Refuge 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. The Service anticipates that information gathered to meet management 

objectives identified in the CCP would be sufficient to make such a compatibility 

determination in the future. 

77. Comment: Several comments requested the Service develop additional campgrounds or 

campground capacity (more campsites) to accommodate more use, including use by miners 

in Virgin Valley. Other comments requested the Service eliminate campgrounds from 

Sheldon Refuge altogether. 

Response: Campgrounds and campground capacity are maintained to facilitate and support 

the amount and types of public uses found compatible with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge; 

that is, we consider camping to be a secondary use that would be authorized only to the 

extent that it supports compatible wildlife-dependent public uses (such as hunting, fishing, 

wildlife photography, wildlife observation, environmental education, and environmental 

interpretation) or otherwise approved uses. The Service considers the current amount of 

wildlife-dependent public use, including overnight use, to be compatible with the purposes 

for Sheldon Refuge, and we do not anticipate that changes in these uses as proposed under 

the preferred alternative would require additional campgrounds or campground capacity. 

Mining claims and associated activities are considered economic uses. The Service does not 

consider public campgrounds to facilitate economic activities appropriate or compatible with 

the purposes for Sheldon Refuge. 

78. Comment: A few comments suggested the Virgin Valley Campground belongs to Humboldt 

County and is operated by the Service under a memorandum of understanding. 

Response: Virgin Valley Campground is owned and operated by the Service. Humboldt 

County provides limited funding to offset maintenance and administrative costs associated 

with operation of the campground. 

79. Comment: One comment suggested we consider a less expensive alternative under which 

we would not repair or replace facilities such as the visitor contact center at the Refuge 

Headquarters at Dufurrena, or repair the Catnip Reservoir dam. 

Response: Maintaining habitat suitable for Lahontan cutthroat trout at Catnip Reservoir was 

identified as a priority for management of Sheldon Refuge in Objective 3d for all 

alternatives. It is the opinion of both the Service and NDOW that repair or replacement of 

the Catnip Reservoir dam is necessary to meet this objective. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-23 

As a less expensive option, the no action alternative (Alternative 1) does not include costs 

associated with replacement or construction of several visitor facilities proposed in the 

Service’s preferred alternative. It is the Service’s opinion the converted mobile home that 

serves as the Refuge headquarters does not provide an appropriate or adequate space for 

visitor contact, and therefore should be replaced in order to manage public use and visitation 

and effectively interpret Refuge wildlife resources and priorities. 

80. Comment: One comment suggested strategies to manage public use and minimize impacts 

at particular campgrounds and campsites. 

Response: The purpose for the CCP is to provide overall long-term management direction. 

Specific management strategies for relocation of campgrounds, improvement of campground 

facilities, and protection of sensitive sites will be developed as part of the Visitor Services 

step-down plan. The Service acknowledges the comments and will incorporate them as 

appropriate into the Visitor Services step-down plan. 

81. Comment: One comment stated collection of rocks and mineral should not be limited to 

surface finds. 

Response: Only surface collection of rocks and minerals within Sheldon Refuge has been 

found compatible with the purposes for Sheldon Refuge. Surface disturbance or excavation 

would be in violation of Federal regulations (50 CFR 34.47 and 50 CFR 27.61 through 27.65) 

and is therefore not appropriate and incompatible. 

Wilderness Recommendations and Management 

82. Comment: Numerous comments expressed support or opposition for the alternatives, 

including the Service’s preferred alternative to recommend 341,495 acres within Sheldon 

Refuge for designation as wilderness. 

Response: The Service acknowledges and appreciates these comments. 

83. Comment: A number of comments objected to prior establishment of proposed wilderness 

areas and the determination for wilderness study areas (WSAs) suitable for designation in the 

Draft CCP/EIS. Comments stated that management to preserve wilderness character limits 

the Service’s ability to meet the purposes for Sheldon Refuge. 

Response: Congress has determined the designation of wilderness within units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System is appropriate, and Service policy requires a review during 

the comprehensive conservation planning process to identify those areas within the Refuge 

that are suitable for future wilderness designation. Through past proposals, the director of the 

USFWS, the Secretary of the Interior, and the president have already determined that areas 

within Sheldon Refuge meet the requirements to be designated as wilderness. The Service is 

committed to managing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats within Sheldon Refuge to 

fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the purposes for Sheldon Refuge, 

and, where applicable, wilderness stewardship.

Service policy and proposed management direction for wilderness in the Draft CCP/EIS do 

not automatically prohibit the use of management tools within proposed wilderness or WSAs. 

As stated in the Draft CCP (pages 2-6, 2-9, and Appendix G), the Service has allowed, and 

intends to continue allowing, a variety of otherwise prohibited uses within proposed 

wilderness areas and WSAs of Sheldon Refuge to meet Refuge objectives (see Appendix J, 

pages J-7 through J-9). Service policy allows for uses otherwise prohibited by the 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-24 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

Wilderness Act and Service Wilderness Stewardship Policy when those activities are 

determined to be the minimum necessary for meeting the purposes for Sheldon Refuge, 

including wilderness purposes. 

84. Comment: Several comments suggested the Service include alternatives that would remove 

the current wilderness proposal, recommend no areas be designated as wilderness, or 

recommend all acres found suitable be designated as wilderness. 

Response: As noted in Section 2.1.1 of the Final CCP/EIS, alternatives that recommend no 

areas be designated and that recommend all suitable areas be designated were considered but 

were not evaluated in detail. As noted in Section 5.6.5, it is Service policy that all proposed 

wilderness areas be managed consistently with policy and guidance for designated wilderness 

until further action is taken by Congress. Removal of the current wilderness proposal is 

outside the scope of the CCP. 

85. Comment: Several comments requested clarification or justification for changes, 

adjustments, or exclusion of areas previously proposed for designation or previously found 

suitable for wilderness study from the wilderness recommendations under the preferred 

alternative. 

Response: Within certain areas of Sheldon Refuge, we propose to implement a variety of 

management actions that are intended to alter natural conditions and that would require 

repeated and noticeable manipulation of habitats. While some areas possess wilderness 

character, the Service does not consider the intensive management proposed to be consistent 

with preserving wilderness character, and therefore recommends they not be designated as 

wilderness at this time. For other areas, the preferred alternative reflects wilderness 

boundaries included in the original 1974 recommendation submitted by the Service, which 

were revised in the final proposal submitted to Congress. A summary of the 2011 wilderness 

inventory and review was included as Appendix F to the Draft CCP/EIS. The summary 

includes explanation and justification for the Service’s wilderness recommendation for lands 

found suitable and designated as WSAs during the wilderness review process. The entire 

2011 wilderness inventory and review was provided for public review in conjunction with the 

Draft CCP/EIS, and is available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/NV/docssheldon.htm. 

86. Comment: One comment requested minimum requirement analyses be included with the 

Final CCP/EIS for activities such as wildfire suppression, law enforcement, habitat 

protection, habitat restoration, or new structures and developments. 

Response: Suppression of wildfire (and other activities such as the pursuit of dangerous 

criminals) is typically considered an emergency action necessary to protect human life or 

property. During such emergencies, Service policy allows the refuge manager to determine 

and implement the action(s) necessary to effectively address the issue without conducting a 

minimum requirement analysis. As stated under Objective 7a (page 2-48 of the Draft 

CCP/EIS), the Service intends to prepare a formal minimum requirements and minimum tool 

analysis to evaluate pre-approval for generally prohibited uses during wildfire suppression. 

For other actions not specifically addressed as part of the CCP, the Service will continue to 

consider activities and otherwise prohibited uses within proposed wilderness on a case-bycase basis and allow such activities when determined to be the minimum management action 

necessary. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix N. Response to Comments N-25 

In response to comments, we have included additional wilderness policy excerpts in 

Appendix J of the Final CCP and have clarified under Objective 7a how emergency activities 

(including those related to fire suppression and law enforcement) are conducted and approved 

within proposed wilderness areas. 

87. Comment: One comment requested the Service allow mountain bikes within proposed 

wilderness because they have less impact than horseback riding. 

Response: One purpose for wilderness is to provide opportunities for primitive recreation. 

For this reason mechanical transport such as mountain bikes are prohibited within proposed 

wilderness areas (Service Manual 610 FW 1.16.B and 610 FW 1.5.L). We allow primitive 

transport such as pack and saddle stock within Sheldon Refuge consistent with the 

compatibility determinations included in Appendix D of the Final CCP/EIS.

88. Comment: One comment stated wilderness reduces public and recreation use and denies 

recreation opportunity. 

Response: One of the stated purposes for wilderness is to provide opportunities for solitude 

or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Public uses and recreation are subject to 

refuge-wide regulations, and the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS does not propose to restrict or 

limit the amount of visitation or types of access within proposed wilderness differently from 

other backcountry areas of Sheldon Refuge. Primitive recreation is but one type of 

opportunity provided in managing for a spectrum of compatible recreation opportunities 

within Sheldon Refuge; the CCP allows for semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive 

motorized, roaded, and rural recreation opportunities (refer to Appendix L of the Final 

CCP/EIS). 

Landscape-level Planning and Land Acquisition 

89. Comment: A number of comments requested the Service consider acquisition or 

conservation easements for lands outside the Sheldon Refuge administrative boundary. 

Response: As stated in Section 1.8.1.2, inclusion of lands outside the Sheldon Refuge 

boundary was evaluated and determined to be outside the scope of the CCP/EIS. 

90. Comment: Some comments suggested private lands within Refuge boundary should be 

prioritized for acquisition as part of Sheldon Refuge. 

Response: Management direction for Sheldon Refuge as specified under Objective 6e is to 

acquire inholdings from willing sellers through purchase or exchange. Due to the small 

number and size of inholdings within Sheldon Refuge, the Service has determined there 

would be little long-term benefit from prioritizing these parcels for acquisition. 

Miscellaneous Comments 

91. Comment: One comment requested the Service inventory all structures, facilities, and 

general improvements for damage before the [Ruby] pipeline project is released from any 

commitment they may have. If any damage associated with pipeline construction has 

occurred on Sheldon Refuge, the builders should be held accountable. 

Response: An EIS was prepared for pipeline construction with supplemental NEPA 

planning and a Finding of No Significant Impact. A Special Use Permit was issued by the 

Service in 2010 for road access and associated activities occurring within Sheldon Refuge. 

Copies of the decision document, including stipulations for road maintenance, signage, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

N-26 Appendix N. Response to Comments 

invasive species control, and monitoring by Ruby Pipeline LLC are available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/sheldonhartmtn/sheldon/rod.html. 

Additional action related to pipeline construction is outside the scope of the CCP/EIS.

Editorial Comments 

92. Comment: Page 1-16 incorrectly states rainbow trout have been stocked to Catnip Reservoir 

Response: The reference to stocking of rainbow trout in Catnip Reservoir has been removed 

from the Final CCP/EIS. 

93. Comment: Lahontan cutthroat trout in Catnip Reservoir are subject to special rule under 

section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, but are not considered an experimental 

population as stated in the Draft CCP/EIS. 

Response: Wording in the Final CCP/EIS has been edited to reflect the special rule for 

Lahontan cutthroat trout in Catnip Reservoir, which authorizes take in accordance with state 

laws. 

94. Comment: Acreage figures in the Draft CCP/EIS for wilderness study areas do not match. 

Response: The document has been reviewed and the figures reconciled. 

95. Comment: Dates for Last Supper Cave differ on pages 5-17 and 5-22. 

Response: The document has been reviewed and the figures reconciled. 

96. Comment: Due to the time elapsed, the phrase “recently” should be removed from the 

reference to the status of the cave collection on page 5-22. 

Response: Change has been made.

97. Comment: There is no reference to definitions of rock art, cairns, rings, walls on page 5-23. 

These structures can have spiritual connections (see Haynal 2000 and Chartkoff 1983). 

Response: Reference to spiritual connection and citation has been included in the Final 

CCP/EIS. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-1 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program 

O.1 Background 

IPM is an interdisciplinary approach utilizing methods to prevent, eliminate, contain, and/or control 

pest species in concert with other management activities on refuge lands and waters to achieve 

wildlife and habitat management goals and objectives. IPM is also a scientifically based, adaptive 

management process where available scientific information and best professional judgment of the 

refuge staff as well as other resource experts would be used to identify and implement appropriate 

management strategies that can be modified and/or changed over time to ensure effective, sitespecific management of pest species to achieve desired outcomes. In accordance with 43 CFR 

46.145, adaptive management would be particularly relevant where long-term impacts may be 

uncertain and future monitoring would be needed to make adjustments in subsequent implementation 

decisions. After a tolerable pest population (threshold) is determined considering achievement of 

refuge resource objectives and the ecology of pest species, one or more methods, or combinations 

thereof, would be selected that are feasible, efficacious, and most protective of non-target resources, 

including native species (fish, wildlife, and plants), and Service personnel, Service authorized agents, 

volunteers, and the public. Staff time and available funding would be considered when determining 

feasibility/practicality of various treatments. 

IPM techniques to address pests are presented as CCP strategies (refer to Sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.5 of 

the Sheldon Refuge CCP/EIS) in an adaptive management context to achieve refuge resource 

objectives. In order to satisfy requirements for IPM planning as identified in the Director’s Memo 

(dated September 9, 2004) entitled Integrated Pest Management Plans and Pesticide Use Proposals: 

Updates, Guidance, and an Online Database, the following elements of an IPM program have been 

incorporated into this CCP: 

 Habitat and/or wildlife objectives that identify pest species and appropriate thresholds to 

indicate the need for and successful implementation of IPM techniques; and 

 Monitoring before and/or after treatment to assess progress toward achieving objectives 

including pest thresholds. 

Where pesticides would be necessary to address pests, this Appendix provides a structured procedure 

to evaluate potential effects of proposed uses involving ground-based applications to refuge 

biological resources and environmental quality in accordance with effects analyses presented in 

Section 4.0 (Environmental Consequences) of this CCP/EIS. Only pesticide uses that likely would 

cause minor, temporary, or localized effects to refuge biological resources and environmental quality 

with appropriate BMPs, where necessary, would be allowed for use on the refuge. 

This Appendix does not describe the more detailed process to evaluate potential effects associated 

with aerial applications of pesticides. However, the basic framework to assess potential effects to 

refuge biological resources and environmental quality from aerial application of pesticides would be 

similar to the process described in this Appendix for ground-based treatments of other pesticides. 

O.2 Pest Management Laws and Policies 

In accordance with Service policy 569 FW 1 (Integrated Pest Management), plant, invertebrate, and 

vertebrate pests on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System can be controlled to ensure balanced 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-2 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

wildlife and fish populations in support of refuge-specific wildlife and habitat management 

objectives. Pest control on federal (refuge) lands and waters also is authorized under the following 

legal mandates: 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 668dd668ee); 

 Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 USC 7701 et seq.); 

 Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (7 USC 7781-7786, Subtitle E); 

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996 (7 USC 136-136y); 

 National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 USC 4701); 

 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 USC 4701); 

 Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (7 USC 136); 

 Executive Order 13148, Section 601(a); 

 Executive Order 13112; and 

 Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 USC 426-426c, 46 Stat. 1468). 

Pests are defined as “...living organisms that may interfere with the site-specific purposes, 

operations, or management objectives or that jeopardize human health or safety” from Department 

policy 517 DM 1 (Integrated Pest Management Policy). Similarly, 569 FW 1 defines pests as 

“...invasive plants and introduced or native organisms, that may interfere with achieving our 

management goals and objectives on or off our lands, or that jeopardize human health or safety.” 

517 DM 1 also defines an invasive species as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under 

consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or 

harm to human health.” Throughout the remainder of this CCP/EIS, the terms pest and invasive 

species are used interchangeably because both can prevent/impede achievement of refuge wildlife 

and habitat objectives and/or degrade environmental quality. 

In general, control of pests (vertebrate or invertebrate) on the refuge would conserve and protect the 

nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources as well as maintain environmental quality. From 569 FW 

1, animal or plant species, which are considered pests, may be managed if the following criteria are 

met: 

 Threat to human health and well being or private property, the acceptable level of damage by 

the pest has been exceeded, or State or local government has designated the pest as noxious; 

 Detrimental to resource objectives as specified in a refuge resource management plan (e.g., 

comprehensive conservation plan, habitat management plan), if available; and 

 Control would not conflict with attainment of resource objectives or the purposes for which 

the refuge was established. 

The specific justifications for pest management activities on the refuge are the following: 

 Protect human health and well being; 

 Prevent substantial damage to important to refuge resources; 

 Protect newly introduced or re-establish native species; 

 Control non-native (exotic) species in order to support existence for populations of native 

species; 

 Prevent damage to private property; and 

 Provide the public with quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-3 

In accordance with Service policy 620 FW 1 (Habitat Management Plans), there are additional 

management directives regarding invasive species found on the refuge: 

 “We are prohibited by Executive Order, law, and policy from authorizing, funding, or 

carrying out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive 

species in the United States or elsewhere.” 

 “Manage invasive species to improve or stabilize biotic communities to minimize 

unacceptable change to ecosystem structure and function and prevent new and expanded 

infestations of invasive species. Conduct refuge habitat management activities to prevent, 

control, or eradicate invasive species...” 

Animal species damaging/destroying federal property and/or detrimental to the management program 

of a refuge may be controlled as described in 50 CFR 31.14 (Official Animal Control Operations). 

For example, the incidental removal of beaver damaging refuge infrastructure (e.g., clogging with 

subsequent damaging of water control structures) and/or negatively affecting habitats (e.g., removing 

woody species from existing or restored riparian) managed on refuge lands may be conducted 

without a pest control proposal. We recognize beavers are native species and most of their activities 

or refuge lands represent a natural process beneficial for maintaining wetland habitats. Exotic nutria, 

whose denning and burrowing activities in wetland dikes causes cave-ins and breaches, can be 

controlled using the most effective techniques considering site-specific factors without a pest control 

proposal. Along with the loss of quality wetland habitats associated with breaching of 

impoundments, the safety of refuge staffs and public (e.g. auto tour routes) driving on structurally 

compromised levees and dikes can be threaten by sudden and unexpected cave-ins. 

Trespass and feral animals also may be controlled on refuge lands. Based upon 50 CFR 28.43 

(Destruction of Dogs and Cats), dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife refuge and 

observed in the act of killing, injuring, harassing or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed of 

in the interest of public safety and protection of the wildlife. Feral animals should be disposed by the 

most humane method(s) available and in accordance with relevant Service directives (including 

Executive Order 11643). Disposed wildlife specimens may be donated or loaned to public 

institutions. Donation or loans of resident wildlife species will only be made after securing State 

approval (50 CFR 30.11 [Donation and Loan of Wildlife Specimens]). Surplus wildlife specimens 

may be sold alive or butchered, dressed and processed subject to federal and state laws and 

regulations (50 CFR 30.12 [Sale of Wildlife Specimens]).

O.3 Strategies 

To fully embrace IPM as identified in 569 FW 1, the following strategies, where applicable, would 

be carefully considered on the refuge for each pest species: 

 Prevention. This would be the most effective and least expensive long-term management 

option for pests. It encompasses methods to prevent new introductions or the spread of the 

established pests to un-infested areas. It requires identifying potential routes of invasion to 

reduce the likelihood of infestation. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) 

planning can be used determine if current management activities on a refuge may introduce 

and/or spread invasive species in order to identify appropriate BMPs for prevention. See 

http://www.haccp-nrm.org/ for more information about HACCP planning. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-4 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free or weed-free seeds or fill; 

exclusion methods (e.g., barriers) and/or sanitation methods (e.g., wash stations) to prevent 

re-introductions by various mechanisms including vehicles, personnel, livestock, and horses. 

Because invasive species are frequently the first to establish newly disturbed sites, prevention 

would require a reporting mechanism for early detection of new pest occurrences with quick 

response to eliminate any new satellite pest populations. Prevention would require 

consideration of the scale and scope of land management activities that may promote pest 

establishment within un-infested areas or promote reproduction and spread of existing 

populations. Along with preventing initial introduction, prevention would involve halting the 

spread of existing infestations to new sites (Mullin et al. 2000). The primary reason for 

prevention would be to keep pest-free lands or waters from becoming infested. Executive 

Order 11312 emphasizes the priority for prevention with respect to managing pests. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests on refuge 

lands: 

o Before beginning ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, scraping), inventory and 

prioritize pest infestations in project operating areas and along access routes. Refuge 

staff would identify pest species on-site or within reasonably expected potential 

invasion vicinity. Where possible, the refuge staff would begin project activities in 

un-infested areas before working in pest-infested areas. 

o The refuge staff would locate and use pest-free project staging areas. They would 

avoid or minimize travel through pest-infested areas, or restrict to those periods 

when spread of seed or propagules of invasive plants would be least likely. 

o The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when appropriate, identify 

sanitation sites where equipment can be cleaned of pests. Where possible, the refuge 

staff would clean equipment before entering lands at on-refuge approved cleaning 

site(s). This practice does not pertain to vehicles traveling frequently in and out of 

the project area that will remain on roadways. Seeds and plant parts of pest plants 

would need to be collected, where practical. The refuge staff would remove mud, 

dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before moving it into a project area. 

o The refuge staff would clean all equipment, before leaving the project site, if 

operating in areas infested with pests. The refuge staff would determine the need 

for, and when appropriate, identify sanitation sites where equipment can be cleaned.

o Refuge staffs, their authorized agents, and refuge volunteers would, where possible, 

inspect, remove, and properly dispose of seed and parts of invasive plants found on 

their clothing and equipment. Proper disposal means bagging the seeds and plant 

parts and then properly discarding of them (e.g., incinerating).

o The refuge staff would evaluate options, including closure, to restrict the traffic on 

sites with on-going restoration of desired vegetation. The refuge staff would 

revegetate disturbed soil (except travel ways on surfaced projects) to optimize plant 

establishment for each specific site. Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, 

planting, seeding, fertilization, liming, and weed-free mulching as necessary. The 

refuge staff would use native material, where appropriate and feasible. The refuge 

staff would use certified weed-free or weed-seed-free hay or straw where certified 

materials are reasonably available. 

o The refuge staff would provide information, training, and appropriate pest 

identification materials to permit holders and recreational visitors. The refuge staff 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-5 

would educate them about pest identification, biology, impacts, and effective 

prevention measures.

o The refuge staff would require grazing permittees to utilize preventative measures 

for their livestock while on refuge lands. 

o The refuge staff would inspect borrow material for invasive plants prior to use and 

transport onto and/or within refuge lands. 

o The refuge staff would consider invasive plants in planning for road maintenance 

activities. 

o The refuge staff would restrict off-road travel to designated routes. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests into 

refuge waters: 

o The refuge staff would inspect boats (including air boats), trailers, and other boating 

equipment. Where possible, the refuge staff would remove any visible plants, 

animals, or mud before leaving any waters or boat launching facilities. Where 

possible, the refuge staff would drain water from motor, live well, bilge, and transom 

wells while on land before leaving the site. If possible, the refuge staff would wash 

and dry boats, downriggers, anchors, nets, floors of boats, propellers, axles, trailers, 

and other boating equipment to kill pests not visible at the boat launch. 

o Where feasible, the refuge staff would maintain a l00-foot buffer of aquatic pest-free 

clearance around boat launches and docks or quarantine areas when cleaning around 

culverts, canals, or irrigation sites. Where possible, the refuge staff would inspect 

and clean equipment before moving to new sites or one project area to another. 

These prevention methods to minimize/eliminate the introduction and/or spread of pests were 

taken verbatim or slightly modified from Appendix E of US Forest Service (2005). 

 Mechanical/Physical Methods. These methods would remove and destroy, disrupt the 

growth of, or interfere with the reproduction of pest species. For plants species, these 

treatments can be accomplished by hand, hand tool (manual), or power tools (mechanical) 

and include pulling, grubbing, digging, tilling/disking, cutting, swathing, grinding, sheering, 

girdling, mowing, and mulching of the pest plants. 

For animal species, Service employees or their authorized agents could use 

mechanical/physical methods (including trapping) to control pests as a refuge management 

activity. Based upon 50 CFR 31.2, trapping can be used on a refuge to reduce surplus 

wildlife populations for a “balanced conservation program” in accordance with federal or 

state laws and regulations. In some cases, non-lethally trapped animals would be relocated to 

off-refuge sites with prior approval from the state. 

Each of these tools would be efficacious to some degree and applicable to specific situations. 

In general, mechanical controls can effectively control annual and biennial pest plants. 

However, to control perennial plants, the root system has to be destroyed or it would resprout 

and continue to grow and develop. Mechanical controls are typically not capable of 

destroying a perennial plant’s root system. Although some mechanical tools (e.g., disking, 

plowing) may damage root systems, they may stimulate regrowth producing a denser plant 

population that may aid in the spread depending upon the target species (e.g., Canada thistle). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-6 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

In addition, steep terrain and soil conditions would be major factors that can limit the use of 

many mechanical control methods. 

Some mechanical control methods (e.g., mowing), which would be used in combination with 

herbicides, can be a very effective technique to control perennial species. For example, 

mowing perennial plants followed sequentially by treating the plant regrowth with a systemic 

herbicide often would improve the efficacy of the herbicide compared to herbicide treatment 

only. 

 Cultural Methods. These methods would involve manipulating habitat to increase pest 

mortality by reducing its suitability to the pest. Cultural methods would include water-level 

manipulation, mulching, winter cover crops, changing planting dates to minimize pest 

impact, prescribed burning (facilitate revegetation, increase herbicide efficacy, and remove 

litter to assist in emergence of desirable species), flaming with propane torches, trap crops, 

crop rotations that would include non-susceptible crops, moisture management, addition of 

beneficial insect habitat, reducing clutter, proper trash disposal, planting or seeding desirable 

species to shade or out-compete invasive plants, applying fertilizer to enhance desirable 

vegetation, prescriptive grazing, and other habitat alterations. 

 Biological Control Agents. Classical biological control would involve the deliberate 

introduction and management of natural enemies (parasites, predators, or pathogens) to 

reduce pest populations. Many of the most ecologically or economically damaging pest 

species in the United States originated in foreign countries. These newly introduced pests, 

which are free from natural enemies found in their country or region of origin, may have a 

competitive advantage over cultivated and native species. This competitive advantage often 

allows introduced species to flourish, and they may cause widespread economic damage to 

crops or out compete and displace native vegetation. Once the introduced pest species 

population reaches a certain level, traditional methods of pest management may be cost 

prohibitive or impractical. Biological controls typically are used when these pest populations 

have become so widespread that eradication or effective control would be difficult or no 

longer practical. 

Biological control has advantages as well as disadvantages. Benefits would include reducing 

pesticide usage, host specificity for target pests, long-term self-perpetuating control, low 

cost/acre, capacity for searching and locating hosts, synchronizing biological control agents 

to hosts’ life cycles, and the unlikelihood that hosts will develop resistance to agents. 

Disadvantages would include the following: limited availability of agents from their native 

lands, the dependence of control on target species density, slow rate at which control occurs, 

biotype matching, the difficulty and expense of conflicts over control of the target pest, and 

host specificity when host populations are low. 

A reduction in target species populations from biological controls is typically a slow process, 

and efficacy can be highly variable. It may not work well in a particular area although it does 

work well in other areas. Biological control agents would require specific environmental 

conditions to survive over time. Some of these conditions are understood; whereas, others 

are only partially understood or not at all. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-7 

Biological control agents would not eradicate a target pest. When using biological control 

agents, residual levels of the target pest typically are expected; the agent population level or 

survival would be dependent upon the density of its host. After the pest population 

decreases, the population of the biological control agent would decrease correspondingly. 

This is a natural cycle. Some pest populations (e.g., invasive plants) would tend to persist for 

several years after a biological control agent becomes established due to seed reserves in the 

soil, inefficiencies in the agents search behavior, and the natural lag in population buildup of 

the agent. 

The full range of pest groups potentially found on refuge lands and waters would include 

diseases, invertebrates (insects, mollusks), vertebrates and invasive plants (the most common 

group). Often it is assumed that biological control would address many if not most of these 

pest problems. There are several well-documented success stories of biological control of 

invasive weed species in the Pacific Northwest including Mediterranean sage, St. Johnswort 

(Klamath weed) and tansy ragwort. Emerging success stories include Dalmatian toadflax, 

diffuse knapweed, leafy spurge, purple loosestrife and yellow star thistle. However, 

historically, each new introduction of a biological control agent in the United States has only 

about a 30% success rate (Coombs et al 2004). Refer to Coombs et. al (2004) for the status 

of biological control agents for invasive plants in the Pacific Northwest. 

Introduced species without desirable close relatives in the United States would generally be 

selected as biological controls. Natural enemies that are restricted to one or a few closely 

related plants in their country of origin are targeted as biological controls (Center et al. 1997, 

Hasan and Ayres 1990). 

The refuge staff would ensure introduced agents are approved by the applicable authorities. 

Except for a small number of formulated biological control products registered by USEPA 

under FIFRA, most biological control agents are regulated by the US Department of 

Agriculture (USDA)-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (APHIS-PPQ). State departments of agriculture and, in some cases, county 

agricultural commissioners or weed districts, have additional approval authority. 

Federal permits (USDA-APHIS-PPQ Form 526) are required to import biocontrols agents 

from another state. Form 526 may be obtained by writing: 

USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support 

4700 River Road, Unit 113 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

or 

through the internet at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/bioligical/weedbio.html. 

The Service strongly supports the development, and legal and responsible use of appropriate, 

safe, and effective biological control agents for nuisance and non-indigenous or pest species. 

State and county agriculture departments may also be sources for biological control agents or 

they may have information about where biological control agents may be obtained. 

Commercial sources should have an Application and Permit to Move Live Plant Pests and 

Noxious Weeds (USDA-PPQ Form 226 USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Biological Assessment and 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-8 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Taxonomic Support, 4700 River Road, Unit 113, Riverdale, MD 20737) to release specific 

biological control agents in a state and/or county. Furthermore, certification regarding the 

biological control agent’s identity (genus, specific epithet, sub-species and variety) and purity 

(e.g., parasite free, pathogen free, and biotic and abiotic contaminants) should be specified in 

purchase orders. 

Biological control agents are subject to 7 RM 8 (Exotic Species Introduction and 

Management). In addition, the refuge staff would follow the International Code of Best 

Practice for Classical Biological Control of Weeds (http://sric.ucdavis.edu/exotic /exotic.htm) 

as ratified by delegates to the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, 

Bozeman, MT, July 9, 1999. This code identifies the following: 

o Release only approved biological control agents, 

o Use the most effective agents, 

o Document releases, and 

o Monitor for impact to the target pest, non-target species and the environment. 

Biological control agents formulated as pesticide products and registered by the USEPA 

(e.g., Bti) are also subject to PUP review and approval (see below). 

A record of all releases would be maintained with date(s), location(s), and environmental 

conditions of the release site(s); the identity, quantity, and condition of the biological control 

agents released; and other relevant data and comments such as weather conditions. 

Systematic monitoring to determine the establishment and effectiveness of the release is also 

recommended. 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control 

agents prepared by another federal agency, where the scope is relevant to evaluation of 

releases on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible source agencies for such NEPA 

documents include the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, National Park 

Service, US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the 

military services. It might be appropriate to incorporate by reference parts or all of existing 

document(s) from the review. Incorporating by reference (43 CFR 46.135) is a technique 

used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It also can reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA 

document, which only must identify the documents that are incorporated by reference. In 

addition, relevant portions must be summarized in the Service NEPA document to the extent 

necessary to provide the decision maker and public with an understanding of relevance of the 

referenced material to the current analysis. 

 Pesticides. The selective use of pesticides would be based upon pest ecology (including 

mode of reproduction), the size and distribution of its populations, site-specific conditions 

(e.g., soils, topography), known efficacy under similar site conditions, and the capability to 

utilize best management practices (BMPs) to reduce/eliminate potential effects to non-target 

species, sensitive habitats, and potential to contaminate surface and groundwater. All 

pesticide usage (pesticide, target species, application rate, and method of application) would 

comply with the applicable federal (FIFRA) and state regulations pertaining to pesticide use, 

safety, storage, disposal, and reporting. Before pesticides can be used to eradicate, control, or 

contain pests on refuge lands and waters, pesticide use proposals (PUPs) would be prepared 

and approved in accordance with 569 FW 1. PUP records would provide a detailed, time-, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-9 

site-, and target-specific description of the proposed use of pesticides on the refuge. All 

PUPs would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored in the Pesticide Use Proposal 

System (PUPS), which is a centralized database only accessible on the Service’s intranet 

(https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees would be authorized to access PUP 

records for a refuge in this database. 

Application equipment would be selected to provide site-specific delivery to target pests 

while minimizing/eliminating direct or indirect (e.g., drift) exposure to non-target areas and 

degradation of surface and groundwater quality. Where possible, target-specific equipment 

(e.g., backpack sprayer, wiper) would be used to treat target pests. Other target-specific 

equipment to apply pesticides would include soaked wicks or paint brushes for wiping 

vegetation and lances, hatchets, or syringes for direct injection into stems. Granular 

pesticides may be applied using seeders or other specialized dispensers. In contrast, aerial 

spraying (e.g., fixed wing or helicopter) would only be used where access is difficult 

(remoteness) and/or the size/distribution of infestations precludes practical use of groundbased methods. 

Because repeated use of one pesticide may allow resistant organisms to survive and 

reproduce, multiple pesticides with variable modes of action would be considered for 

treatments on refuge lands and waters. This is especially important if multiple applications 

within years and/or over a growing season likely would be necessary for habitat maintenance 

and restoration activities to achieve resource objectives. Integrated chemical and nonchemical controls also are highly effective, where practical, because pesticide-resistant 

organisms can be removed from the site. 

Cost may not be the primary factor in selecting a pesticide for use on a refuge. If the least 

expensive pesticide would potentially harm natural resources or people, then a different 

product would be selected, if available. The most efficacious pesticide available with the 

least potential to degrade environment quality (soils, surface water, and groundwater) as well 

as least potential effect to native species and communities of fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats would be acceptable for use on refuge lands in the context of an IPM approach. 

 Habitat Restoration/Maintenance. Restoration and/or proper maintenance of refuge 

habitats associated with achieving wildlife and habitat objectives would be essential for longterm prevention, eradication, or control (at or below threshold levels) of pests. Promoting 

desirable plant communities through the manipulation of species composition, plant density, 

and growth rate is an essential component of invasive plant management (Masters et al. 1996, 

Masters and Shelly 2001, Brooks et al. 2004). The following three components of succession 

could be manipulated through habitat maintenance and restoration: site availability, species 

availability, and species performance (Cox and Anderson 2004). Although a single method 

(e.g., herbicide treatment) may eliminate or suppress pest species in the short term, the 

resulting gaps and bare soil create niches that are conducive to further invasion by the species 

and/or other invasive plants. On degraded sites where desirable species are absent or in low 

abundance, revegetation with native/desirable grasses, forbs, and legumes may be necessary 

to direct and accelerate plant community recovery, and achieve site-specific objectives in a 

reasonable time frame. The selection of appropriate species for revegetation would be 

dependent on a number of factors including resource objectives and site-specific, abiotic 

factors (e.g., soil texture, precipitation/temperature regimes, and shade conditions). Seed 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-10 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

availability and cost, ease of establishment, seed production, and competitive ability also 

would be important considerations. 

O.4 Priorities for Treatments 

For many refuges, the magnitude (number, distribution, and sizes of infestations) of pest problems is 

too extensive and beyond the available capital resources to effectively address during any single field 

season. To manage pests in the refuge, it would be essential to prioritize treatment of infestations. 

Highest priority treatments would be focused on early detection and rapid response to eliminate 

infestations of new pests, if possible. This would be especially important for aggressive pests 

potentially impacting species, species groups, communities, and/or habitats associated refuge 

purpose(s), NWRS resources of concern (federally listed species, migratory birds, selected marine 

mammals, and interjurisdictional fish), and native species for maintaining/restoring biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

The next priority would be treating established pests that appear in one or more previously uninfested areas. Moody and Mack (1988) demonstrated through modeling that small, new outbreaks 

of invasive plants eventually would infest an area larger than the established, source population. 

They also found that control efforts focusing on the large, main infestation rather than the new, small 

satellites reduced the chances of overall success. The lowest priority would be treating large 

infestations (sometimes monotypic stands) of well-established pests. In this case, initial efforts 

would focus upon containment of the perimeter followed by work to control/eradicate the established 

infested area. If containment and/or control of a large infestation is not effective, then efforts would 

focus upon halting pest reproduction or managing source populations. Maxwell et al. (2009) found 

treating fewer populations that are sources represents an effective long-term strategy to reduce of 

total number of invasive populations and decreasing meta-population growth rates. 

Although state-listed noxious weeds would always of high priority for management, other pest 

species known to cause substantial ecological impact would also be considered. For example, 

cheatgrass may not be listed by a state as noxious, but it can greatly alter fire regimes in shrub steppe 

habitats resulting in large monotypic stands that displace native bunch grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Pest control would likely require a multi-year commitment from the refuge staff. Essential to the 

long-term success of pest management would be pre- and post-treatment monitoring, assessment of 

the successes and failures of treatments, and development of new approaches when proposed 

methods do not achieve desired outcomes. 

O.5 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

BMPs can minimize or eliminate possible effects associated with pesticide usage to non-target 

species and/or sensitive habitats as well as degradation of water quality from drift, surface runoff, or 

leaching. Based upon the Department of Interior Pesticide Use Policy (517 DM 1) and the Service 

Integrated Pest Management policy (569 FW 1), the use of applicable BMPs (where feasible) also 

would likely ensure that pesticide uses may not adversely affect federally listed species and/or their 

critical habitats through determinations made using the process described in 50 CFR part 402. 

The following are BMPs pertaining to mixing/handling and applying pesticides for all ground-based 

treatments of pesticides, which would be considered and utilized, where feasible, based upon targetand site-specific factors and time-specific environmental conditions. Although not listed below, the 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-11 

most important BMP to eliminate/reduce potential impacts to non-target resources would be an IPM 

approach to prevent, control, eradicate, and contain pests. 

O.5.1 Pesticide Handling and Mixing 

 As a precaution against spilling, spray tanks would not be left unattended during filling. 

 All pesticide containers would be triple rinsed and the rinsate would be used as water in the 

sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 All pesticide spray equipment would be properly cleaned. Where possible, rinsate would be 

used as part of the make-up water in the sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

 The refuge staff would triple rinse and recycle (where feasible) pesticide containers. 

 All unused pesticides would be properly discarded at a local “safe send” collection. 

 Pesticides and pesticide containers would be lawfully stored, handled, and disposed of in 

accordance with the label and in a manner safeguarding human health, fish, and wildlife and 

prevent soil and water contaminant. 

 The refuge staff would consider the water quality parameters (e.g., pH, hardness) that are 

important to ensure greatest efficacy where specified on the pesticide label. 

 All pesticide spills would be addressed immediately using procedures identified in the refuge 

spill response plan. 

O.5.2 Applying Pesticides 

 Pesticide treatments would only be conducted by or under the supervision of Service 

personnel and non-Service applicators with the appropriate, state or BLM certification to 

safely and effectively conduct these activities on refuge lands and waters. 

 The refuge staff would comply with all federal, state, and local pesticide use laws and 

regulations as well as Departmental, Service, and NWRS pesticide-related policies. For 

example, the refuge staff would use application equipment and apply rates for the specific 

pest(s) identified on the pesticide label as required under FIFRA. 

 Before each treatment season and prior to mixing or applying any product for the first time 

each season, all applicators would review the labels, MSDSs, and Pesticide Use Proposal 

(PUPs) for each pesticide, determining the target pest, appropriate mix rate(s), PPE, and other 

requirements listed on the pesticide label. 

 A 1-foot no-spray buffer from the water’s edge would be used, where applicable and where it 

does not detrimentally influence effective control of pest species. 

 Use low-impact herbicide application techniques (e.g., spot treatment, cut stump, oil basal, 

Thinvert system applications) rather than broadcast foliar applications (e.g., boom sprayer, 

other larger tank wand applications), where practical. 

 Use low-volume rather than high-volume foliar applications where low-impact methods 

above are not feasible or practical, to maximize herbicide effectiveness and ensure correct 

and uniform application rates. 

 Applicators would use and adjust spray equipment to apply the coarsest droplet size spectrum 

with optimal coverage of the target species while reducing drift. 

 Applicators would use the largest droplet size that results in uniform coverage. 

 Applicators would use drift reduction technologies such as low-drift nozzles, where possible. 

 Where possible, spraying would occur during low (average<7mph and preferably 3 to 5 mph) 

and consistent direction wind conditions with moderate temperatures (typically <85 oF). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-12 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

 Where possible, applicators would avoid spraying during inversion conditions (often 

associated with calm and very low wind conditions) that can cause large-scale herbicide drift 

to non-target areas. 

 Equipment would be calibrated regularly to ensure that the proper rate of pesticide is applied 

to the target area or species. 

 Spray applications would be made at the lowest height for uniform coverage of target pests to 

minimize/eliminate potential drift. 

 If windy conditions frequently occur during afternoons, spraying (especially boom 

treatments) would typically be conducted during early morning hours. 

 Spray applications would not be conducted on days with >30% forecast for rain within 6 

hours, except for pesticides that are rapidly rain fast (e.g., glyphosate in 1 hour) to 

minimize/eliminate potential runoff. 

 Where possible, applicators would use drift retardant adjuvants during spray applications, 

especially adjacent to sensitive areas. 

 Where possible, applicators would use a non-toxic dye to aid in identifying target area treated 

as well as potential over spray or drift. A dye can also aid in detecting equipment leaks. If a 

leak is discovered, the application would be stopped until repairs can be made to the sprayer. 

 For pesticide uses associated with cropland and facilities management, buffers, as 

appropriate, would be used to protect sensitive habitats, especially wetlands and other aquatic 

habitats. 

 When drift cannot be sufficiently reduced through altering equipment set up and application 

techniques, buffer zones may be identified to protect sensitive areas downwind of 

applications. The refuge staff would only apply adjacent to sensitive areas when the wind is 

blowing the opposite direction. 

 Applicators would utilize scouting for early detection of pests to eliminate unnecessary 

pesticide applications. 

 The refuge staff would consider timing of application so native plants are protected (e.g., 

senescence) while effectively treating invasive plants. 

 Rinsate from cleaning spray equipment after application would be recaptured and reused or 

applied to an appropriate pest plant infestation. 

 Application equipment (e.g., sprayer, ATV, tractor) would be thoroughly cleaned and PPE 

would be removed/disposed of on-site by applicators after treatments to eliminate the 

potential spread of pests to un-infested areas. 

O.6 Safety 

O.6.1 Personal Protective Equipment 

All applicators would wear the specific personal protective equipment (PPE) identified on the 

pesticide label. The appropriate PPE will be worn at all times during handling, mixing, and applying. 

PPE can include the following: disposable (e.g., Tyvek) or laundered coveralls; gloves (latex, 

rubber, or nitrile); rubber boots; and/or an NIOSH-approved respirator. Because exposure to 

concentrated product is usually greatest during mixing, extra care should be taken while preparing 

pesticide solutions. Persons mixing these solutions can be best protected if they wear long gloves, an 

apron, footwear, and a face shield. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-13 

Coveralls and other protective clothing used during an application would be laundered separately 

from other laundry items. Transporting, storing, handling, mixing and disposing of pesticide 

containers will be consistent with label requirements, USEPA and OSHA requirements, and Service 

policy. 

If a respirator is necessary for a pesticide use, then the following requirements would be met in 

accordance with Service safety policy: a written Respirator Program, fit testing, physical 

examination (including pulmonary function and blood work for contaminants), and proper storage of 

the respirator. 

O.6.2 Notification 

The restricted entry interval (REI) is the time period required after the application at which point 

someone may safely enter a treated area without PPE. Refuge staff, authorized management agents 

of the Service, volunteers, and members of the public who could be in or near a pesticide treated area 

within the stated re-entry time period on the label would be notified about treatment areas. Posting 

would occur at any site where individuals might inadvertently become exposed to a pesticide during 

other activities on the refuge. Where required by the label and/or state-specific regulations, sites 

would also be posted on its perimeter and at other likely locations of entry. The refuge staff would 

also notify appropriate private property owners of an intended application, including any private 

individuals who have requested notification. Special efforts would be made to contact nearby 

individuals who are beekeepers or who have expressed chemical sensitivities. 

O.6.3 Medical Surveillance 

Medical surveillance may be required for Service personnel and approved volunteers who mix, 

apply, and/or monitor use of pesticides (see 242 FW 7 [Pesticide Users] and 242 FW 4 [Medical 

Surveillance]). In accordance with 242 FW 7.12A, Service personnel would be medically 

monitoring if one or more of the following criteria is met: exposed or may be exposed to 

concentrations at or above the published permissible exposure limits or threshold limit values (see 

242 FW 4); use pesticides in a manner considered “frequent pesticide use”; or use pesticides in a 

manner that requires a respirator (see 242 FW 14 for respirator use requirements). In 242 FW7.7A, 

“Frequent Pesticide Use means when a person applying pesticide handles, mixes, or applies 

pesticides, with a Health Hazard rating of 3 or higher, for 8 or more hours in any week or 16 or more 

hours in any 30-day period.” Under some circumstances, individuals may be medically monitored 

who use pesticides infrequently (see section O.7.7), experience an acute exposure (sudden, short 

term), or use pesticides with a health hazard ranking of 1 or 2. This decision would consider the 

individual’s health and fitness level, the pesticide’s specific health risks, and the potential risks from 

other pesticide-related activities. Refuge cooperators (e.g., cooperative farmers) and other authorized 

agents (e.g., state and county employees) would be responsible for their own medical monitoring 

needs and costs. 

Standard examinations (at refuge expense) of appropriate refuge staff would be provided by the 

nearest certified occupational health and safety physician as determined by Federal Occupational 

Health. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-14 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

O.6.4 Certification and Supervision of Pesticide Applicators 

Appropriate refuge staff or approved volunteers handling, mixing, and/or applying or directly 

supervising others engaged in pesticide use activities would be trained and state or federally (BLM) 

licensed to apply pesticides to refuge lands or waters. In accordance with 242 FW7.18A and 569 FW 

1.10B, certification is required to apply restricted use pesticides based upon USEPA regulations. For 

safety reasons, all individuals participating in pest management activities with general use pesticides 

also are encouraged to attend appropriate training or acquire pesticide applicator certification. The 

certification requirement would be for a commercial or private applicator depending upon the state. 

New staff unfamiliar with proper procedures for storing, mixing, handling, applying, and disposing 

of herbicides and containers would receive orientation and training before handling or using any 

products. Documentation of training would be kept in the files at the refuge office. 

O.6.5 Record Keeping 

O.6.5.1 Labels and Material Safety Data Sheets 

Pesticide labels and material safety data sheets (MSDSs) would be maintained at the refuge shop and 

laminated copies in the mixing area. These documents also would be carried by field applicators, 

where possible. A written reference (e.g., note pad, chalk board, dry erase board) for each tank to be 

mixed would be kept in the mixing area for quick reference while mixing is in progress. In addition, 

approved PUPs stored in the PUPS database typically contain website links (URLs) to pesticide 

labels and MSDSs. 

O.6.5.2 Pesticide Use Proposals (PUPs) 

A PUP would be prepared for each proposed pesticide use associated with annual pest management 

on refuge lands and waters. A PUP would include specific information about the proposed pesticide 

use including the common and chemical names of the pesticide(s), target pest species, size and 

location of treatment site(s), application rate(s) and method(s), and federally listed species 

determinations, where applicable.

In accordance with Service guidelines (Director’s memo [December 12, 2007]), a refuge staff may 

receive up to five-year approvals for Washington Office and field reviewed proposed pesticide uses 

based upon meeting identified criteria including an approved IPM plan, where necessary (see 

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/IPM.cfm). For a refuge, an IPM plan (requirements 

described herein) can be completed independently or in association with a CCP or a habitat 

management plant (HMP) if IPM strategies and potential environmental effects are adequately 

addressed within appropriate NEPA documentation. 

PUPs would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored as records in the Pesticide Use Proposal 

System (PUPS), which is centralized database on the Service’s intranet 

(https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees can access PUP records in this database. 

O.6.5.3 Pesticide Usage 

In accordance with 569 FW 1, the refuge Project Leader would be required to maintain records of all 

pesticides annually applied on lands or waters under refuge jurisdiction. This would encompass 

pesticides applied by other federal agencies, state and county governments, non-government 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-15 

applicators including cooperators and their pest management service providers with Service 

permission. For clarification, pesticide means all insecticides, insect and plant growth regulators, 

dessicants, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, acaricides, nematicides, fumigants, avicides, and 

piscicides. 

The following usage information can be reported for approved PUPs in the PUPS database: 

 Pesticide trade name(s) 

 Active ingredient(s) 

 Total acres treated 

 Total amount of pesticides used (lbs or gallons) 

 Total amount of active ingredient(s) used (lbs) 

 Target pest(s) 

 Efficacy (% control) 

To determine whether treatments are efficacious (eradicating, controlling, or containing the target 

pest) and achieving resource objectives, habitat and/or wildlife response would be monitored both 

pre- and post-treatment, where possible. Considering available annual funding and staffing, 

appropriate monitoring data regarding characteristics (attributes) of pest infestations (e.g., area, 

perimeter, degree of infestation-density, % cover, density) as well as habitat and/or wildlife response 

to treatments may be collected and stored in a relational database (e.g., Refuge Habitat Management 

Database), preferably a geo-referenced data management system (e.g., Refuge Lands GIS) to 

facilitate data analyses and subsequent reporting. In accordance with adaptive management, data 

analysis and interpretation would allow treatments to be modified or changed over time, as 

necessary, to achieve resource objectives considering site-specific conditions in conjunction with 

habitat and/or wildlife responses. Monitoring could also identify short- and long-term impacts to 

natural resources and environmental quality associated with IPM treatments in accordance with 

adaptive management principles identified in 43 CFR 46.145. 

O.7 Evaluating Pesticide Use Proposals 

Pesticides would only be used on refuge lands for habitat management as well as croplands/facilities 

maintenance after approval of a PUP. In general, proposed pesticide uses on refuge lands would only 

be approved where there would likely be minor, temporary, or localized effects to fish and wildlife 

species as well as minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. Potential effects to listed and 

non-listed species would be evaluated with quantitative ecological risk assessments and other 

screening measures. Potential effects to environmental quality would be based upon pesticide 

characteristics of environmental fate (water solubility, soil mobility, soil persistence, and 

volatilization) and other quantitative screening tools. Ecological risk assessments as well as 

characteristics of environmental fate and potential to degrade environmental quality for pesticides 

would be documented in Chemical Profiles (see Section O.7.5). These profiles would include 

threshold values for quantitative measures of ecological risk assessments and screening tools for 

environmental fate that represent minimal potential effects to species and environmental quality. In 

general, only pesticide uses with appropriate BMPs (see Section O.4) for habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge lands that would potentially have minor, temporary, or 

localized effects on refuge biological and environmental quality (threshold values not exceeded) 

would be approved. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-16 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

O.7.1 Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment 

An ecological risk assessment process would be used to evaluate potential adverse effects to 

biological resources as a result of a pesticide(s) proposed for use on refuge lands. It is an established 

quantitative and qualitative methodology for comparing and prioritizing risks of pesticides and 

conveying an estimate of the potential risk for an adverse effect. This quantitative methodology 

provides an efficient mechanism to integrate best available scientific information regarding hazard, 

patterns of use (exposure), and dose-response relationships in a manner that is useful for ecological 

risk decision-making. It would provide an effective way to evaluate potential effects where there is 

missing or unavailable scientific information (data gaps) to address reasonable, foreseeable adverse 

effects in the field as required under 40 CFR Part 1502.22. Protocols for ecological risk assessment 

of pesticide uses on the refuge were developed through research and established by the US 

Environmental Protection Agency (2004). Assumptions for these risk assessments are presented in 

Section 6.2.3. 

The toxicological data used in ecological risk assessments are typically results of standardized 

laboratory studies provided by pesticide registrants to the USEPA to meet regulatory requirements 

under FIFRA. These studies assess the acute (lethality) and chronic (reproductive) effects associated 

with short- and long-term exposure to pesticides on representative species of birds, mammals, 

freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. Other effects data publicly 

available would also be utilized for risk assessment protocols described herein. Toxicity endpoint 

and environmental fate data are available from a variety of resources. Some of the more useful 

resources can be found in Section O.7.5. 

Table O.1 Ecotoxicity Tests Used to Evaluate Potential Effects to Birds, Fish, and 

Mammals to Establish Toxicity Endpoints for Risk Quotient Calculations 

Species Group Exposure Measurement Endpoint 

Bird 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)1 

Fish 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)2

Mammal Acute Oral Lethal Dose (LD50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)3

1

Measurement endpoints typically include a variety of reproductive parameters (e.g., number of eggs, number of 

offspring, eggshell thickness, and number of cracked eggs). 2

Measurement endpoints for early life stage/life cycle typically include embryo hatch rates, time to hatch, growth, 

and time to swim-up. 

3

Measurement endpoints include maternal toxicity, teratogenic effects or developmental anomalies, evidence of 

mutagenicity or genotoxicity, and interference with cellular mechanisms such as DNA synthesis and DNA repair. 

O.7.2 Determining Ecological Risk to Fish and Wildlife 

The potential for pesticides used on the refuge to cause direct adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

would be evaluated using USEPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment Process (US Environmental 

Protection Agency 2004). This deterministic approach, which is based upon a two-phase process 

involving estimation of environmental concentrations and then characterization of risk, would be 

used for ecological risk assessments. This method integrates exposure estimates (estimated 

environmental concentration [EEC] and toxicological endpoints [e.g., LC50 and oral LD50]) to 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-17 

evaluate the potential for adverse effects to species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) representative 

of legal mandates for managing units of the NWRS. This integration is achieved through risk 

quotients (RQs) calculated by dividing the EEC by acute and chronic toxicity values selected from 

standardized toxicological endpoints or published effect (Table 1). 

RQ = EEC/Toxicological Endpoint 

The level of risk associated with direct effects of pesticide use would be characterized by comparing 

calculated RQs to the appropriate Level of Concern (LOC) established by US Environmental 

Protection Agency (1998 [Table 2]). The LOC represents a quantitative threshold value for 

screening potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources associated with pesticide use. The 

following are four exposure-species group scenarios that would be used to characterize ecological 

risk to fish and wildlife on the refuge: acute-listed species, acute-nonlisted species, chronic-listed 

species, and chronic-nonlisted species. 

Acute risk would indicate the potential for mortality associated with short-term dietary exposure to 

pesticides immediately after an application. For characterization of acute risks, median values from 

LC50 and LD50 tests would be used as toxicological endpoints for RQ calculations. In contrast, 

chronic risks would indicate the potential for adverse effects associated with long-term dietary 

exposure to pesticides from a single application or multiple applications over time (within a season 

and over years). For characterization of chronic risks, the no observed concentration (NOAEC) or no 

observed effect concentration (NOEC) for reproduction would be used as toxicological endpoints for 

RQ calculations. Where available, the NOAEC would be preferred over a NOEC value. 

Listed species are those federally designated as threatened, endangered, or proposed in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended-Public Law 

93-205). For listed species, potential adverse effects would be assessed at the individual level 

because loss of individuals from a population could detrimentally impact a species. In contrast, risks 

to nonlisted species would consider effects at the population level. A RQ<LOC would indicate the 

proposed pesticide use “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” individuals (listed species) and it 

would not pose an unacceptable risk for adverse effects to populations (non-listed species) for each 

taxonomic group (Table 2). In contrast, an RQ>LOC would indicate a “may affect, likely to 

adversely affect” for listed species and it would also pose unacceptable ecological risk for adverse 

effects to nonlisted species. 

Table O.2 Presumption of Unacceptable Risk for Birds, Fish, and Mammals (US 

Environmental Protection Agency 1998). 

Risk Presumption Level of Concern 

Listed Species Non-listed Species 

Acute Birds 0.1 0.5 

Fish 0.05 0.5 

Mammals 0.1 0.5 

Chronic Birds 1.0 1.0 

Fish 1.0 1.0 

Mammals 1.0 1.0 

O.7.2.1 Environmental Exposure 

Following release into the environment through application, pesticides would experience several 

different routes of environmental fate. Pesticides which would be sprayed can move through the air 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-18 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

(e.g., particle or vapor drift) and may eventually end up in other parts of the environment such as 

non-target vegetation, soil, or water. Pesticides applied directly to the soil may be washed off the 

soil into nearby bodies of surface water (e.g., surface runoff) or may percolate through the soil to 

lower soil layers and groundwater (e.g., leaching) (Baker and Miller 1999, Pope et. al. 1999, Butler 

et. al. 1998, Ramsay et. al. 1995, EXTOXNET 1993a). Pesticides which would be injected into the 

soil may also be subject to the latter two fates. The aforementioned possibilities are by no means 

complete, but it does indicate movement of pesticides in the environment is very complex with 

transfers occurring continually among different environmental compartments. In some cases, these 

exchanges occur not only between areas that are close together, but it also may involve transportation 

of pesticides over long distances (Barry 2004, Woods 2004). 

O.7.2.1.1 Terrestrial Exposure 

The ECC for exposure to terrestrial wildlife would be quantified using an USEPA screening-level 

approach (US Environmental Protection Agency 2004). This screening-level approach is not 

affected by product formulation because it evaluates pesticide active ingredient(s). This approach 

would vary depending upon the proposed pesticide application method: spray or granular. 

O.7.2.1.1.1 Terrestrial-spray Application 

For spray applications, exposure would be determined using the Kanaga nomogram method (US 

Environmental Protection Agency 2005a, US Environmental Protection Agency 2004, Pfleeger et al. 

1996) through the USEPA’s Terrestrial Residue Exposure model (T-REX) version 1.2.3 (US 

Environmental Protection Agency 2005b). To estimate the maximum (initial) pesticide residue on 

short grass (<20 cm tall) as a general food item category for terrestrial vertebrate species, T-REX 

input variables would include the following from the pesticide label: maximum pesticide application 

rate (pounds active ingredient [acid equivalent]/acre) and pesticide half-life (days) in soil. Although 

there are other food item categories (tall grasses; broadleaf plants and small insects; and fruits, pods, 

seeds and large insects), short grass was selected because it would yield maximum EECs (240 ppm 

per lb ai/acre) for worst-case risk assessments. Short grass is not representative of forage for 

carnivorous species (e.g., raptors), but it would characterize the maximum potential exposure through 

the diet of avian and mammalian prey items. Consequently, this approach would provide a 

conservative screening tool for pesticides that do not biomagnify. 

For RQ calculations in T-REX, the model would require the weight of surrogate species and Mineau 

scaling factors (Mineau et. al. 1996). Body weights of bobwhite quail and mallard are included in TREX by default, but body weights of other organisms (Table 3) would be entered manually. The 

Mineau scaling factor accounts for small-bodied bird species that may be more sensitive to pesticide 

exposure than would be predicted only by body weight. Mineau scaling factors would be entered 

manually with values ranging from 1 to 1.55 that are unique to a particular pesticide or group of 

pesticides. If specific information to select a scaling factor is not available, then a value of 1.15 

would be used as a default. Alternatively, zero would be entered if it is known that body weight does 

not influence toxicity of pesticide(s) being assessed. The upper bound estimate output from the TREX Kanaga nomogram would be used as an EEC for calculation of RQs. This approach would 

yield a conservative estimate of ecological risk. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-19 

Table O.3 Average Body Weight of Selected Terrestrial Wildlife Species Frequently Used 

in Research to Establish Toxicological Endpoints (Dunning 1984) 

Species Body Weight (kg) 

Mammal (15 g) 0.015 

House sparrow 0.0277 

Mammal (35 g) 0.035 

Starling 0.0823 

Red-winged blackbird 0.0526 

Common grackle 0.114 

Japanese quail 0.178 

Bobwhite quail 0.178 

Rat 0.200 

Rock dove (aka pigeon) 0.542 

Mammal (1000 g) 1.000 

Mallard 1.082 

Ring-necked pheasant 1.135 

O.7.2.1.1.2 Terrestrial – Granular Application 

Granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed would pose a unique route of exposure for 

avian and mammalian species. The pesticide is applied in discrete units which birds or mammals 

might ingest accidentally with food items or intentionally as in the case of some bird species actively 

seeking and picking up gravel or grit to aid digestion or seed as a food source. Granules may also be 

consumed by wildlife foraging on earthworms, slugs or other soft-bodied soil organisms to which the 

granules may adhere. 

Terrestrial wildlife RQs for granular formulations or seed treatments would be calculated by dividing 

the maximum milligrams of active ingredient (a.i.) exposed (e.g., EEC) on the surface of an area 

equal to 1 square foot by the appropriate LD50 value multiplied by the surrogate’s body weight (Table 

3). An adjustment to surface area calculations would be made for broadcast, banded, and in-furrow 

applications. An adjustment also would be made for applications with and without incorporation of 

the granules. Without incorporation, it would be assumed that 100% of the granules remain on the 

soil surface available to foraging birds and mammals. Press wheels push granules flat with the soil 

surface, but they are not incorporated into the soil. If granules are incorporated in the soil during 

band or T-band applications or after broadcast applications, it would be assumed only 15% of the 

applied granules remain available to wildlife. It would be assumed that only 1% of the granules are 

available on the soil surface following in-furrow applications. 

EECs for pesticides applied in granular form and as seed treatments would be determined 

considering potential ingestion rates of avian or mammalian species (e.g., 10-30% body weight/day). 

This would provide an estimate of maximum exposure that may occur as a result of granule or seed 

treatment spills such as those that commonly occur at end rows during application and planting. The 

availability of granules and seed treatments to terrestrial vertebrates would also be considered by 

calculating the loading per unit area (LD50/ft2

)for comparison to USEPA Level of Concerns (US 

Environmental Protection Agency 1998). The 

T-REX version 1.2.3 (US Environmental Protection Agency 2005b) contains a submodel which 

automates Kanaga exposure calculations for granular pesticides and treated seed. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-20 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

The following formulas will be used to calculate EECs depending upon the type of granular pesticide 

application: 

 In-furrow applications assume a typical value of 1% granules, bait, or seed remain 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lbs)(1% exposed))] / {[(43,560 ft.

2

/acre)/(row 

spacing (ft.))] / (row spacing (ft.)} 

or 

mg a.i./ft

2 

= [(lbs product/1000 ft. row)(% a.i.)(1000 ft row)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1% exposed) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

 Incorporated banded treatments assume that 15% of granules, bait, and seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/1000 row ft.)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1-% incorporated)] / (1,000 

ft.)(band width (ft.)) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

 Broadcast treatment without incorporation assumes 100% of granules, bait, seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,590 mg/lb.)] / (43,560 ft.

2

/acre) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

Where: 

 % of pesticide biologically available = 100% without species specific ingestion rates 

 Conversion for calculating mg a.i./ft.

2 

using ounces: 453,580 mg/lb. /16 = 28,349 mg/oz. 

The following equation would be used to calculate an RQ based on the EEC calculated by one of the 

above equations. The EEC would be divided by the surrogate LD50 toxicological endpoint multiplied 

by the body weight (Table 3) of the surrogate. 

RQ = EEC / [LD50 (mg/kg) * body weight (kg)] 

As with other risk assessments, an RQ>LOC would be a presumption of unacceptable ecological 

risk. An RQ<LOC would be a presumption of acceptable risk with only minor, temporary, or 

localized effects to species. 

O.7.2.1.2 Aquatic Exposure 

Exposures to aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands, meadows, ephemeral pools, water delivery ditches) 

would be evaluated separately for ground-based pesticide treatments of habitats managed for fish and 

wildlife compared with cropland/facilities maintenance. The primary exposure pathway for aquatic 

organisms from any ground-based treatments likely would be particle drift during the pesticide 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-21 

application. However, different exposure scenarios would be necessary as a result of contrasting 

application equipment and techniques as well as pesticides used to control pests on agricultural lands 

(especially those cultivated by cooperative farmers for economic return from crop yields) and 

facilities maintenance (e.g., roadsides, parking lots, trails) compared with other managed habitats on 

the refuge. In addition, pesticide applications may be done <25 feet of the high water mark of 

aquatic habitats for habitat management treatments; whereas, no-spray buffers (≥25 feet) would be 

used for croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. 

O.7.2.1.2.1 Habitat Treatments 

For the worst-case exposure scenario to non-target aquatic habitats, EECs (Table 4) would be would 

be derived from Urban and Cook (1986) that assumes an intentional overspray to an entire, nontarget water body (1-foot depth) from a treatment <25 feet from the high water mark using the max 

application rate (acid basis [see above]). However, use of BMPs for applying pesticides (see Section 

O.4.2) would likely minimize/eliminate potential drift to non-target aquatic habitats during actual 

treatments. If there would be unacceptable (acute or chronic) risk to fish and wildlife with the 

simulated 100% overspray (RQ>LOC), then the proposed pesticide use may be disapproved or the 

PUP would be approved at a lower application rate to minimize/eliminate unacceptable risk to 

aquatic organisms (RQ=LOC). 

Table O.4 Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) of Pesticides in Aquatic 

Habitats (1 foot depth) Immediately After Direct Application (Urban and Cook 1986) 

Lbs/acre EEC (ppb) 

0.10 36.7 

0.20 73.5 

0.25 91.9 

0.30 110.2 

0.40 147.0 

0.50 183.7 

0.75 275.6 

1.00 367.5 

1.25 459.7 

1.50 551.6 

1.75 643.5 

2.00 735.7 

2.25 827.6 

2.50 919.4 

3.00 1103.5 

4.00 1471.4 

5.00 1839 

6.00 2207 

7.00 2575 

8.00 2943 

9.00 3311 

10.00 3678 

O.7.2.1.2.2 Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments 

Field drift studies conducted by the Spray Drift Task Force, which is a joint project of several 

agricultural chemical businesses, were used to develop a generic spray drift database. From this 

database, the AgDRIFT computer model was created to satisfy USEPA pesticide registration spray 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-22 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

drift data requirements and as a scientific basis to evaluate off-target movement of pesticides from 

particle drift and assess potential effects of exposure to wildlife. Several versions of the computer 

model have been developed (i.e., v2.01 through v2.10). The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT® 

model version 2.01 (SDTF 2003, AgDRIFT 2001) would be used to derive EECs resulting from drift 

of pesticides to refuge aquatic resources from ground-based pesticide applications >25 feet from the 

high water mark. The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT model is publicly available at 

http://www.agdrift.com. At this website, click “AgDRIFT 2.0” and then click “Download Now” and 

follow the instructions to obtain the computer model. 

The AgDRIFT model is composed of submodels called tiers. Tier I Ground submodel would be used 

to assess ground-based applications of pesticides. Tier outputs (EECs) would be calculated with 

AgDRIFT using the following input variables: max application rate (acid basis [see above]), low 

boom (20 inches), fine to medium droplet size, EPA-defined wetland, and a ≥25-foot distance 

(buffer) from treated area to water. 

O.7.2.2 Use of Information on Effects of Biological Control Agents, Pesticides, Degradates, and 

Adjuvants 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control agents, 

pesticides, degradates, and adjuvants prepared by another federal agency, where the scope would be 

relevant to evaluation of effects from pesticide uses on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible 

source agencies for such NEPA documents would include the Bureau of Land Management, US 

Forest Service, National Park Service, US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be appropriate to incorporate by reference 

parts or all of existing document(s). Incorporating by reference (40 CFR 1502.21) is a technique 

used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It also would reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, 

which only would identify the documents that are incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant 

portions would be summarized in the Service NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the 

decision maker and public with an understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the 

current analysis. 

In accordance with the requirements set forth in 43 CFR 46.135, the Service would specifically 

incorporate through reference ecological risk assessments prepared by the US Forest Service 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/Herbicides-Analyzed-InvPlantEIS.htm) and Bureau of Land Management (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html). 

These risk assessments and associated documentation also are available in total with the 

administrative record for the Final Environmental Impact Statement entitled Pacific Northwest 

Region Invasive Plant Program – Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (US Forest Service 

2005) and Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic EIS (PEIS) (Bureau of Land Management 2007). In accordance with 

43 CRF 46.120(d), use of existing NEPA documents by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by 

reference, or adopting previous NEPA environmental analyses would avoid redundancy and 

unnecessary paperwork. 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide and adjuvant uses prepared by the US Forest 

Service would be incorporated by reference: 

 2,4-D 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-23 

 Chlorosulfuron 

 Clopyralid 

 Dicamba 

 Glyphosate 

 Imazapic 

 Imazapyr 

 Metsulfuron methyl 

 Picloram 

 Sethoxydim 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Triclopyr 

 Nonylphenol polyethylate (NPE) based surfactants 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide uses as well as evaluation of risks associated 

with pesticide degradates and adjuvants prepared by the Bureau of Land Management would be 

incorporated by reference: 

 Bromacil 

 Chlorsulfuron 

 Diflufenzopyr 

 Diquat 

 Diuron 

 Fluridone 

 Imazapic 

 Overdrive (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) 

 Sulfometuron methyl 

 Tebuthiuron 

 Pesticide degradates and adjuvants (Appendix D – Evaluation of risks from degradates, 

polyoxyethylene-amine (POEA) and R-11, and endocrine disrupting chemicals) 

O.7.2.3 Assumptions for Ecological Risk Assessments 

There are a number of assumptions involved with the ecological risk assessment process for 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms associated with utilization of the US Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (2004) process. These assumptions may be risk neutral or may lead to an over- or underestimation of risk from pesticide exposure depending upon site-specific conditions. The following 

describes these assumptions, their application to the conditions typically encountered, and whether or 

not they may lead to recommendations that are risk neutral, underestimate, or overestimate ecological 

risk from potential pesticide exposure. 

 Indirect effects would not be evaluated by ecological risk assessments. These effects include 

the mechanisms of indirect exposure to pesticides: consuming prey items (fish, birds, or 

small mammals), reductions in the availability of prey items, and disturbance associated with 

pesticide application activities. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-24 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

 Exposure to a pesticide product can be assessed based upon the active ingredient. However, 

exposure to a chemical mixture (pesticide formulation) may result in effects that are similar 

or substantially different compared to only the active ingredient. Non-target organisms may 

be exposed directly to the pesticide formulation or only various constituents of the 

formulation as they dissipate and partition in the environment. If toxicological information 

for both the active ingredient and formulated product are available, then data representing the 

greatest potential toxicity would be selected for use in the risk assessment process (US 

Environmental Protection Agency 2004). As a result, this conservative approach may lead to 

an overestimation of risk characterization from pesticide exposure. 

 Because toxicity tests with listed or candidate species or closely related species are not 

available, data for surrogate species would be most often used for risk assessments. 

Specifically, bobwhite quail and mallard duck are the most frequently used surrogates for 

evaluating potential toxicity to federally listed avian species. Bluegill sunfish, rainbow trout, 

and fathead minnow are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for freshwater 

fishes. However, sheep’s head minnow can be an appropriate surrogate marine species for 

coastal environments. Rats and mice are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity 

for mammals. Interspecies sensitivity is a major source of uncertainty in pesticide 

assessments. As a result of this uncertainty, data is selected for the most sensitive species 

tested within a taxonomic group (birds, fish, and mammals) given the quality of the data is 

acceptable. If additional toxicity data for more species of organisms in a particular group are 

available, the selected data will not be limited to the species previously listed as common 

surrogates. 

 The Kanaga nomogram outputs maximum EEC values that may be used to calculate an 

average daily concentration over a specified interval of time, which is referred to as a timeweighted-average (TWA). The maximum EEC would be selected as the exposure input for 

both acute and chronic risk assessments in the screening-level evaluations. The initial or 

maximum EEC derived from the Kanaga nomogram represents the maximum expected 

instantaneous or acute exposure to a pesticide. Acute toxicity endpoints are determined using 

a single exposure to a known pesticide concentration typically for 48 to 96 hours. This value 

is assumed to represent ecological risk from acute exposure to a pesticide. On the other hand, 

chronic risk to pesticide exposure is a function of pesticide concentration and duration of 

exposure to the pesticide. An organism’s response to chronic pesticide exposure may result 

from either the concentration of the pesticide, length of exposure, or some combination of 

both factors. Standardized tests for chronic toxicity typically involve exposing an organism 

to several different pesticide concentrations for a specified length of time (days, weeks, 

months, years or generations). For example, avian reproduction tests include a 10-week 

exposure phase. Because a single length of time is used in the test, time response data is 

usually not available for inclusion into risk assessments. Without time response data it is 

difficult to determine the concentration which elicited a toxicological response. 

 Using maximum EECs for chronic risk estimates may result in an overestimate of risk, 

particularly for compounds that dissipate rapidly. Conversely, using TWAs for chronic risk 

estimates may underestimate risk if it is the concentration rather than the duration of 

exposure that is primarily responsible for the observed adverse effect. The maximum EEC 

would be used for chronic risk assessments although it may result in an overestimate of risk. 

TWAs may be used for chronic risk assessments, but they will be applied judiciously 

considering the potential for an underestimate or overestimate of risk. For example, the 

number of days exposure exceeds a Level of Concern may influence the suitability of a 

pesticide use. The greater the number of days the EEC exceeds the Level of Concern 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-25 

translates into greater the ecological risk. This is a qualitative assessment, and is subject to 

reviewer’s expertise in ecological risk assessment and tolerance for risk. 

 The length of time used to calculate the TWA can have a substantial effect on the exposure 

estimates and there is no standard method for determining the appropriate duration for this 

estimate. The T-REX model assumes a 21-week exposure period, which is equivalent to 

avian reproductive studies designed to establish a steady-state concentration for 

bioaccumulative compounds. However, this does not necessarily define the true exposure 

duration needed to elicit a toxicological response. Pesticides, which do not bioaccumulate, 

may achieve a steady-state concentration earlier than 21 weeks. The duration of time for 

calculating TWAs will require justification and it will not exceed the duration of exposure in 

the chronic toxicity test (approximately 70 days for the standard avian reproduction study). 

An alternative to using the duration of the chronic toxicity study is to base the TWA on the 

application interval. In this case, increasing the application interval would suppress both the 

estimated peak pesticide concentration and the TWA. Another alternative to using TWAs 

would be to consider the number of days that a chemical is predicted to exceed the LOC. 

 Pesticide dissipation is assumed to be first-order in the absence of data suggesting alternative 

dissipation patterns such as bi-phasic. Field dissipation data would generally be the most 

pertinent for assessing exposure in terrestrial species that forage on vegetation. However, 

these data are often not available and it can be misleading particularly if the compound is 

prone to “wash-off”. Soil half-life is the most common degradation data available. 

Dissipation or degradation data that would reflect the environmental conditions typical of 

refuge lands would be utilized, if available. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. 

 Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is 

assumed that species exclusively and permanently occupy the treated area, or adjacent areas 

receiving pesticide at rates commensurate with the treatment rate. This assumption would 

produce a maximum estimate of exposure for risk characterization. This assumption would 

likely lead to an overestimation of exposure for species that do not permanently and 

exclusively occupy the treated area (US Environmental Protection Agency 2004). 

 Exposure through incidental ingestion of pesticide contaminated soil is not considered in the 

USEPA risk assessment protocols. Research suggests <15% of the diet can consist of 

incidentally ingested soil depending upon species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al. 1994). 

An assessment of pesticide concentrations in soil compared to food item categories in the 

Kanaga nomogram indicates incidental soil ingestion will not likely increase dietary exposure 

to pesticides. Inclusion of soil into the diet would effectively reduce the overall dietary 

concentration compared to the present assumption that the entire diet consists a contaminated 

food source (Fletcher et al. 1994). An exception to this may be soil-applied pesticides in 

which exposure from incidental ingestion of soil may increase. Potential for pesticide 

exposure under this assumption may be underestimated for soil-applied pesticides and 

overestimated for foliar-applied pesticides. The concentration of a pesticide in soil would 

likely be less than predicted on food items. 

 Exposure through inhalation of pesticides is not considered in the USEPA risk assessment 

protocols. Such exposure may occur through three potential sources: spray material in 

droplet form at time of application, vapor phase with the pesticide volatilizing from treated 

surfaces, and airborne particulates (soil, vegetative matter, and pesticide dusts). The USEPA 

(1990) reported exposure from inhaling spray droplets at the time of application is not an 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-26 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

appreciable route of exposure for birds. According to research on mallards and bobwhite 

quail, respirable particle size (particles reaching the lung) in birds is limited to maximum 

diameter of 2 to 5 microns. The spray droplet spectra covering the majority of pesticide 

application scenarios indicate that less than 1% of the applied material is within the respirable 

particle size. This route of exposure is further limited because the permissible spray drop size 

distribution for ground pesticide applications is restricted to ASAE medium or coarser drop 

size distribution. 

 Inhalation of a pesticide in the vapor phase may be another source of exposure for some 

pesticides under certain conditions. This mechanism of exposure to pesticides occurs post 

application, and it would pertain to those pesticides with a high vapor pressure. The USEPA 

is currently evaluating protocols for modeling inhalation exposure from pesticides including 

near-field and near-ground air concentrations based upon equilibrium and kinetics-based 

models. Risk characterization for exposure with this mechanism is unavailable. 

 The effect from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed 

generically as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties of 

the applied pesticides render the exposure potential from this route highly situation specific. 

 Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: direct application of spray to 

terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint, incidental contact with 

contaminated vegetation, or contact with contaminated water or soil. Interception of spray 

and incidental contact with treated substrates may pose risk to avian wildlife (Driver et al. 

1991). However, available research related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides is 

extremely limited, except dermal toxicity values are common for some mammals used as 

human surrogates (rats and mice). The USEPA is currently evaluating protocols for modeling 

dermal exposure. Risk characterization may be underestimated for this route of exposure, 

particularly with high risk pesticides such as some organophosphates or carbamate 

insecticides. If protocols are established by the USEPA for assessing dermal exposure to 

pesticides, they will be considered for incorporation into pesticide assessment protocols. 

 Exposure to a pesticide may occur from consuming surface water, dew or other water on 

treated surfaces. Water soluble pesticides have the potential to dissolve in surface runoff and 

puddles in a treated area may contain pesticide residues. Similarly, pesticides with lower 

organic carbon partitioning characteristics and higher solubility in water have a greater 

potential to dissolve in dew and other water associated with plant surfaces. Estimating the 

extent to which such pesticide loadings to drinking water occurs is complex and would 

depend upon the partitioning characteristics of the active ingredient, soils types in the 

treatment area, and the meteorology of the treatment area. In addition, the use of various 

water sources by wildlife is highly species-specific. Currently, risk characterization for this 

exposure mechanism is not available. The USEPA is actively developing protocols to 

quantify drinking water exposures from puddles and dew. If and when protocols are formally 

established by the USEPA for assessing exposure to pesticides through drinking water, these 

protocols will be incorporated into pesticide risk assessment protocols. 

 Risk assessments are based upon the assumption that the entire treatment area would be 

subject to pesticide application at the rates specified on the label. In most cases, there is 

potential for uneven application of pesticides through such plausible incidents such as 

changes in calibration of application equipment, spillage, and localized releases at specific 

areas in or near the treated field that are associated with mixing and handling and application 

equipment as well as applicator skill. Inappropriate use of pesticides and the occurrence of 

spills represent a potential underestimate of risk. It is likely not an important factor for risk 

characterization. All pesticide applicators are required to be certified by the state in which 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-27 

they apply pesticides. Certification training includes the safe storage, transport, handling, 

and mixing of pesticides; equipment calibration; and proper application with annual 

continuing education. 

 The USEPA relies on Fletcher (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues in wildlife 

dietary items. The USEPA (2004) “believes that these residue assumptions reflect a realistic 

upper-bound residue estimate, although the degree to which this assumption reflects a 

specific percentile estimate is difficult to quantify”. Fletcher’s (1994) research suggests that 

the pesticide active ingredient residue assumptions used by the USEPA represent a 95th

percentile estimate. However, research conducted by Pfleeger et al. (1996) indicates USEPA 

residue assumptions for short grass was not exceeded. Baehr and Habig (2000) compared 

USEPA residue assumptions with distributions of measured pesticide residues for the 

USEPA’s UTAB database. Overall residue selection level will tend to overestimate risk 

characterization. This is particularly evident when wildlife individuals are likely to have 

selected a variety of food items acquired from multiple locations. Some food items may be 

contaminated with pesticide residues whereas others are not contaminated. However, it is 

important to recognize differences in species feeding behavior. Some species may consume 

whole above-ground plant material, but others will preferentially select different plant 

structures. Also, species may preferentially select a food item although multiple food items 

may be present. Without species specific knowledge regarding foraging behavior 

characterizing ecological risk other than in general terms is not possible. 

 Acute and chronic risk assessments rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with 

LC50 or NOEC values expressed as concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These 

comparisons assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate 

with those in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight 

estimates of food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake 

estimates, it does not allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between 

wildlife food items and laboratory feed. Differences in assimilative efficiency between 

laboratory and wild diets suggest that current screening assessment methods are not 

accounting for a potentially important aspect of food requirements. 

 There are several other assumptions that can affect non-target species not considered in the 

risk assessment process. These include possible additive or synergistic effects from applying 

two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location of pesticides in the 

environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of action, effects of 

multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic and biotic factors) 

and behavioral changes induced by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some 

level contributing to adverse effects to non-target species, but they are usually characterized 

in the published literature in only a general manner limiting their value in the risk assessment 

process.

 It is assumed that aquatic species exclusively and permanently occupy the water body being 

assessed. Actual habitat requirements of aquatic species are not considered. With the 

possible exception of scenarios where pesticides are directly applied to water, it is assumed 

that no habitat use considerations specific for any species would place the organisms in closer 

proximity to pesticide use sites. This assumption produces a maximum estimate of exposure 

or risk characterization. It would likely be realistic for many aquatic species that may be 

found in aquatic habitats within or in close proximity to treated terrestrial habitats. However, 

the spatial distribution of wildlife is usually not random because wildlife distributions are 

often related to habitat requirements of species. Clumped distributions of wildlife may result 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-28 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

in an under- or over-estimation of risk depending upon where the initial pesticide 

concentration occurs relative to the species or species habitat. 

 For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. Additional chemical exposure from materials associated with suspended solids or 

food items is not considered because partitioning onto sediments likely is minimal. 

Adsorption and bioconcentration occurs at lower levels for many newer pesticides compared 

with older more persistent bioaccumulative compounds. Pesticides with RQs close to the 

listed species level of concern, the potential for additional exposure from these routes may be 

a limitation of risk assessments, where potential pesticide exposure or risk may be 

underestimated. 

 Mass transport losses of pesticide from a water body (except for losses by volatilization, 

degradation and sediment partitioning) would not be considered for ecological risk 

assessment. The water body would be assumed to capture all pesticide active ingredients 

entering as runoff, drift, and adsorbed to eroded soil particles. It would also be assumed that 

pesticide active ingredient is not lost from the water body by overtopping or flow-through, 

nor is concentration reduced by dilution. In total, these assumptions would lead to a near 

maximum possible water-borne concentration. However, this assumption would not account 

for the potential to concentrate pesticide through the evaporative loss. This limitation may 

have the greatest impact on water bodies with high surface-to-volume ratios such as 

ephemeral wetlands, where evaporative losses are accentuated and applied pesticides have 

low rates of degradation and volatilization. 

 For acute risk assessments, there would be no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous 

peak concentration would be assumed, where instantaneous exposure is sufficient in duration 

to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods 

(typically 48 to 96 hours) tested in the laboratory. In the absence of data regarding time-totoxic event, analyses and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, risk would likely be 

overestimated. 

 For chronic exposure risk assessments, the averaging times considered for exposure are 

commensurate with the duration of invertebrate life-cycle or fish-early life stage tests (e.g., 

21-28 days and 56-60 days, respectively). Response profiles (time to effect and latency of 

effect) to pesticides likely vary widely with mode of action and species and should be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis as available data allow. Nevertheless, because the USEPA 

relies on chronic exposure toxicity endpoints based on a finding of no observed effect, the 

potential for any latent toxicity effects or averaging time assumptions to alter the results of an 

acceptable chronic risk assessment prediction is limited. The extent to which duration of 

exposure from water-borne concentrations overestimate or underestimate actual exposure 

depends on several factors. These include the following: localized meteorological 

conditions, runoff characteristics of the watershed (e.g., soils, topography), the hydrological 

characteristics of receiving waters, environmental fate of the pesticide active ingredient, and 

the method of pesticide application. It should also be understood that chronic effects studies 

are performed using a method that holds water concentration in a steady state. This method is 

not likely to reflect conditions associated with pesticide runoff. Pesticide concentrations in 

the field increase and decrease in surface water on a cycle influenced by rainfall, pesticide 

use patterns, and degradation rates. As a result of the dependency of this assumption on 

several undefined variables, risk associated with chronic exposure may in some situations 

underestimate risk and overestimate risk in others. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-29 

 There are several other factors that can affect non-target species not considered in the risk 

assessment process. These would include the following: possible additive or synergistic 

effects from applying two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location 

of pesticides in the environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of 

action, effects of multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic 

[not pesticides] and biotic factors), and sub-lethal effects such as behavioral changes induced 

by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some level contributing to adverse 

effects to non-target species, but they are not routinely assessed by regulatory agencies. 

Therefore, information on the factors is not extensive limiting their value for the risk 

assessment process. As this type of information becomes available, it would be included, 

either quantitatively or qualitatively, in this risk assessment process. 

 USEPA is required by the Food Quality Protection Act to assess the cumulative risks of 

pesticides that share common mechanisms of toxicity, or act the same within an organism. 

Currently, USEPA has identified four groups of pesticides that have a common mechanism of 

toxicity requiring cumulative risk assessments. These four groups are: the organophosphate 

insecticides, N-methyl carbamate insecticides, triazine herbicides, and chloroacetanilide 

herbicides. 

O.7.3 Pesticide Mixtures and Degradates 

Pesticide products are usually a formulation of several components generally categorized as active 

ingredients and inert or other ingredients. The term active ingredient is defined by the FIFRA as 

preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating the effects of a pest, or it is a plant regulator, 

defoliant, desiccant, or nitrogen stabilizer. In accordance with FIFRA, the active ingredient(s) must 

be identified by name(s) on the pesticide label along with its relative composition expressed in 

percentage(s) by weight. In contrast, inert ingredient(s) are not intended to affect a target pest. Their 

role in the pesticide formulation is to act as a solvent (keep the active ingredient is a liquid phase), an 

emulsifying or suspending agent (keep the active ingredient from separating out of solution), or a 

carrier (such as clay in which the active ingredient is impregnated on the clay particle in dry 

formulations). For example, if isopropyl alcohol would be used as a solvent in a pesticide 

formulation, then it would be considered an inert ingredient. FIFRA only requires that inert 

ingredients identified as hazardous and associated percent composition, and the total percentage of 

all inert ingredients must be declared on a product label. Inert ingredients that are not classified as 

hazardous are not required to be identified. 

The USEPA (September 1997) issued Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-6, which encouraged 

manufacturers, formulators, producers, and registrants of pesticide products to voluntarily substitute 

the term “other ingredients” for “inert ingredients” in the ingredient statement. This change 

recognized that all components in a pesticide formulation potentially could elicit or contribute to an 

adverse effect on non-target organisms and, therefore, are not necessarily inert. Whether referred to 

as “inerts” or “other ingredients,” these constituents within a pesticide product have the potential to 

affect species or environmental quality. The USEPA categorizes regulated inert ingredients into the 

following four lists (http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/index.html): 

 List 1 – Inert Ingredients of Toxicological Concern 

 List 2 – Potentially Toxic Inert Ingredients 

 List 3 – Inerts of Unknown Toxicity 

 List 4 – Inerts of Minimal Toxicity 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-30 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Several of the List 4 compounds are naturally-occurring earthen materials (e.g., clay materials, 

simple salts) that would not elicit toxicological response at applied concentrations. However, some 

of the inerts (particularly the List 3 compounds and unlisted compounds) may have moderate to high 

potential toxicity to aquatic species based on MSDSs or published data. 

Comprehensively assessing potential effects to non-target fish, wildlife, plants, and/or their habitats 

from pesticide use is a complex task. It would be preferable to assess the cumulative effects from 

exposure to the active ingredient, its degradates, and inert ingredients as well as other active 

ingredients in the spray mixture. However, it would only be feasible to conduct deterministic risk 

assessments for each component in the spray mixture singly. Limited scientific information is 

available regarding ecological effects (additive or synergistic) from chemical mixtures that typically 

rely upon broadly encompassing assumptions. For example, the US Forest Service (2005) found that 

mixtures of pesticides used in land (forest) management likely would not cause additive or 

synergistic effects to non-target species based upon a review of scientific literature regarding 

toxicological effects and interactions of agricultural chemicals (ATSDR 2004). Moreover, 

information on inert ingredients, adjuvants, and degradates is often limited by the availability of and 

access to reliable toxicological data for these constituents. 

Toxicological information regarding “other ingredients” may be available from sources such as the 

following: 

 TOMES (a proprietary toxicological database including USEPA’s IRIS, the Hazardous 

Substance Data Bank, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [RTECS]). 

 USEPA’s ECOTOX database, which includes AQUIRE (a database containing scientific 

papers published on the toxic effects of chemicals to aquatic organisms). 

 TOXLINE (a literature searching tool). 

 Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) from pesticide suppliers. 

 Other sources such as the Farm Chemicals Handbook. 

Because there is a lack of specific inert toxicological data, inert(s) in a pesticide may cause adverse 

ecological effects. However, inert ingredients typically represent only a small percentage of the 

pesticide spray mixture, and it would be assumed that negligible effects would be expected to result 

from inert ingredient(s). 

Although the potential effects of degradates should be considered when selecting a pesticide, it is 

beyond the scope of this assessment process to consider all possible breakdown chemicals of the 

various product formulations containing an active ingredient. Degradates may be more or less 

mobile and more or less hazardous in the environment than their parent pesticides (Battaglin et al. 

2003). Differences in environmental behavior (e.g., mobility) and toxicity between parent pesticides 

and degradates would make assessing potential degradate effects extremely difficult. For example, a 

less toxic and more mobile, bioaccumulative, or persistent degradate may have potentially greater 

effects on species and/or degrade environmental quality. The lack of data on the toxicity of 

degradates for many pesticides would represent a source of uncertainty for assessing risk.

A USEPA-approved label specifies whether a product can be mixed with one or more pesticides. 

Without product-specific toxicological data, it would not possible to quantify the potential effects of 

these mixtures. In addition, a quantitative analysis could only be conducted if reliable scientific 

information allowed a determination of whether the joint action of a mixture would be additive, 

synergistic, or antagonistic. Such information would not likely exist unless the mode of action would 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-31 

be common among the chemicals and receptors. Moreover, the composition of and exposure to 

mixtures would be highly site- and/or time-specific and, therefore, it would be nearly impossible to 

assess potential effects to species and environmental quality. 

To minimize or eliminate potential negative effects associated with applying two or more pesticides 

as a mixture, the use would be conducted in accordance with the labeling requirements. Labels for 

two or more pesticides applied as a mixture should be completely reviewed, where products with the 

least potential for negative effects would be selected for use on the refuge. This is especially relevant 

when a mixture would be applied in a manner that may already have the potential for an effect(s) 

associated with an individual pesticide (e.g., runoff to ponds in sandy watersheds). Use of a tank mix 

under these conditions would increase the level of uncertainty in terms of risk to species or potential 

to degrade environmental quality. 

Adjuvants generally function to enhance or prolong the activity of pesticide. For terrestrial 

herbicides, adjuvants aid in the absorption into plant tissue. Adjuvant is a broad term that generally 

applies to surfactants, selected oils, anti-foaming agents, buffering compounds, drift control agents, 

compatibility agents, stickers, and spreaders. Adjuvants are not under the same registration 

requirements as pesticides and the USEPA does not register or approve the labeling of spray 

adjuvants. Individual pesticide labels identify types of adjuvants approved for use with it. In 

general, adjuvants compose a relatively small portion of the volume of pesticides applied. Selection 

of adjuvants with limited toxicity and low volumes would be recommended to reduce the potential 

for the adjuvant to influence the toxicity of the pesticide. 

O.7.4 Determining Effects to Soil and Water Quality 

The approval process for pesticide uses would consider potential to degrade water quality on and off 

refuge lands. A pesticide can only affect water quality through movement away from the treatment 

site. After application, pesticide mobilization can be characterized by one or more of the following 

(Kerle et al. 1996): 

 Attach (sorb) to soil, vegetation, or other surfaces and remain at or near the treated area; 

 Attach to soil and move off-site through erosion from runoff or wind; 

 Dissolve in water that can be subjected to runoff or leaching. 

As an initial screening tool, selected chemical characteristics and rating criteria for a pesticide can be 

evaluated to assess potential to enter ground and/or surface waters. These would include the 

following: persistence, sorption coefficient (Koc), groundwater ubiquity score (GUS), and solubility. 

Persistence, which is expressed as half-life (t1⁄2), represents the length of time required for 50% of the 

deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially). Persistence in the soil can be categorized as 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days (Kerle et. al. 1996). Half-life data is usually available for aquatic and terrestrial environments. 

Another measure of pesticide persistence is dissipation time (DT50). It represents the time required 

for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, half-life 

describes the rate for degradation only. As for half-life, units of dissipation time are usually 

expressed in days. Field or foliar dissipation time is the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide 

concentrations in the environment. However, soil half-life is the most common persistence data 

cited in published literature. If field or foliar dissipation data is not available, soil half-life data may 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-32 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

be used. The average or representative half-life value of most important degradation mechanism will 

be selected for quantitative analysis for both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Mobility of a pesticide is a function of how strongly it is adsorbed to soil particles and organic 

matter, its solubility in water, and its persistence in the environment. Pesticides strongly adsorbed to 

soil particles, relatively insoluble in water, and not environmentally persistent would be less likely to 

move across the soil surface into surface waters or to leach through the soil profile and contaminate 

groundwater. Conversely, pesticides that are not strongly adsorbed to soil particles, are highly water 

soluble, and are persistent in the environment would have greater potential to move from the 

application site (off-site movement). 

The degree of pesticide adsorption to soil particles and organic matter (Kerle et. al. 1996) is 

expressed as the soil adsorption coefficient (Koc). The soil adsorption coefficient is measured as 

micrograms of pesticide per gram of soil (μg/g) that can range from near zero to the thousands. 

Pesticides with higher Koc values are strongly sorbed to soil and, therefore, would be less subject to 

movement. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide that will dissolve in a known quantity of water. 

The water solubility of a pesticide is expressed as milligrams of pesticide dissolved in a liter of water 

(mg/L or parts per million [ppm]). Pesticide with solubility <0.1 ppm are virtually insoluble in 

water, 100-1000 ppm are moderately soluble, and >10,000 ppm highly soluble (US Geological 

Survey 2000). As pesticide solubility increases, there would be greater potential for off-site 

movement. 

The Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) is a quantitative screening tool to estimate a pesticide’s 

potential to move in the environment. It utilizes soil persistence and adsorption coefficients in the 

following formula. 

GUS = log10 (t1⁄2) x [4 - log10 (Koc)] 

The potential pesticide movement rating would be based upon its GUS value. Pesticides with a GUS 

<0.1 would considered to have an extremely low potential to move toward groundwater. Values of 

1.0-2.0 would be low, 2.0-3.0 would be moderate, 3.0-4.0 would be high, and >4.0 would have a very 

high potential to move toward groundwater. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide dissolving in a specific quantity of water, where it 

is usually measured as mg/L or ppm. Solubility is useful as a comparative measure because 

pesticides with higher values are more likely to move by runoff or leaching. GUS, water solubility, 

t1⁄2, and Koc values are available for selected pesticides from the OSU Extension Pesticide Properties 

Database at http://npic.orst.edu/ppdmove.htm. Many of the values in this database were derived 

from the SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database for Environmental Decision Making 

(Wauchope et al. 1992). 

Soil properties influence the fate of pesticides in the environment. The following six properties are 

mostly likely to affect pesticide degradation and the potential for pesticides to move off-site by 

leaching (vertical movement through the soil) or runoff (lateral movement across the soil surface). 

 Permeability is the rate of water movement vertically through the soil. It is affected by soil 

texture and structure. Coarse textured soils (e.g., high sand content) have a larger pore size 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-33 

and they are generally more permeable than fine textured soils (i.e., high clay content). The 

more permeable soils would have a greater potential for pesticides to move vertically down 

through the soil profile. Soil permeability rates (inches/hour) are usually available in county 

soil survey reports. 

 Soil texture describes the relative percentage of sand, silt, and clay. In general, greater clay 

content with smaller the pore size would lower the likelihood and rate water that would move 

through the soil profile. Clay also serves to adsorb (bind) pesticides to soil particles. Soils 

with high clay content would adsorb more pesticide than soils with relatively low clay 

content. In contrast, sandy soils with coarser texture and lower water holding capacity would 

have a greater potential for water to leach through them. 

 Soil structure describes soil aggregation. Soils with a well-developed soil structure have 

looser, more aggregated, structure that would be less likely to be compacted. Both 

characteristics would allow for less restricted flow of water through the soil profile resulting 

in greater infiltration.

 Organic matter would be the single most important factor affecting pesticide adsorption in 

soils. Many pesticides are adsorbed to organic matter which would reduce their rate of 

downward movement through the soil profile. Also, soils high in organic matter would tend 

to hold more water, which may make less water available for leaching. 

 Soil moisture affects how fast water would move through the soil. If soils are already wet or 

saturated before rainfall or irrigation, excess moisture would runoff rather than infiltrate into 

the soil profile. Soil moisture also would influence microbial and chemical activity in soil, 

which effects pesticide degradation. 

 Soil pH would influence chemical reactions that occur in the soil which in turn determines 

whether or not a pesticide will degrade, rate of degradation, and, in some instances, which 

degradation products are produced. 

Based upon the aforementioned properties, soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination 

would be sandy soils with low organic matter. In contrast, the least vulnerable soils would be welldrained clayey soils with high organic matter. Consequently, pesticides with the lowest potential for 

movement in conjunction with appropriate best management practices (see below) would be used in 

an IPM framework to treat pests while minimizing effects to non-target biota and protecting 

environmental quality. 

Along with soil properties, the potential for a pesticide to affect water quality through runoff and 

leaching would consider site-specific environmental and abiotic conditions including rainfall, water 

table conditions, and topography (Huddleston 1996). 

 Water is necessary to separate pesticides from soil. This can occur in two basic ways. 

Pesticides that are soluble move easily with runoff water. Pesticide-laden soil particles can 

be dislodged and transported from the application site in runoff. The concentration of 

pesticides in the surface runoff would be greatest for the first runoff event following 

treatment. The rainfall intensity and route of water infiltration into soil, to a large extent, 

determine pesticide concentrations and losses in surface runoff. The timing of the rainfall 

after application also would have an effect. Rainfall interacts with pesticides at a shallow soil 

depth (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch), which is called the mixing zone (Baker and Miller 1999). The 

pesticide/water mixture in the mixing zone would tend to leach down into the soil or runoff 

depending upon how quickly the soil surface becomes saturated and how rapidly water can 

infiltrate into the soil. Leaching would decrease the amount of pesticide available near the 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-34 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

soil surface (mixing zone) to runoff during the initial rainfall event following application and 

subsequent rainfall events. 

 Terrain slope would affect the potential for surface runoff and the intensity of runoff. Steeper 

slopes would have greater potential for runoff following a rainfall event. In contrast, soils 

that are relatively flat would have little potential for runoff, except during intense rainfall 

events. In addition, soils in lower areas would be more susceptible to leaching as a result of 

receiving excessive water from surrounding higher elevations. 

 Depth to groundwater would be an important factor affecting the potential for pesticides to 

leach into groundwater. If the distance from the soil surface to the top of the water table is 

shallow, pesticides would have less distance to travel to reach groundwater. Shallower water 

tables that persist for longer periods would be more likely to experience groundwater 

contamination. Soil survey reports are available for individual counties. These reports 

provide data in tabular format regarding the water table depths and the months during which 

it is persists. In some situations, a hard pan exists above the water table that would prevent 

pesticide contamination from leaching. 

O.7.5 Determining Effects to Air Quality 

Pesticides may volatilize from soil and plant surfaces and move from the treated area into the 

atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is determined by the pesticide’s vapor pressure 

which would be affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. 

Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these numbers easier to compare, vapor 

pressure may be expressed in exponent form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor pressure index. In 

general, pesticides with I<10 would have a low potential to volatilize; whereas, pesticides with 

I>1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). Vapor pressure 

values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) pesticide database. 

O.7.6 Preparing a Chemical Profile 

The following instructions would be used by Service personnel to complete Chemical Profiles for 

pesticides. Specifically, profiles would be prepared for pesticide active ingredients (e.g., glyphosate, 

imazapic) that would be contained in one or more trade name products that are registered and labeled 

with USEPA. All information fields under each category (e.g., Toxicological Endpoints, 

Environmental Fate) would be completed for a Chemical Profile. If no information is available for a 

specific field, then “No data is available in references” would be recorded in the profile. Available 

scientific information would be used to complete Chemical Profiles. Each entry of scientific 

information would be shown with applicable references. 

Completed Chemical Profiles would provide a structured decision-making process utilizing 

quantitative assessment/screening tools with threshold values (where appropriate) that would be used 

to evaluate potential biological and other environmental effects to refuge resources. For ecological 

risk assessments presented in these profiles, the “worst-case scenario” would be evaluated to 

determine whether a pesticide could be approved for use considering the maximum single application 

rate specified on pesticide labels for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance 

treatments pertaining to refuges. Where the “worst-case scenario” likely would only result in minor, 

temporary, and localized effects to listed and non-listed species with appropriate BMPs (see Section 

O.5), the proposed pesticide’s use in a PUP would have a scientific basis for approval under any 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-35 

application rate specified on the label that is at or below rates evaluated in a Chemical Profile. In 

some cases, the Chemical Profile would include a lower application rate than the maximum labeled 

rate in order to protect refuge resources. As necessary, Chemical Profiles would be periodically 

updated with new scientific information or as pesticides with the same active ingredient are proposed 

for use on the refuge in PUPs. 

Throughout this section, threshold values (to prevent or minimize potential biological and 

environmental effects) would be clearly identified for specific information presented in a completed 

Chemical Profile. Comparison with these threshold values provides an explicit scientific basis to 

approve or disapprove PUPs for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge 

lands. In general, PUPs would be approved for pesticides with Chemical Profiles where there would 

be no exceedances of threshold values. However, BMPs are identified for some screening tools that 

would minimize/eliminate potential effects (exceedance of the threshold value) as a basis for 

approving PUPs. 

Date: Service personnel would record the date when the Chemical Profile is completed or updated. 

Chemical Profiles (e.g., currently approved pesticide use patterns) would be periodically reviewed 

and updated, as necessary. The most recent review date would be recorded on a profile to document 

when it was last updated. 

Trade Name(s): Service personnel would accurately and completely record the trade name(s) from 

the pesticide label, which includes a suffix that describes the formulation (e.g., WP, DG, EC, L, SP, 

I, II or 64). The suffix often distinguishes a specific product among several pesticides with the same 

active ingredient. Service personnel would record a trade name for each pesticide product with the 

same active ingredient. 

Common chemical name(s): Service personnel would record the common name(s) listed on the 

pesticide label or material safety data sheet (MSDS) for an active ingredient. The common name of a 

pesticide is listed as the active ingredient on the title page of the product label immediately following 

the trade name, and the MSDS, Section 2: Composition/ Information on Ingredients. A Chemical 

Profile is completed for each active ingredient. 

Pesticide Type: Service personnel would record the type of pesticide for an active ingredient as one 

of the following: herbicide, dessicant, fungicide, fumigant, growth regulator, insecticide, pisicide, or 

rodenticide. 

EPA Registration Number(s): This number (EPA Reg. No.) appears on the title page of the label 

and MSDS, Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Description. It is not the EPA 

Establishment Number that is usually located near it. Service personnel would record the EPA Reg. 

No. for each trade name product with an active ingredient based upon PUPs. 

Pesticide Class: Service personnel would list the general chemical class for the pesticide (active 

ingredient). For example, malathion is an organophosphate and carbaryl is a carbamate. 

CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Number: This number is often located in the second section 

(Composition/Information on Ingredients) of the MSDS. The MSDS table listing components 

usually contains this number immediately prior to or following the % composition. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-36 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Other Ingredients: From the most recent MSDS for the proposed pesticide product(s), Service 

personnel would include any chemicals in the pesticide formulation not listed as an active ingredient 

that are described as toxic or hazardous, or regulated under the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), State Right-to-Know, or other listed authorities. These are usually found in 

MSDS sections titled “Hazardous Identifications”, “Exposure Control/Personal Protection”, and 

“Regulatory Information”. If concentrations of other ingredients are available for any compounds 

identified as toxic or hazardous, then Service personnel would record this information in the 

Chemical Profile by trade name. MSDS(s) may be obtained from the manufacturer, manufacturer’s 

website or from an on-line database maintained by Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. (see list 

below). 

Toxicological Endpoints 

Toxicological endpoint data would be collected for acute and chronic tests with mammals, birds, and 

fish. Data would be recorded for species available in the scientific literature. If no data are found for 

a particular taxonomic group, then “No data available is references” would be recorded as the data 

entry. Throughout the Chemical Profile, references (including toxicological endpoint data) would be 

cited using parentheses (#) following the recorded data. 

Mammalian LD50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw (body weight) or ppm-bw. Most common test 

species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LD50 value found for a rat would be 

used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk to mammals (see 

Table 1 in Section O.7.1). 

Mammalian LC50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LC50 value found for a 

rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for diet-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see 

Table 1 in Section O.7.1). 

Mammalian Reproduction: For test species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record the test results (e.g., Lowest Observed Effect Concentration [LOEC], Lowest Observed 

Effect Level [LOEL], No Observed Adverse Effect Level [NOAEL], No Observed Adverse Effect 

Concentration [NOAEC]) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet for reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., 

generational studies [preferred], fertility, new born weight). Most common test species available in 

scientific literature are rats and mice. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, NOEL, or NOAEL test results 

found for a rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk 

(see Table 1 in Section O.7.1). 

Avian LD50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw or ppm-bw. Most common test species available in 

scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest LD50 value found for an avian 

species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk 

(see Table 1 in Section O.7.1). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-37 

Avian LC50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest 

LC50 value found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dietary-based 

RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table 1 in Section O.7.1). 

Avian Reproduction: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would

record test results (e.g., LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet consumed for 

reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, reproductive). Most common test species 

available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, 

NOEL, or NOAEL test results found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint 

for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table 1 in Section O.7.1). 

Fish LC50: For test freshwater or marine species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record a LC50 in ppm or mg/L. Most common test species available in the scientific literature 

are the bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow (marine). Test results for many game species 

may also be available. The lowest LC50 value found for a freshwater fish species would be used as a 

toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table 1 in Section O.7.1). 

Fish Early Life Stage (ELS)/Life Cycle: For test freshwater or marine species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record test results (e.g., LOEC, NOAEL, NOAEC, 

LOAEC) in ppm for test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, life cycle). Most common test species 

available in the scientific literature are bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow. Test results for 

other game species may also be available. The lowest test value found for a fish species (preferably 

freshwater) would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see 

Table 1 in Section O.7.1). 

Other: For test invertebrate as well as non-vascular and vascular plant species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record LC50, LD50, LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL, or 

EC50 (environmental concentration) values in ppm or mg/L. Most common test invertebrate species 

available in scientific literature are the honey bee and the water flea (Daphnia magna). Green algae 

(Selenastrum capricornutum) and pondweed (Lemna minor) are frequently available test species for 

aquatic non-vascular and vascular plants, respectively. 

Ecological Incident Reports: After a site has been treated with pesticide(s), wildlife may be 

exposed to these chemical(s). When exposure is high relative to the toxicity of the pesticides, 

wildlife may be killed or visibly harmed (incapacitated). Such events are called ecological incidents. 

The USEPA maintains a database (Ecological Incident Information System) of ecological incidents. 

This database stores information extracted from incident reports submitted by various federal and 

state agencies and non-government organizations. Information included in an incident report is date 

and location of the incident, type and magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of 

pesticides known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue and 

cholinesterase activity analyses conducted during the investigation. 

Incident reports can play an important role in evaluating the effects of pesticides by supplementing 

quantitative risk assessments. All incident reports for pesticide(s) with the active ingredient and 

associated information would be recorded. 

Environmental Fate 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-38 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Water Solubility: Service personnel would record values for water solubility (Sw), which describes 

the amount of pesticide that dissolves in a known quantity of water. Sw is expressed as mg/L (ppm). 

Pesticide Sw values would be categorized as one of the following: insoluble <0.1 ppm, moderately 

soluble = 100 to 1000 ppm, highly soluble >10,000 ppm (US Geological Survey 2000). As pesticide 

Sw increases, there would be greater potential to degrade water quality through runoff and leaching. 

Sw would be used to evaluate potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic species [see Octanol-Water 

Partition Coefficient (Kow) below]. 

Soil Mobility: Service personnel would record available values for soil adsorption coefficient (Koc

[μg/g]). It provides a measure of a chemical's mobility and leaching potential in soil. Koc values are 

directly proportional to organic content, clay content, and surface area of the soil. Koc data for a 

pesticide may be available for a variety of soil types (e.g., clay, loam, sand). 

Koc values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see

Potential to Move to Groundwater below).

Soil Persistence: Service personnel would record values for soil half-life (t1⁄2), which represents the 

length of time (days) required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) 

in the soil. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, soil persistence would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 days (Kerle et. 

al. 1996). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If soil t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water quality. 

If soil t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to protect 

water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that can 

degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil t1⁄2 values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by 

leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, soil t1⁄2 describes the rate for degradation 

only. As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Field dissipation time would 

be the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide concentrations in the environment because it is 

based upon field studies compared to soil t1⁄2, which is derived in a laboratory. However, soil t1⁄2 is the 

most common persistence data available in the published literature. If field dissipation data is not 

available, soil half-life data would be used in a Chemical Profile. The average or representative halflife value of most important degradation mechanism would be selected for quantitative analysis for 

both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-39 

Based upon the DT50 value, environmental persistence in the soil also would be categorized as one of 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If soil DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If soil DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil DT50 values (preferred over soil t1⁄2) would be used in evaluating the potential to 

degrade groundwater by leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below), if available. 

Aquatic Persistence: Service personnel would record values for aquatic t1⁄2, which represents the 

length of time required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) in 

water. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, aquatic persistence would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 days (Kerle et. 

al. 1996). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If aquatic t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Aquatic Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade or move (dissipate); whereas, aquatic t1⁄2 describes the rate for degradation only. 

As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Based upon the DT50 value, 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-40 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

environmental persistence in aquatic habitats also would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 days. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If aquatic DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Potential to Move to Groundwater: Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) = log10(soil t 1⁄2) x [4 – 

log10(Koc)]. If a DT50 value is available, it would be used rather than a t 1⁄2 value to calculate a GUS 

score. Based upon the GUS value, the potential to move toward groundwater would be recorded as 

one of the following categories: extremely low potential<1.0, low - 1.0 to 2.0, moderate - 2.0 to 3.0, 

high - 3.0 to 4.0, or very high>4.0. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If GUS ≤4.0, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water quality. 

If GUS >4.0, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to protect water 

quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that can 

degrade water quality: 

 Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

 Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

 Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Volatilization: Pesticides may volatilize (evaporate) from soil and plant surfaces and move offtarget into the atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is a function of its vapor 

pressure that is affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. 

Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these values easier to compare, vapor pressure 

would be recorded by Service personnel in exponential form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor 

pressure index. In general, pesticides with I<10 would have low potential to volatilize; whereas, 

pesticides with I >1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-41 

Vapor pressure values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the 

USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) pesticide database (see References). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If I ≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to minimize drift and protect air 

quality. 

If I >1,000, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize drift 

and protect air quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce volatilization and potential to drift and 

degrade air quality: 

 Do not treat when wind velocities are <2 or >10 mph with existing or potential inversion 

conditions. 

 Apply the large-diameter droplets possible for spray treatments. 

 Avoid spraying when air temperatures >85oF. 

 Use the lowest spray height possible above target canopy. 

 Where identified on the pesticide label, soil incorporate pesticide as soon as possible during 

or after application. 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): The octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) is the 

concentration of a pesticide in octanol and water at equilibrium at a specific temperature. Because 

octanol is an organic solvent, it is considered a surrogate for natural organic matter. Therefore, Kow

would be used to assess potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in tissues of aquatic species (e.g., 

fish). If Kow >1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil t1⁄2>30 days, then there would be high potential for a 

pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species such as fish (US Geological Survey 2000). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If there is not a high potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species, then the PUP would 

be approved. 

If there is a high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic species (Kow>1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil 

t1⁄2>30 days), then the PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where approval 

would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: The physiological process where pesticide concentrations in 

tissue would increase in biota because they are taken and stored at a faster rate than they are 

metabolized or excreted. The potential for bioaccumulation would be evaluated through 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or bioconcentration factors (BCFs). Based upon BAF or BCF 

values, the potential to bioaccumulate would be recorded as one of the following: low – 0 to 300, 

moderate – 300 to 1,000, or high >1,000 (Calabrese and Baldwin 1993). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If BAF or BCF≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-42 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

If BAF or BCF>1,000, then a PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where 

approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Worst-Case Ecological Risk Assessment 

Max Application Rates (acid equivalent): Service personnel would record the highest application 

rate of an active ingredient (ae basis) for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance 

treatments in this data field of a Chemical Profile. These rates can be found in Table CP.1 under the 

column heading “Max Product Rate – Single Application (lbs/acre – AI on acid equiv basis)”. This 

table would be prepared for a Chemical Profile from information specified in labels for trade name 

products identified in PUPs. If these data are not available in pesticide labels, then write “NS” for 

“not specified on label” in this table. 

EECs: An estimated environmental concentration (ECC) represents potential exposure to fish and 

wildlife (birds and mammals) from using a pesticide. EECs would be derived by Service personnel 

using an USEPA screening-level approach (US Environmental Protection Agency 2004). For each 

max application rate [see description under Max Application Rates (acid equivalent)], Service 

personnel would record 2 EEC values in a Chemical Profile; these would represent the worst-case 

terrestrial and aquatic exposures for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance 

treatments. For terrestrial and aquatic EEC calculations, see description for data entry under 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients, which is the next field for a Chemical Profile. 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients: Service personnel would calculate and record 

acute and chronic risk quotients (RQs) for birds, mammals, and fish using the provided tabular 

formats for habitat management and/or cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. RQs recorded in 

a Chemical Profile would represent the worst-case assessment for ecological risk. See Section O.7.2 

for discussion regarding the calculations of RQs. 

For aquatic assessments associated with habitat management treatments, RQ calculations would be 

based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints for fish and the EEC would be derived 

from Urban and Cook (1986) assuming 100% overspray to an entire 1-foot deep water body using 

the max application rate (ae basis [see above]). 

For aquatic assessments associated with cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, RQ calculations 

would be done by Service personnel based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints 

for fish and an EEC would be derived from the aquatic assessment in AgDRIFT® model version 2.01 

under Tier I ground-based application with the following input variables: max application rate (acid 

basis [see above]), low boom (20 inches), fine to medium/coarse droplet size, 20 swaths, EPAdefined wetland, and 25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 

See Section O.7.2.1.2 for more details regarding the calculation of EECs for aquatic habitats for 

habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. 

For terrestrial avian and mammalian assessments, RQ calculations would be done by Service 

personnel based upon dietary exposure, where the “short grass” food item category would represent 

the worst-case scenario. For terrestrial spray applications associated with habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, exposure (EECs and RQs) would be determined using the 

Kanaga nomogram method through the USEPA’s T-REX version 1.2.3. T-REX input variables 

would include the following: max application rate (acid basis [see above]) and pesticide half-life 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-43 

(days) in soil to estimate the initial, maximum pesticide residue concentration on general food items 

for terrestrial vertebrate species in short (<20 cm tall) grass. 

For granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed with a unique route of exposure for 

terrestrial avian and mammalian wildlife, see Section O.7.2.1.1.2 for the procedure that would be 

used to calculate RQs. 

All calculated RQs in both tables would be compared with Levels of Concern (LOCs) established by 

USEPA (see Table 2 in Section O.7.2). If a calculated RQ exceeds an established LOC value (in 

brackets inside the table), then there would be a potential for an acute or chronic effect (unacceptable 

risk) to federally listed (T&E) species and nonlisted species. See Section O.7.2 for detailed 

descriptions of acute and chronic RQ calculations and comparison to LOCs to assess risk. 

Threshold for approving PUPs: 

If RQs≤LOCs, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

If RQs>LOCs, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize 

exposure (ecological risk) to bird, mammal, and/or fish species. One or more BMPs such as the 

following would be included in the Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce 

potential risk to non-listed or listed species: 

 Lower application rate and/or fewer number of applications so RQs≤LOCs 

 For aquatic assessments (fish) associated with cropland/facilities maintenance, increase the 

buffer distance beyond 25 feet so RQs≤LOCs. 

Justification for Use: Service personnel would describe the reason for using the pesticide based 

control of specific pests or groups of pests. In most cases, the pesticide label will provide the 

appropriate information regarding control of pests to describe in the section. 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs): Service personnel would record specific BMPs 

necessary to minimize or eliminate potential effects to non-target species and/or degradation of 

environmental quality from drift, surface runoff, or leaching. These BMPs would be based upon 

scientific information documented in previous data fields of a Chemical Profile. Where necessary 

and feasible, these specific practices would be included in PUPs as a basis for approval. 

If there are no specific BMPs that are appropriate, then Service personnel would describe why the 

potential effects to refuge resources and/or degradation of environmental quality is outweighed by 

the overall resource benefit(s) from the proposed pesticide use in the BMP section of the PUP. See 

Section O.4 of this document for a complete list of BMPs associated with mixing and applying 

pesticides appropriate for all PUPs with ground-based treatments that would be additive to any 

necessary, chemical-specific BMPs. 

References: Service personnel would record scientific resources used to provide data/information 

for a chemical profile. Use the number sequence to uniquely reference data in a chemical profile. 

The following on-line data resources are readily available for toxicological endpoint and 

environmental fate data for pesticides: 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-44 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

1. California Product/Label Database. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California 

Environmental Protection Agency. (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm#regprods) 

2. ECOTOX database. Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/) 

3. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET) Pesticide Information Profiles. Cooperative effort 

of University of California-Davis, Oregon State University, Michigan State University, Cornell 

University and University of Idaho through Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

(http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html) 

4. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protection products. Pesticide Management Unit, 

Plant Protection Services, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations. 

(http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/) 

5. Human health and ecological risk assessments. Pesticide Management and Coordination, Forest 

Health Protection, US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service. 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm) 

6. Pesticide Chemical Fact Sheets. Clemson University Pesticide Information Center. 

(http://entweb.clemson.edu/pesticid/Document/Labels/factshee.htm) 

7. Pesticide Fact Sheets. Published by Information Ventures, Inc. for Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of Interior; Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy; and Forest 

Service, US Department of Agriculture. (http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/pest-fac.html) 

8. Pesticide Fact Sheets. National Pesticide Information Center. (http://npic.orst.edu/npicfact.htm) 

9. Pesticide Fate Database. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/pfate/home.cfm). 

 10. Pesticide product labels and material safety data sheets. Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. 

(CDMS) (http://www.cdms.net/pfa/LUpdateMsg.asp) or multiple websites maintained by 

agrichemical companies. 

11. Registered Pesticide Products (Oregon database). Oregon Department of Agriculture. 

(http://www.oda.state.or.us/dbs/pest_products/search.lasso) 

12. Regulatory notes. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Ontario, Canada. 

(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/) 

13. Reptile and Amphibian Toxicology Literature. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, 

Ontario, Canada. (http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/nwrc-cnrf/ratl/index_e.cfm) 

14. Specific Chemical Fact Sheet – New Active Ingredients, Biopesticide Fact Sheet and Registration 

Fact Sheet. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

(http://www.epa.gov/pestidides/factsheets/chemical_fs.htm) 

15. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The Invasive 

Species Initiative. The Nature Conservancy. (http://tnsweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html) 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-45 

16. Wildlife Contaminants Online. US Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 

(http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/contaminants-online/) 

17. One-liner database. 2000. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Washington, D.C. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-46 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Chemical Profile 

Date: 

Trade Name(s): Common Chemical Name(s): 

Pesticide Type: EPA Registration Number: 

Pesticide Class: CAS Number: 

Other Ingredients: 

Toxicological Endpoints 

Mammalian LD50: 

Mammalian LC50: 

Mammalian Reproduction: 

Avian LD50: 

Avian LC50: 

Avian Reproduction: 

Fish LC50: 

Fish ELS/Life Cycle: 

Other: 

Ecological Incident Reports 

Environmental Fate 

Water solubility (Sw): 

Soil Mobility (Koc): 

Soil Persistence (t1⁄2): 

Soil Dissipation (DT50): 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-47 

Aquatic Persistence (t1⁄2): 

Aquatic Dissipation (DT50): 

Potential to Move to Groundwater 

(GUS score): 

Volatilization (mm Hg): 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): 

Bioaccumulation/Biocentration: BAF:` 

BCF: 

Worst Case Ecological Risk Assessment 

Max Application Rate 

(ai lbs/acre – ae basis) 

Habitat Management: 

Croplands/Facilities Maintenance: 

EECs Terrestrial (Habitat Management): 

Terrestrial (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 

Aquatic (Habitat Management): 

Aquatic (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 

Habitat Management Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) Species Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-48 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) Species Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Justification for Use: 

Specific Best Management 

Practices (BMPs): 

References: 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program Table CP.1 Pesticide Name 

Trade Namea Treatment Typeb 

Max Product Rate – 

Single Application 

(lbs/acre or 

gal/acre) 

Max Product Rate 

-Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre - AI on 

acid equiv basis) 

Max Number of 

Applications Per 

Season 

Max Product Rate 

Per Season 

(lbs/acre/season or 

gal/acre/season) 

aFrom each label for a pesticide identified in pesticide use proposals (PUPs), Service personnel would record application information as

possible/known uses on Service lands.

bTreatment type: H – habitat management or CF – cropland/facilities maintenance. If a pesticide is labeled for both types of treatments 

separate data for H and CF applications. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-50 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

O.8 References 

AgDrift 2001. A user’s guide for AgDrift 2.04: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift of 

pesticides. Spray Drift Task Force, PO Box 509, Macon, Missouri. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) US Department of Health and Human 

Services. 2004. Guidance Manual for the Assessment of Joint Toxic Action of Chemical 

Mixtures. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, 

Division of Toxicology. 62 pages plus Appendices. 

Baehr, C.H., and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in terrestrial 

nontarget organism risk assessment. 10th Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk 

Assessment, American Society of Testing and Materials. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension Publication 

PM 1495, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Barry, T. 2004. Characterization of propanil prune foliage residues as related to propanil use patterns 

in the Sacramento Valley, CA. Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide 

Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, Hawaii. 15 pages. 

Battaglin, W.A., E.M. Thurman, S.J. Kalkhoff, and S.D. Porter. 2003. Herbicides and 

Transformation Products in Surface Waters of the Midwestern United States. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(4):743-756. 

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:375-382. 

Brooks, M.L., D’Antonio, C.M., Richardson, D.M., Grace, J.B., Keeley, J.E. and others. 2004. 

Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54:77-88. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 western states Programmatic EIS (PEIS). Washington Office, 

Bureau of Land Management. 

Butler, T., W. Martinkovic, and O.N. Nesheim. 1998. Factors influencing pesticide movement to 

ground water. Extension Publication PI-2, University of Florida, Cooperative Extension 

Service, Gainesville, FL. 4 pages. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Lewis 

Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 

Center, T.D., Frank, J.H., and Dray Jr., F.A. 1997. Biological Control. Strangers in Paradise: Impact 

and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. P.245-263. 

Cox, R.D., and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland 

through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management 57:203-210. 

Coombs, E.M., J.K Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco Jr. 2004. Biological control of invasive 

plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 467 pages. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-51 

Driver, C.J., M.W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B.D. McVeety, B.J. Greenspan, and D.B. Brown. 1991. 

Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern 

bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry 10:21-33. 

Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Western Bird Banding 

Association. Monograph No. 1. 

EXTOXNET. 1993a. Movement of pesticides in the environment. Pesticide Information Project of 

Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of 

Idaho, University of California – Davis, and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, 

Michigan State University. 4 pages. 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residue on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1381-1391. 

Hasan, S. and P.G. Ayres. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and prospects. 

Tansley Review 23:201-222. 

Huddleston, J.H. 1996. How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide 

contamination. EM 8559. Oregon State University Extension Service. 4 pages. 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and mobility for 

groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University Extension 

Service. 8 pages. 

Masters, R.A, and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for managing 

rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Manage 54:502-517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone 

herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 10:392-403. 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1-

9. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24:24-29. 

Moody, M.E., and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of 

nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009-1021. 

Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An Invasive Species Assessment 

Protocol: NatureServe. 

Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. Invasive Plant 

Species. Issue Paper (13):1-18. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-52 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide Information 

Profiles. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the EPA 

(Kanaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535-543. 

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: what farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa and Iowa 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Ramsay, C.A., G.C. Craig, and C.B. McConnell. 1995. Clean water for Washington – protecting 

groundwater from pesticide contamination. Extension Publication EB1644, Washington State 

University Extension, Pullman, Washington. 12 pages. 

SDTF 2003 Spray Drift Task Force. 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies. Spray 

Drift Task Force, Macon, Missouri. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, S.L. Ray, S.G. and Perry. 1997. A User's Guide for 

AgDRIFTTM 1.0: A Tiered Approach for the Assessment of Spray Drift of Pesticides, 

Technical Note No. 95-10, CDI, Princeton, New Jersey. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, T.B. Curbishley, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 2002. 

AgDRIFT®: a model for estimating near-field spray drift from aerial applications. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21: 659-671. 

Urban, D.J and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C. 94 

pages. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Laboratory Test Methods of Exposure to Microbial 

Pest Control Agents by the Respiratory Route to Nontarget Avian Species. Environmental 

Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-90/070. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. A Comparative Analysis of Ecological Risks from 

Pesticides and Their Uses: Background, Methodology & Case Study. Environmental Fate & 

Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 105 pages. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process in 

the Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency: endangered and 

threatened species effects determinations, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 

101 pages. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005a. Technical overview of ecological risk assessment 

risk characterization; Approaches for evaluating exposure; Granular, bait, and treated seed 

applications. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/toera_analysis_exp.htm. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program O-53 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005b. User’s Guide TREX v1.2.3. US Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 22 pages. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex_usersguide.htm. 

US Geological Survey. 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota – current 

understanding of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00, US Geological 

Survey, Sacramento, California. 4 pages. 

US Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. 359 pages. 

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. The 

SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-155. 

Woods, N. 2004. Australian developments in spray drift management. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii. 

8 pages. 
Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP/EIS 

O-54 Appendix O. Integrated Pest Management Program 

This page left blank intentionally. 
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 111

Lakeview, OR 97630

Phone: 541/947-3315

Fax: 541/947-4414

September 2012

Cover Photo

Pronghorn antelope

USFWS

Inside Cover Photo

Virgin Gorge

USFWS, Gail H Collins