Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Plan

• The Sheldon Refuge should continue to be managed to restore and maintain healthy habitats for sagebrush-dependent animals and plants.

• Wild horses and burros should not be allowed to displace native wildlife and damage the sagebrush ecosystem on the Refuge.

• Human uses, including recreation, roads, inholdings, mines and utility corridors, should also be managed to restore and maintain a healthy sagebrush ecosystem on the Refuge.

• Read theToiyabe Chapter's comprehensive scoping comments

• Follow the link to the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge website:  http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning  and then click on
  NEW Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan to download the PDF file.
  

1. Inventories:  Have inventories of Refuge plants and animals been done?  Do they need to be updated?  What are the habitat needs of sagebrush steppe ecosystem populations and how can the Refuge meet them?   Which populations are increasing and which declining? How can declining populations of sagebrush steppe dependent birds and other species be reversed on the Sheldon where it is occurring?

2. Wildlife Habitat: How can we improve wildlife habitat on the Refuge for plants, vertebrates and invertebrates?  Should wildfires be used or prevented and what criteria is needed to make this decision on specific areas on the Refuge?  What kind, if any, wildfire restoration should be done?  How should degraded riparian areas be restored?  Or protected from wild horse and other impacts?  Are roads or other human uses negatively impacting wildlife habitat, and, if so, how can these impacts be eliminated or reduced?  Should ATVs and other off-road vehicles be prohibited on the Refuge and vehicle use be limited to street legal vehicles only?  How much interior fencing should be removed?  Or made wildlife friendly?  How can the boundary fence be strengthened?  What are the conditions of aquatic habitats and how can they be improved for both vertebrate and invertebrate species?  How will global warming impact wildlife habitat on the Refuge and how should management be changed to address those impacts?  Because of the massive damage done to ecosystem health by decades of livestock grazing, the Refuge plan should specifically prohibit livestock grazing while restoration activities are being carried out.

• Water:  Water is critical for wildlife.  The plan should inventory all water resources, determine which are owned by USF&WS and which may require filing with the Nevada State Engineer.  Further the USFWS should identify where wetlands and seeps support vegetation and wildlife for possible filing as a vested water right to prevent the usurpation of valuable water resources by private and public entities (as has occurred elsewhere on refuges in Nevada).  In conjunction with the water inventory, a policy regarding manmade reservoirs and the many small "scoops" for providing water to animals should be established.  These may erode over time – should they be kept, eliminated, or maintained?  Management needs of Catnip Reservoir which now houses a wetland bird complex, still supports a pure Lahontan Cutthroat strain, and is very popular with human visitors should be addressed: is public use impacting Catnip and how can it be better managed?  Also, the dam is leaking and may need restoration if the Reservoir is retained.

• Vegetation management:  Junipers are well-established on the Refuge and provide habitat for many vertebrate species.  Where should they be removed or thinned and where should they be conserved?  Have invasive species inventories been done? What invasive species control and management is needed on the Refuge?

• Migration corridors:  Since we know that pronghorn move between Hart and Sheldon Refuges, we believe that the population will thrive to the extent that their access is facilitated. Scale is important to successful ecosystem preservation.  The Refuge plan should develop a vision for linking the Hart and Sheldon Refuges, including considering options for facilitating migration, acquiring additional lands, purchasing conservation easements and/or coordinating with local landowners, state agencies and nonprofits to secure pronghorn migration corridors.

• Inholdings and border lands: Within the next 15 years, pressures to develop inholdings and serious impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat may become the most severe threat facing the Sheldon.  Development of inholdings may include roads, transmission lines, manipulation of water, OHV activity, weeds, etc.  We would like the plan to include a list (and map) of private land inholdings.   Please also develop a priority list of acquisitions to avoid these problems.  Similarly, lands with critical wildlife values may exist outside the refuge - please identify these and their acquisition opportunities.

• Wild horses and burros:  In 1980, the Sierra Club supported the proposed Refuge Plan levels of 75-125 wild horses and burros,  It is nearly 30 years later.  Even with over 50% of the Refuge budget now being spent on management of these herds, populations have increased to between 800 and 1000 wild horses and burros.  Negative impacts to critical wildlife habitats and ecosystem health from these elevated numbers are incompatible with the Refuge mission or USFWS mandates.  We no longer believe that the USFWS is capable of managing the wild horse and burro population at the 75-125 level without unacceptable impacts to wildlife, the Refuge budget, and Refuge mandates.  Please include an alternative which zeroes out all wild horses and burros on the Sheldon and introduces a future management plan which will keep wild horses and burros at negligible levels while requiring minimal costs.  Wild horses and burros will always be present at some level, but the issue here is to prevent the animals' management from consuming the Refuge budget and wildlife managers' times. 

• Predators:  Predators are part of the natural environment and essential to the integrity of the sagebrush steppe ecosystem.  Efforts to eliminate or reduce predator populations are incompatible with Refuge mandates and with ecosystem health and processes.  The Plan should include predators as a positive member of the sagebrush steppe ecosystem.  If a "predator management plan or subplan" is developed for the Sheldon, it should be subject to Refuge purposes and a full public review process.

• Sensitive species:  The Sheldon contains many sensitive species.  Some are listed under the Endangered Species Act and some are not, but have declining populations and vanishing habitats.  The Refuge Plan should address the needs of protecting, maintaining, and enhancing sensitive species.

• Other large mammals:  Elk and buffalo have been seen on the Sheldon over the last few years.  Populations may become established naturally or with our help.  There is a buffalo restoration plan for the western US.  In the plan, elk and buffalo management should be subject to the Refuge purposes, including maintaining/restoring ecosystem health - or too many animals could have serious adverse environmental impacts (such as by the current over-populations of wild horses and burros and historic livestock).

3. Other uses and activities:  There are many other potential uses of the Sheldon Refuge.  Some are compatible with the overall goal of maintaining and enhancing the integrity of sagebrush ecosystems and wildlife and wildlife habitat and should be continued  Others are incompatible with Refuge goals and should be prohibited.  And others may have impacts, but those impacts can be avoided, minimized or mitigated.  The USFWS should clearly identify in the Refuge plan those activities which are compatible with the wildlife mandate of the Refuge and which require more regulation or elimination. 

• Recreation:  public uses of the Refuge which do not negatively affect wildlife or wildlife habitat should be encouraged.  Other uses, such as off-road vehicles should be prohibited.

• Roads:  does the USFWS have an inventory of all of the roads on the Sheldon?  How many are “official” and how many have been created by off-road pioneering?  How many are actually necessary to provide access for the public?  How many “routes” have already been closed?  How many routes still need to be closed and rehabbed?  We would like to strongly urge the USFWS not to “pave” the roads in the Sheldon nor “improve” them beyond the needs of public safety and maintenance ease.    Where roads are causing erosion or other resource damage, they should be re-routed or eliminated We note that there is a paved highway segment which does provide viewing opportunities for wildlife.  Should the USFWS identify sites along the highway beyond the one already developed in virgin Valley where viewing opportunities should be provided to the public?  

• Mining:  Most mining is very destructive of wildlife habitat.  While the existing Refuge Plan provided for opal mining as a long established use whose impacts can be minimized, we strongly urge the Refuge Plan to consider seeking mineral closure for the entire Refuge.  If the USFWS cannot prevent mining operations before closure can be secured, we highly recommend that procedures to avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts of mining be established in the Refuge Plan.  These should include a very large bond commensurate with the amount of disturbances a mine would cause.

• Campgrounds:  The current number, location, and character of primitive campgrounds are adequate for the Sheldon.  But in the face of increasing human populations and demands for recreational facilities, they may not be enough in the future.  We recommend that the Refuge Plan examine a number of additional campground sites which could be added, if demand increases.  Any negative impacts of existing campgrounds on wildlife or wildlife habitat should be avoided or minimized or the campground should be relocated.  The Virgin Valley campground should be improved and camping fees charged to fund the improvements as its increasing popularity is leading to crowded and unpleasant conditions.  Campground hosts should be secured each year during the high use seasons to help maintain order and public safety.  Interpretive programs should be offered to acquaint visitors with the purposes and goals of the Refuge.

• Oil and Gas leasing:  these uses are incompatible with a national wildlife refuge.  We recommend that the Refuge be closed to these uses.

• Utility corridors:  Utility corridors through the Refuge have serious negative impacts on wildlife and on wildlife habitat, from construction disturbances to providing perches for predators of Sage Grouse to spreading invasive species and facilitating off-road vehicle use.  The Refuge should be closed to utility corridors as an incompatible use.

• Wild Character:  The Refuge Plan should address how to continue maintaining the wild character of the Sheldon.  Limiting “improvements” to roads and other facilities, prohibiting mining, oil and gas leasing, restricting street-legal vehicles to designated routes, managing increasing recreational uses, restoring ecoystem health to degraded wildlife habitats, closing pioneered routes, and managing/minimizing invasive species are some of the ways the USFWS should be using to maintain Sheldon's wild character.

4. Cultural & Prehistoric Resources:  The Sheldon is rich in historic, prehistoric, and Native American cultural resources.  The Plan should address ways both to protect these resources and provide opportunities for the public to enjoy some of these resources.  Native American tribes in the area should be consulted on which areas should be protected and how to interpret some sites for the public.