Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 1

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Fort Niobrara

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan
2 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 3
4 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Table of Contents

Summary ...............................................................................................................................................7

Introduction / Background ................................................................................................................ 11

Refuge Overview: History of Establishment, Acquisition & Management ................................................................ 11

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge History ................................................................................................... 11

Habitat Management History ................................................................................................................................. 12

Water Rights/Management History ....................................................................................................................... 12

Wildlife Management History ................................................................................................................................ 12

Bison ................................................................................................................................................................. 12

Elk .................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Pronghorn Antelope ......................................................................................................................................... 13

Bighorn Sheep .................................................................................................................................................. 13

Native Birds and Other Wildlife...................................................................................................................... 13

Texas Longhorn Cattle History........................................................................................................................ 14

Public Use History .................................................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 1. Canoeing - Tubing Visitation 1993-1997 .................................................................................................... 14

Current Refuge Resources Management ............................................................................................................... 15

Grassland/Fenced Animal Management ......................................................................................................... 15

Riparian and Woodland Management ............................................................................................................. 16

Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................................. 16

Native Birds and Other Wildlife...................................................................................................................... 16

Exotic and Invading Species ............................................................................................................................ 16

Public Use ......................................................................................................................................................... 17

Cultural and Paleontological Resources ......................................................................................................... 18

Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan...................................................................................... 18

Figure 2. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................................... 19

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals and Guiding Principles ................................................................. 21

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ....................................................................................................................... 22

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge Vision Statement ......................................................................................... 23

Legal and Policy Guidance ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Existing Partnerships ..................................................................................................................................................... 24

Planning Process .............................................................................................................................. 25

Description of Planning Process ................................................................................................................................... 25

Planning Issues .............................................................................................................................................................. 26

Texas Longhorn Cattle ............................................................................................................................................ 26

Recreational Use and Resources of the Niobrara River........................................................................................ 27

Habitat and Wildlife Management ........................................................................................................................ 29

Funding and Staffing to Manage the Refuge ........................................................................................................ 30

Other Public Uses and Recreation.......................................................................................................................... 30

Public Involvement Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 31
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 5

Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions ............................................................................ 33

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 33

Climate .................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................... 34

Topography .............................................................................................................................................................. 34

Geology .................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Soils .................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses ............................................................................................................... 35

Water Resources and Associated Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 35

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................................... 35

Grasslands ........................................................................................................................................................ 35

Woodlands ........................................................................................................................................................ 36

Figure 3. Wetland Map.................................................................................................................................................. 37

Figure 4. Vegetation Map ............................................................................................................................................. 39

Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................................... 41

Birds .................................................................................................................................................................. 41

Mammals .......................................................................................................................................................... 41

Amphibians and Reptiles ................................................................................................................................. 41

Fishes ................................................................................................................................................................ 42

Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................................. 42

Cultural and Paleontological Resources ................................................................................................................ 43

Socio-Economic and Political Environment ........................................................................................................... 43

Public Uses .............................................................................................................................................................. 43

Special Management Areas .......................................................................................................................................... 44

Special Legislated Designations ............................................................................................................................ 44

Wilderness Area ............................................................................................................................................... 44

Definition of Wilderness ........................................................................................................................... 44

Principles Governing the Management of Wilderness Areas ................................................................. 44

Wild and Scenic River ...................................................................................................................................... 45

Congressional Declaration of Policy ........................................................................................................ 45

Designation of Sections of the Niobrara River as Wild and Scenic ...................................................... 45

Review Requirements for Early Designations and Management Plans ................................................. 45

Research Natural Area ..................................................................................................................................... 45

National Recreational Trail System......................................................................................................... 45

National Historic Building ........................................................................................................................ 45

National Register of Historic Places ........................................................................................................ 45
6 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Management Direction ..................................................................................................................... 47

Refuge Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies/Projects ............................................................ 47

Refuge Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 47

Habitat Management ....................................................................................................................................... 48

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................. 49

Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................................. 51

Interpretation and Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 51

Ecosystem (Partners) ....................................................................................................................................... 52

Implementation and Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 53

Funding and Personnel .................................................................................................................................................. 53

Staffing Needed to Implement This Plan .............................................................................................................. 53

Funding Needed to Implement This Plan............................................................................................................... 53

CCP Implementation and Step-down Management Plans .......................................................................................... 54

Habitat Management and Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 54

Wildlife Management and Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 55

Threatened and Endangered Species Management and Monitoring ................................................................... 55

Interpretation and Recreation Resources Management and Monitoring ............................................................. 56

Niobrara River Use Management and Monitoring ......................................................................................... 56

Public Use Management and Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 56

Ecosystem (Partners) Management and Monitoring ............................................................................................. 57

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Management and Monitoring ............................................................... 57

Partnership Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................. 58

Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 58

Plan Amendment and Revision ..................................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix A. Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix B. Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 65

Appendix C. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) List ........................................................... 67

Appendix D. Maintenance Management System (MMS) List ........................................................ 79

Appendix E. Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................... 93

Appendix F. List of Animal and Plant Species at Fort Niobrara NWR ....................................... 103

Appendix G. Compliance Requirements ........................................................................................ 115

Appendix H. NEPA Documentation ............................................................................................... 119

Appendix I. Summary of Public Involvement/Comments and Consultation/Coordination ...... 129

Appendix J. Mailing List ................................................................................................................ 131

Appendix K. List of Preparers ........................................................................................................ 133

Appendix L. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation ...................................................................... 135
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 7

Summary

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is 19,131

acres in size and located along the Niobrara River in

north-central Nebraska. The Refuge is a unique and

ecologically important component of the National Wildlife

Refuge System (System) which includes over 500 refuges

totaling approximately 93 million acres across the United

States. Fort Niobrara NWR was established by Executive

Order in January, 1912 as a “preserve and breeding ground

for native birds.” Its purpose was expanded later that

same year to include the preservation of bison and elk

herds representative of those that once roamed the Great

Plains. Furthermore, the unusual, and unique assemblage

of plant communities currently present at the Refuge

(Sandhills Prairie, Mixed Prairie, Rocky Mountain

Coniferous Forest, Eastern Deciduous Forest, and Northern

Boreal Forest) support a rich diversity of wildlife

generally unchanged from historic times. Under the

Wilderness Act of 1964, a 4,635-acre portion of Fort

Niobrara was designated a Wilderness Area in 1976; a

portion of the Niobrara River through the Refuge was

designated a National Canoe Trail by Congress in 1982; and,

in 1991, a 76 mile stretch of the Niobrara River including

the River through this Refuge was designated Scenic

under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Plan) for the Fort

Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Cherry

County in north-central Nebraska is an updated and

revised version of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation

Plan and Environmental Assessment completed earlier

this year. It has been written to provide continuity of

management of Refuge lands for the benefit of wildlife and

people.

All efforts leading to the preparation of this Plan were

undertaken to provide the Refuge with a vision for the

future, guidelines for wildlife and habitat management

over the next 15 years to ensure progress is made toward

attaining the mission and goals of Fort Niobrara and the

Refuge System, and to comply with Congressional

mandates stated in the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997. The planning effort provided

opportunities for interested people, Federal and State

agencies, State and local governments, and private

organizations to give input on future management of the

Refuge. This Plan provides clear goals and objectives for

management of Refuge habitats, wildlife, threatened and

endangered species, cultural and paleontological resources,

compatible public uses, and partnerships, along with

implementation strategies, and recommended staffing and

funding. This Plan meets the planning requirements of the

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act enacted by

Congress in 1997.

The draft Environmental Assessment considered four

alternatives for management of Fort Niobrara NWR. Each

of the alternatives was evaluated for environmental

consequences in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This Plan, in its

present form, contains the goals, objectives, and strategies

found by the Service to best support purpose of the

Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.

For a summary of the alternatives considered during the

planning process, see Appendix H. Further information on

alternatives considered can be found in the Fort Niobrara

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation

Plan and Environmental Assessment (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1999).
8 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Clockwise from upper left: Bison have been

managed on Fort Niobrara National Wildlife

Refuge since 1913 to preserve a population

representative of the large herds that once roamed

the Great Plains; Fort Niobrara National Wildlife

Refuge and the surrounding area is the only place

in North America where Rocky Mountain

coniferous forest, northern boreal forest, eastern

deciduous forest, mixed-prairie and sandhill

prairie vegetation communities meet and

intermingle; Longhorm cattle will no longer be

managed by this Refuge; river floating is a popular

recreational activity on Fort Niobrara; the Fort Falls

Nature Trail allows visitors to experience the

habitats and wildlife along theFalls and the

Niobrara River; elk, especially bulls with growing

antlers, can be found near or in Refuge ponds and

streams during the hot days of summer; the loud

rolling “pulip pulip” call of upland sandpipers

signal that spring has come to the prairie; in April,

prairie chicken males display on traditional

breeding grounds on the Refuge; habitat created by

prairie dogs attract a variety of wildlife including

burrowing owls which use the underground

burrows for nesting.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 9
10 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 11

Introduction /

Background

Refuge Overview: History of Establishment,

Acquisition & Management

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge History

Fort Niobrara NWR was established by Executive Order

1461 on January 11, 1912, which reserved 13,279 acres

from the public domain as a “preserve and breeding

ground for native birds.” The reserve was established at

a time when tremendous concern existed over the

exploitation of birds and near extinction of bison.

Two environmental groups, National Association of

Audubon Societies and American Bison Society, were very

influential in the establishment and determination of

purpose of several Federal parks and refuges including

Fort Niobrara during the first two decades of the 20th

century. The National Association of Audubon Societies

was formed in 1905 and its first president, William

Dutcher, was a friend of U.S. President Theodore

Roosevelt. Numerous correspondence was exchanged

between them regarding over-harvest of birds, funding

for the Bureau of Biological Survey, and protection of

bird sites (refuges), and included a letter dated January

1, 1908, which discussed protection of birds and game on

the Fort Niobrara Military Reservation. The American

Bison Society, headed by Dr. William Hornaday, was

directly responsible for establishing Wichita Mountains

NWR in Oklahoma, National Bison Range in Montana,

and Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota for the

preservation of bison in the early 1900’s and was also

instrumental in bringing bison to Fort Niobrara. Dr.

Palmer, a member of the American Bison Society and 2nd

Vice President of the Audubon Society, states in the 1912

Annual Report of the American Bison Society that “on

January 12, 1912, the Niobrara Bird Reservation was

created by Executive Order. This reservation comprises

some 10,000 or 12,000 acres of land along the Niobrara

River, near Valentine, including some grazing land, and

only needs a fence to make it an ideal reservation for

buffalo and other big game of the Great Plains.”

A 1913 report from the Chief of the Bureau of Biological

Survey to the Secretary of Agriculture summarizes the

events leading up to the addition of the big game purpose

to Fort Niobrara. The following is an excerpt from that

report: “In the early part of the year 1912, Mr. J.W. Gilbert,

owner of a small big-game park at Friend, Nebraska,

generously offered his herd of buffalo, elk, and deer to

the Government for preservation on national territory

within the State of Nebraska. The lack of suitable

quarters caused some delay in accepting the offer, but on

November 14, 1912, an Executive Order was issued

setting aside as a game preserve a tract of land additional

to the Niobrara bird reservation near Valentine, Nebraska.

The herd was then officially accepted by the Secretary of

Agriculture and preparations began for establishing it on

this very favorable location. Through the cooperation of

the National Association of Audubon Societies and the

citizens of Valentine, an enclosure was provided at an

expense of $1,700. Some of the buildings remaining on the

old Fort Niobrara Military Reservation were utilized as

headquarters, and a warden was appointed on December

16, 1912.”

The Refuge was expanded again by Executive Orders in

1920 and 1936, the Resettlement Administration,

subsequent purchases from private individuals, and a

donation from the Nebraska Public Power District

bringing the Refuge’s total acreage to 19,131. Refuge

reports state that the 1920 expansion was for protecting/

providing winter roost sites for sharp-tailed grouse and

prairie chickens, and tracts of land acquired in 1936 were

for various purposes including planting of grain crops for

migratory birds, pronghorn antelope management, and

administrative efficiency (in holdings, straighten

boundaries).

In 1960, a 200 acre stand of Ponderosa pine in the northern

portion of the Refuge was designated as a Research

Natural Area; in 1976, approximately 4,635 acres in the

northern portion of the Refuge, including the Niobrara

River corridor, was designated as Nebraska’s first

Wilderness Area.

In 1982, five miles of the Niobrara River on the Refuge

was designated as a National Canoe Trail, and in 1991, a

total of 76 miles of the Niobrara River including the entire

stretch of River through the Refuge was designated by

Congress as a Scenic River.
12 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Habitat Management History

Management efforts from the Refuge’s establishment

through the early 1940’s considered the needs of both

birds and big game. Initial work involved a general

reconnaissance of the area and its bird life, and a survey

of the boundary and big game enclosure. Construction of

boundary fences of Refuge lands north of the Niobrara

River for use by expanding bison and elk herds was

planned in 1915 with the project completed in the early

1920’s. Earthen dams were built across various tributary

streams beginning in 1922 to improve conditions for

waterfowl. In the 1930’s, the Civilian Conservation Corps

and Work Projects Administration staff rebuilt several

original earthen dams, constructed new dams, planted

various wetland plants, constructed predator fencing

around ponds to improve nesting conditions, and planted

shelterbelts for birds. Corrals, additional fence, and

watering facilities south of the Niobrara River were also

constructed during this time. Approximately 150 acres of

Refuge lands were planted to various grain crops for

grouse and waterfowl in the late 1930’s.

Refuge reports and other correspondence suggest a shift

in management from a dual purpose (birds, big game) to

more of a single purpose (big game) beginning in the early

1940’s, although emphasis varied depending upon the

viewpoint of management. Numbers of bison, elk, and

longhorns maintained on the Refuge fluctuated according to

forage availability and genetic management needs. For

example, during the 1940’s and 1950’s, up to 10,000 acres

of Refuge grasslands were annually hayed or grazed by

permittees and not available for use by big game herds.

Approved winter herd levels during this time period

were 175 bison and 150 longhorns. Following a review of

management programs in the mid-1950’s, permittee

haying and grazing was terminated and more fence and

water facilities were constructed to allow areas to be

rested, encourage recovery of grasses, better distribute

grazing by the bison and longhorns, and enable

management to consider the needs of prairie grouse.

Herd levels following the review in 1956 and until the

mid-1980’s varied with approximately 225 bison, 40 elk,

and 200-300 longhorns maintained under a deferred

grazing rotation. Bison and longhorn herds were allowed

to increase in the late-1980’s to implement high intensity,

short duration grazing, and meet suggested genetic

management recommendations. Longhorn numbers

peaked in 1991 at 370, and the bison herd reached its

Refuge high of 400 animals in 1992-1996. Maintenance of

bison and longhorns at high herd levels limited habitat

management options and raised concern that native bird

populations, especially prairie grouse, were not receiving

adequate management consideration. A review of the

habitat and fenced animal management programs was

initiated and included consultation with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) on grassland condition

assessment and grazing program recommendations,

consultation with geneticists and review of literature

regarding bison and longhorn management, and review of

scientific literature as it relates to native bird

management.

Water Rights/Management History

Fort Niobrara NWR holds no water rights permits with

the State of Nebraska; however, lands reserved from the

public domain for creation of the Fort Niobrara NWR

carry with them a Federal Reserved Water Right that

the United States has not asserted at this time.

The Refuge has 25 windmill driven stock water wells and

six domestic wells which do not require groundwater

permits. Also, the 12 low level spring-fed impoundments

are exempt from special dam construction or water

storage permits because of their size and because

diversion or withdrawal of water from the reservoirs is

nonexistent.

A portion of the Niobrara River was designated as Wild

and Scenic in 1991. The National Park Service has

asserted, as yet unquantified, a Federal Reserve Water

Right to maintain instream flow.

In 1986, the Nebraska Public Power District quitclaimed

land to the United States that included the Cornell Dam

and Power House.

Wildlife Management History

Bison

An estimated 30 million bison once roamed the Great

Plains; however, by the late 1880’s, fewer than 1,000

animals were alive due to loss of habitat and hunting.

Free-ranging bison are believed to have been extirpated

from Nebraska in 1878 (Jones et al. 1983). Bison were

reintroduced to Fort Niobrara in January 1913 as part of

the national effort to preserve this native herbivore with

the donation of six bison (sex unknown) from J.W. Gilbert

of Friend, Nebraska and the transfer of two bulls from

Yellowstone National Park. Additional introductions

were made in 1935 (4 males, Custer State Park), 1937 (4

males, Custer State Park), and 1952 (5 males, National

Bison Range) to minimize inbreeding and maintain the

species as closely genetically as possible to those

surviving the bottleneck of near extinction.

Policy/philosophy implemented over the years has been

to preserve and maintain a representative herd under

reasonably natural conditions in numbers sufficient to

ensure their continued existence. Management actions

have included culling, controlled herd movements,

branding, brucellosis vaccination, disease testing, and

limited genetic monitoring.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 13

Elk

Elk were once abundant in the northern Great Plains,

including the area of Fort Niobrara. Aughey (1880:118)

described the elk herds along the Niobrara River in the

late 1860’s as magnificent; however, by the early 1880’s,

elk were extirpated from Nebraska due to hunting and

loss of habitat (Jones 1964). Elk were reintroduced to

Fort Niobrara in January 1913 with the donation of 17 elk

by J.W. Gilbert of Friend, Nebraska. Management policy/

philosophy implemented over the years has been to

maintain a representative herd under reasonably natural

conditions in numbers sufficient to ensure their continued

existence. Periodic introductions of elk to the Refuge herd

have occurred over the years in an effort to minimize the

negative effects of inbreeding. Elk numbers have varied

with winter population levels exceeding 100 in the early

1930’s and recent population levels averaging 50 to 60.

Pronghorn Antelope

Pronghorn antelope were historically common on the

open prairies of the Sandhills through the late 1800’s;

however, by 1908, they were on the decline and observed

only in the western and northern portions of Nebraska.

Efforts to reintroduce pronghorn antelope to Fort

Niobrara NWR began in 1924 with the transfer of 10

animals from Nevada. The herd gradually increased to

17 animals in 1932, but then steadily decreased in

numbers. Attempts to establish a second herd of

antelope with the transfer of 34 animals in 1936 also

failed. Coyote predation is the primary factor influencing

the survival of pronghorn on Fort Niobrara. Pronghorn

have not been actively managed for in recent years.

Bighorn Sheep

Bighorn sheep formerly occurred in Nebraska on the

Pine Ridge and adjacent badlands in the northwest part

of the State in breaks along the Niobrara River east to

near Long Pine, Wildcat and Bighorn Ridges, and among

the rough buttes and canyons along the North Platte

River (Jones 1964). The species was extirpated on the

northern Great Plains in the 1920’s (Jones et al. 1983).

A feasibility study of reintroducing bighorn sheep to the

Refuge was completed in 1979; however, no action was

taken.

Native Birds and Other Wildlife

Management of native birds and other wildlife has varied

in intensity over the years with the greatest impact

indirectly or directly due to habitat management practices.

Prairie grouse, a term used to describe sharp-tailed

grouse and prairie chicken, were once plentiful on the

Great Plains, but by the late 1800’s, demand for birds in

eastern markets, development of efficient railway

shipping, and willingness of individuals to exploit a

seemingly unlimited resource, combined to dramatically

reduce prairie grouse populations. Extirpated in many

parts of their ranges, remnant populations of sharptailed grouse and prairie chicken populations survived in

the Sandhills of Nebraska due to lack of intensive

agriculture altered habitat (Mitchell and Wolfe 1984).

Prairie grouse were identified in one of the first quarterly

reports of the Refuge as native birds for management

consideration and emphasis. Over the years,

management decisions and actions have addressed

prairie grouse needs to varying degrees and included

enlargement of the Refuge, feeding stations, farming/

food plot program, revision of grassland haying and

grazing programs in 1956, and population monitoring.

Prairie grouse surveys were initiated in 1956 as part of a

multiple Refuge research project that studied prairie

grouse populations in relation to land use. This study

conducted from 1956 to 1965 in grasslands south and east

of the Niobrara River suggested that the combination of

rapidly increasing amounts of idle grassland (one phase

of revised Refuge haying and grazing program) and

favorable conditions for reproduction resulted in a rapid

increase in grouse numbers on Fort Niobrara between

1956 and 1959. The substitution of bison grazing for rest

in approximately 4,200 acres beginning in 1963 did not

depress the grouse population; however, researchers

questioned what levels grouse populations would have

reached if this grassland block had been left idle. They

believed that habitat conditions (structure, species

composition) which is correlated to use (grazing, haying)

determined the average population size, but other factors

(i.e., weather) operated equally in good and poor habitat

to cause similar rates of annual population change.

Annual counts of displaying sharp-tailed grouse and

prairie chicken males conducted since the completion of

this research project support that relationship or effect.

Prairie grouse numbers have cycled with higher average

population levels occurring on the Refuge when forage

utilization [represented by Animal Use Months (AUM)]

by bison, longhorns, and elk was lower.

Other wildlife management activities completed over the

years include reintroduction of Canada geese (1914),

turkey (1925), and bobwhite quail (1956) and predator

control (coyote, raccoon, skunk, mink, bobcat, badger) in

the early years to enhance bird production. Also, periodic

control of prairie dogs was conducted. Descriptions in

Refuge reports suggest prairie dogs were found in the

headquarters area (current location), “east” habitat unit,

the tableland north of the Niobrara River, and south of

the Refuge. Presence/absence and statements of relative

abundance have been made for various groups of wildlife

species beginning with birds in 1913 and species lists

have been compiled and updated as needed.
14 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Texas Longhorn Cattle History

Longhorns have been managed at Fort Niobrara since

1936 to assure perpetuation of a historically significant

animal. The following information, taken from Dobie

(1994) and Halloran (1964), provides insight as to the

historical significance of the longhorn and how the

government became involved in the preservation effort.

Longhorn cattle originate from Spanish cattle

that were brought to the New World in about

1521 by Gregorio Villalobos. Early explorers,

including Coronado, brought these cattle from

Mexico into what is now Arizona, New Mexico,

and Texas. The herds eventually spread from

Louisiana to California. Although utilized by

Native Americans and settlers, the Spanish

cattle roamed more or less uncontrolled for over

300 years gradually evolving into the “longhorn.”

Longhorns were the first major beef supply in

the United States and were the cattle that made

famous the Chisolm, Dodge, and Boseman

Trails. Beginning in the mid-1860’s and ending

by 1895, an estimated five million head of

longhorns were trailed from Texas to Kansas,

Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, and

Colorado, some walking approximately 2,000

miles. The attributes which helped the longhorn

to survive heat, drought, flies, predators, limited

forage, and travel great distances were a liability

in the late 1800’s, and by the early 1920’s, the

longhorn was threatened with extinction. Through

a special Congressional appropriation, funds

were made available to locate and manage

representative, true-to-type longhorns at

Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge.

Over 30,000 head of cattle were inspected, and in

1927, a herd of 20 cows, 3 bulls, 3 steers, and 4

calves were shipped to Wichita Mountains. A

second gene pool of this founding herd was

established at Fort Niobrara with the transfer of

4 cows, 1 bull, and 1 steer in May of 1936.

The decision to establish a second gene pool of this founding

herd at Fort Niobrara is considered departmental or

internal as no record of an Executive Order, Congressional

legislation, or Congressional intent exists. Longhorn

management over the years has attempted to allow

natural factors to influence and maintain historic herd

traits such as foraging ability, milk production, calving

ease, hardiness and protection of young from predators.

In addition, animals selected/perpetuated by management

have exhibited representative conformation, horn

structure, color variability, and genetic diversity.

Public Use History

Since the Refuge’s establishment, recreational

opportunities on the Refuge have centered around

wildlife/wildlands observation and education. Early

management emphasized development of a foot trail and

motorized tour route to allow Refuge visitors the

opportunity to observe bison, elk, and Texas longhorns in

a wild setting. A museum constructed in the 1930’s was a

popular attraction for school groups and Refuge visitors

over the years. It contained information and interesting

photographs about the old military Fort Niobrara, a

collection and explanation of paleontological finds, a

collection of mounted birds and museum skins of

mammals, and a native grass display. The current visitor

center was constructed in the mid-1970’s and contains

various photographs, text, items, and computer/

interactive program interpreting Refuge history, wildlife,

wildlands, management and the military fort. The Fort

Niobrara Natural History Association has various books,

postcards, posters, and miscellaneous wildlife related

items for sale in the center.

Canoeing the Niobrara River was referred to as

“increasing in popularity” in 1972. However, the

estimated 2,960 activity hours reported in 1972 in the

Fort Niobrara Wilderness Study was not considered

excessive to prevent inclusion of the River corridor in the

area to be designated as wilderness pursuant to criteria

under the Wilderness Act. Since then, the number of

people canoeing and tubing down the Niobrara River

within Fort Niobrara NWR has steadily increased.

Beginning in 1993, outfitters and the Service recorded

the number of people canoeing and tubing the River

through the Refuge. This information showing the

increase in floating use is found in Figure 1. Increased

River use has raised concerns about disturbance to

wildlife, impacts on vegetation, the quality of experience

for Refuge visitors, and compatibility with the

Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic River Act.

Management began to address River recreation concerns

through the Environmental Assessment process in 1994

and efforts are ongoing.

Figure 1. Canoeing - Tubing Visitation 1993-1997
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 15

Current Refuge Resources Management

Grassland/Fenced Animal Management

Approximately 350 bison, 70 elk, and 250 Texas longhorns

are managed under reasonably natural conditions to

assure a genetically sound breeding population, provide

appropriate viewing opportunities for public enjoyment,

and support scientific studies that are feasible within the

management of representative herds. Bison and elk herd

structures (sex and age ratios) approximate free ranging

herds. In accordance with Service policy, bison, elk, and

longhorn numbers above sustainable winter population

levels are sold or donated annually. Refuge receipts from

1997 excess bison and longhorn auctions totaled $179,510.

Introductions to the elk and Texas longhorn herds are

accomplished periodically to maintain or improve genetic

diversity.

Maintaining long-term population genetic variability of the

bison, elk, and longhorn herds, which affects population

fitness or health, is addressed through population size,

sex and age ratio, and addition of animals from other

populations. Elk and longhorn herds are maintained

below minimum population levels, therefore, periodic

introductions of animals from other populations are

accomplished to minimize inbreeding. The bison herd at

its current level and sex ratio provides the effective

population size required for maintaining levels of genetic

variability, without induced immigration, that

commensurate with accepted standards of conservation

biology (Berger 1996, Berger and Cunningham 1994).

Biological monitoring of the grasslands and herds is the

minimum required to document current habitat condition

and guide management. Range condition surveys and

suggested initial stocking rates of the Refuge are

completed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service every 5 to 10 years. Visual obstruction reading

transects are accomplished periodically to document

vegetation structure. Fenced animal monitoring includes

monthly population surveys, annual disease testing of

excess animals, and infrequent (7 to 10 years) genetic

testing. Detailed breeding records of longhorns are also

maintained for genetic management purposes.

Grassland habitat management strategies are implemented

that maintain or improve grassland health and provide

forage for bison, elk, and Texas longhorns. Approximately

50 miles of interior fence and 50 miles of boundary fence

(perimeter, River corridor, road right-of-way) are used to

control timing of grazing and access/movement of the

fenced animals. Grazing strategies (time of year, intensity,

length) implemented in the estimated 40 habitat units

vary according to species management needs and

behavior, natural use patterns/seasonal movements of

animals in pre-settlement times, staffing, water, climatic

conditions, available Animal Use Months (AUM), range

site and condition. Large ungulate herds consume and/or

remove by trampling an estimated 8,400 AUMs of forage

a year which is approximately 40 percent of the total

plant production, leaving approximately 60 percent of the

vegetation for plant vigor and use by other wildlife

(Waller et al. 1986, USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service 1996). Texas longhorns, exhibition herds, and

government horses are supplemented during the winter

as conditions warrant with approximately 600 tons of

prairie hay harvested from Valentine NWR. Other

annual management actions include one or more years of

rest on approximately 4 percent of the acreage, no

planned grazing or burning on approximately 30 percent

of the acreage during the native bird breeding season,

prescribed burning of approximately 100 acres to

invigorate native plants or control cedar invasion, and

suppression of all wildfires.
16 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Riparian and Woodland Management

Management of the Niobrara River, numerous streams,

and their associated riparian habitat is minimal and

emphasizes maintenance of current conditions. Nearly

all of the Niobrara River and its associated riparian

habitats are fenced to control access of bison, elk, and

Texas longhorns except the tributary streams in the

wilderness area.

The Cornell Dam is maintained to provide

shallow-braided river and sandbar habitat upstream.

Twelve ponds formed by damming tributary streams are

held at full capacity throughout most of the year for use

by waterfowl and other birds, fenced animals, and fish

rearing under cooperative agreement with the Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission. Periodic drawdowns of

these impoundments are accomplished for aquatic

vegetation control and structure repair. Breached

impoundments in the wilderness area are being allowed

to return to a natural state. Several natural impoundments

have been created by beavers.

Research of historic water rights is ongoing.

Limited monitoring of stream flow and contaminants is

accomplished periodically.

Woodland management is minimal and includes control of

cedars, exclusion of fenced animals, and removal of dead

or downed timber presenting a safety or fire hazard or

threatening facilities. Less than 3 percent of the Refuge is

managed through prescribed burning each year to control

cedars. Other invading and exotic plant species are

controlled with beneficial insects, grazing, and herbicides.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Use by bald eagles, whooping cranes, and other federally

listed species on the Refuge is documented through

periodic surveys. Required habitat conditions are

maintained. Protective actions are implemented as needed.

Native Birds and Other Wildlife

Current management strives to maintain the existing

diversity and abundance of various native birds and other

wildlife by providing a mosaic of habitat conditions.

Biological monitoring of native birds and other wildlife is

carried out to the greatest extent possible with current

staffing and management priorities. Native bird management

actions are accomplished to the extent possible given the

primary consideration currently afforded to large

ungulates in the Refuge. Limited flexibility exits in

habitat management programs with approximately 96

percent of the Refuge being grazed annually.

A 20-acre black-tailed prairie dog colony is maintained

and not allowed to expand in the exhibition habitat unit.

A maternity colony of big brown bats (estimated 200

individuals) inhabits the historic north barn during the

late spring and summer with no management efforts

made to alter their occupancy.

Prairie grouse lek counts are conducted each spring with

data available for comparison dating back to 1956. A

breeding bird survey route established in 1992 is

conducted by staff or volunteers. Refuge staff cooperate

with the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission by

completing the annual Spring Coordinated Sandhill

Crane Survey, Mid-December Goose Survey, Mid-winter

Waterfowl Survey, Winter Turkey Survey, and Summer

Turkey Brood Survey. A general wildlife observation log

is maintained to document presence/absence and relative

numbers of various species.

Exotic and Invading Species

Exotic and invading vegetation species are controlled

through an integrated pest management approach.

Various biological control agents are being used in the

ongoing effort to reduce the occurrence of purple

loosestrife along the Niobrara River. Four small patches

(less than one-eighth acre each) of leafy spurge and two

larger patches (one acre each) are controlled through

mechanical and limited chemical applications. Small

areas of exotic cool season grasses exist at disturbed

sites (i.e., road ditch, old farm ground, cattle feed areas)

and are being controlled with grazing and prescribed

burning. Limited mechanical control and prescribed

burning of eastern red cedar is being implemented. Reed

canary grass is common along the River; however, no

control measures are in place at this time.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 17

Public Use

Visitation: Based on general observations and data

collected in the visitor center and on the River, an estimated

100,000 people visit the Refuge annually for wildlife/

wildland observation, photography, interpretation/

education, picnicking, hiking, fishing, and floating on the

Niobrara River. Recreational use of the Niobrara River

for canoe and tube floating has steadily increased as more

visitors travel to the Refuge to enjoy the ripariandependent wildlife as well as the wilderness area of the

Refuge.

Facilities: The visitor center, with a variety of over

20-year-old displays interpreting the history of the

military fort, area wildlife and habitat, and Refuge

management, is open Monday through Friday year-round

and weekends Memorial Day to Labor Day with actual

annual use recorded at approximately 6,000 visits.

Other interpretive facilities under some phase of

development include a kiosk at the canoe launch with

education panels entitled “Niobrara Valley,” “Welcome

to Fort Niobrara,” “Canoeing the Niobrara River”; the

observation deck above Fort Falls includes education

panels titled “Prairie Oasis,” “Fort Falls,” “Sand, Rock

& Water”; and an interpretive panel to be located in the

exhibition habitat unit providing information on elk and

prairie dogs.

The Bur Oak Picnic area is located along the Niobrara

River at the Refuge entrance. Tables and rest rooms are

used mainly by people visiting the Refuge for River

floating or wildlife observation.

Trails & Tour Routes: The Fort Falls nature trail is

approximately one mile long and educates the hiker

through a brochure describing the different vegetation

communities and associated wildlife found in this unique,

biologically diverse area.

The 15-stop self-guiding auto tour route is located in the

exhibition habitat unit and provides information on the

prairie dog town, bison, elk, Texas longhorns, and other

prairie inhabitants.

Environmental Education: Interpretation and

environmental education services are provided when staff

are available and include talks or guided tours for school

groups (elementary through college level), scouts, 4-H

and special projects (i.e., Old West Days Trail Ride). The

public is invited to observe fall roundups and auctions of

bison and longhorns, participate in Migratory Bird day

activities, and other Refuge programs.

River Use: Floating the Niobrara River with canoes or

tubes is a popular recreational activity on the Refuge.

Over 18,000 vessels carrying more than 30,000 people

were put in the Niobrara River from the Refuge launch

facility in 1997. Most of the canoeing and tubing takes

place during June (18 percent), July (37 percent), and

August (40 percent), with Saturday morning being the

most congested period. During an average Saturday in

July 1997, approximately 1,200 people launched 684

vessels into the River from 8-11 a.m. which is one vessel

launch every 16 seconds. Due to the alarming increase of

River use documented in outfitter reports from

1993-1997, crowding and compatibility with wilderness

designation and wildlife needs, Refuge management has

in place a moratorium on new outfitters. Also, the

existing 11 outfitters have been informed that any

expansion of their business on the Refuge is at their own

risk, and River use on the Refuge should be

redistributed to week days.

The Refuge has been selected by the Service as a User

Fee Demonstration Area due to the volume of River use,

increasing cost of maintaining the launch area and public

rest rooms, and the need for additional law enforcement.

After receiving input from canoe and tube outfitters,

National Park Service, Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission, Natural Resources District, and other

interested parties, the Refuge staff set up a fee and

collection system which is thought to be fair and simple.

The first year of the user fee program was 1998. Review

of monitoring protocol for public use levels on the Niobrara

River, effects of use on Refuge wildlife/wildlands and

wilderness, and determination of acceptable use/levels

began in 1998. A social carrying capacity study was

conducted the summer of 1998.

Hunting, Fishing and Trapping: The Refuge is

currently closed to hunting.

The Niobrara River is open to fishing with a Fishing Plan

expected to be completed in the near future. Angler

opportunities are limited with most fishing occurring

immediately below Cornell Dam. Kid’s Fishing Day is

held annually in September and includes trout, catfish,

and bluegill fishing in the corral pond, fish identification

and casting contests, cleaning, and cooking. The event is

a cooperative effort between the Nebraska Game and

Parks Commission (NG&PC), Niobrara Natural History

Association, volunteers, and the Refuge staff.

The Refuge is closed to recreational trapping. Trapping

for depredation or damage control purposes is

accomplished as necessary through force account or a

special use permit in accordance with State and Service

regulations.
18 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Limited cultural resource studies have been conducted

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), National

Park Service, and various research institutions to locate

and describe and evaluate cultural and paleontological

resources (Burgett and Nickel 1999). Less than 1 percent

of the Refuge has been inventoried for these resources.

The remains of old Fort Niobrara, including the north

barn, have been determined eligible for Nomination to the

National Register of Historic Places. Twelve of the 21

Refuge buildings are over 50 years old and need to be

evaluated for historic significance. Minimal

interpretation and protection of the various cultural

resources is available. The remainder of the main

military complex surrounds the present Refuge

headquarters. Virtually all the buildings were sold and

removed between 1906 - 1912; however, foundations,

roads and minor surface features remain.

Purpose of and Need for

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The Service has recognized the need for strategic planning

for all the components of its System. The System now

has more than 513 refuges totaling approximately 93

million acres. Fort Niobrara NWR, located in northcentral Nebraska (see Figure 2), is a unique and

ecologically important component of the System. In

September 1996, Executive Order 12996 was enacted

which gave the System guidance on issues of

compatibility and public uses of its land. Congress

passed the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act in October 1997. This “organic act,”

for the first time in the System’s history, required that

comprehensive conservation plans be prepared for all

refuges within 15 years.

The Service was an active participant in this historic

legislation and supported the planning requirement. The

planning effort helped this Refuge (and thus the entire

System) to aid in meeting the changing needs of wildlife

species and the public. The planning effort provided the

opportunity to meet with Refuge neighbors, and

customers, and other agencies to ensure that this Plan

was relevant and truly addressed natural resource

issues and public interests. It is our goal to have the

System be an active and vital part of the United States’

conservation efforts. This Plan explains the planning

process, the Refuge’s characteristics, and the direction

management will take in the next 15 years. It is provided

to give the reader a clear understanding of the purposes

of the Refuge and how the Service will manage it over the

next 15 years to attain the stated purpose of the Refuge.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 19

Figure 2. Vicinity Map
20 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 21

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission,

Goals and Guiding Principles

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s

largest collection of lands set aside specifically for the

protection of fish, wildlife and plant populations and their

habitats. The first unit of the System was created in 1903,

when President Theodore Roosevelt designated 3-acre

Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery in Florida, as

a bird sanctuary. Today, more than 500 national wildlife

refuges located in the 50 States and a number of U.S.

Territories exists. Today, the System encompasses more

than 93 million acres.

This System provides important habitat for many native

mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates,

and plants. The System plays a vital role in preserving

endangered and threatened species, and offers a wide

variety of wildlife-dependent public uses; annually,

national wildlife refuges receive 34 million visitors.

However, the System’s importance goes far beyond these

services. It contributes directly and indirectly to human

welfare through a number of ecosystem services and

functions. The section on “Management Direction”

contains a detailed discussion of ecosystem services. For

the entire biosphere, the estimated annual economic

value of all the world’s ecosystem services and functions

is about $33 trillion (Constanza, et al. 1997).

The Mission of this System is “to administer a 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

Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57). The goals

of the System are aimed at fulfilling this mission and are

the following:

Goal 1: To preserve, restore, and enhance in their

natural ecosystems all species of animals and

plants that are endangered or threatened with

becoming endangered;

Goal 2: To perpetuate the migratory bird resource;

Goal 3: To preserve a natural diversity and abundance

of fauna and flora on refuge lands; and

Goal 4: To provide an understanding and appreciation

of fish and wildlife ecology and man’s role in his

environment and provide visitors with high

quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recreation

experiences oriented toward wildlife to the

extent these activities are compatible with the

purposes for which the refuge was established.

National wildlife refuges are acquired under a variety of

legislative acts and administrative orders and authorities.

These orders and authorities usually have one or more

purposes for which land can be transferred or acquired.

Most refuges within the System provide breeding,

migration, or wintering habitat for Federal Trust

Species. Nearly all refuges also supply habitats for big

game species and resident or nonmigratory wildlife as

well.

Individual refuges provide specific requirements for the

preservation of trust resources. For example, waterfowl

breeding refuges in South and North Dakota provide

important wetland and grassland habitat to support

populations of waterfowl as required by the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act and the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan. Valentine NWR supports breeding

populations of migratory birds as well as provides

migration habitat during spring and fall migration

periods for these birds. Sabine NWR and other refuges

in Louisiana and Texas provide wintering habitat for

these populations. The network of lands is critical to

these birds survival. Any deficiency in one location will

affect the species and the entire networks ability to

maintain adequate populations.

Other refuges may provide habitat for threatened and

endangered plants or animals that exist in unique habitats

which occur in only very few locations. Refuges in these

situations ensure that populations are protected and

habitat is suitable for their use. Refuges, by providing a

broad network of lands throughout the United States,

help to prevent species from being listed by providing

secure habitat for their use and provide recovery

habitats in portions or all of a species range.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997 amends the Refuge Administration Act’s Section

4(A) with the following additions:

P “each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission

of the System, as well as the specific purposes for

which that refuge was established;

P compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a

legitimate and appropriate general public use of

the System, directly related to the mission of the

System and the purposes of many refuges, and

which generally fosters refuge management and

through which the American public can develop an

appreciation for fish and wildlife;

P compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses

are the priority general public uses of the System

and shall receive priority consideration in refuge

planning and management; and

P when the Secretary determines that a proposed

wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible

use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated,

subject to such restrictions or regulations as may

be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate.
22 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

(4) In administering the System, the Secretary shall—

P provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and

plants, and their habitats within the System;

P ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and

environmental health of the System are maintained

for the benefit of present and future generations of

Americans;

P plan and direct the continued growth of the System

in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the

mission of the System, to contribute to the conservation of

the ecosystems of the United States, to complement

efforts of States and other Federal agencies to

conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to

increase support for the System and participation

from conservation partners and the public;

P ensure that the mission of the System described in

paragraph (2) and the purposes of each refuge are

carried out, except that if a conflict exists between

the purposes of a refuge and the mission of the

System, the conflict shall be resolved in a manner

that first protects the purposes of the refuge, and, to

the extent practicable, that also achieves the mission

of the System;

P ensure effective coordination, interaction, and

cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges

and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in

which the units of the System are located;

P assist in the maintenance of adequate water

quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of

the System and the purposes of each refuge;

P acquire, under State law, water rights that are

needed for refuge purposes;

P recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational

uses as the priority general public uses of the

System through which the American public can

develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;

P ensure that opportunities are provided within the

System for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational

uses;

P ensure that priority general public uses of the

System receive enhanced consideration over other

general public uses in planning and management

within the System;

P provide increased opportunities for families to

experience compatible wildlife-dependent

recreation, particularly opportunities for parents

and their children to safely engage in traditional

outdoor activities, such as fishing and hunting;

P continue, consistent with existing laws and

interagency agreements, authorized or permitted

uses of units of the System by other Federal

agencies, including those necessary to facilitate

military preparedness;”

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997 further defines the wildlife-dependent recreational

uses as: wildlife observation and photography, environmental

education and interpretation, and fishing and hunting.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission

The mission of the Service is to work with others to

conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants,

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the

American people. To fulfill this mission, Congress has

charged the Service with conserving and managing

migratory birds, endangered species, anadromous and

inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals.

The Service carries out these responsibilities through

several functional entities. The National Wildlife Refuge

System is one of those entities.

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge Purpose(s)

The Fort Niobrara NWR was created by Executive

Order 1461, January 11, 1912, (with a designated acreage

of 13,279 acres) “...reserved and set apart for the use of

the Department of Agriculture as a preserve and

breeding ground for native birds.” Shortly after the

Refuge’s establishment, J.W. Gilbert, owner of a private

game park at Friend, Nebraska, “offered his buffalo, elk,

and deer to the Federal Government for preservation on

a national reservation, with the understanding that they

would remain in Nebraska. The acceptance of this offer

was delayed through lack of a suitable range in the State.

On November 14, 1912, however, an Executive Order was

issued enlarging the Fort Niobrara Game Preserve (then

known as the Niobrara Reservation) by adding thereto

the area formerly used as the parade grounds and

headquarters for the old military post. This made the

total area of the preserve about 14,200 acres. Mr.

Gilbert’s offer was then formally accepted by the

Secretary of Agriculture, and arrangements were made

to transfer the animals to Fort Niobrara.” (Ruth 1938)

As a result, the Refuge is to be managed (1) as a preserve

and breeding ground for native birds, and (2) for the

preservation of bison and elk herds representative of

those that once roamed the Great Plains.

Furthermore, the Wilderness Act of 1964 calls for

designated wilderness areas within a National Wildlife

Refuge to receive equal consideration in management

decisions and become a supplemental purpose of the

Refuge. Section 4. (a) of this Act reads: “The purposes of

this Act are hereby declared to be within and

supplemental to the purposes for which national forests

and units of the national park and national wildlife

refuge systems are established and administered.”

Thus, the purpose of the designated wilderness area

within this Refuge is to be supplemental and not

subservient to the other purposes of the Refuge.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 23

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge

Vision Statement

Fort Niobrara NWR will strive to preserve, restore, and

enhance the exceptional diversity of native flora and

fauna and significant historic resources of the Niobrara

River Valley and Sandhills of Nebraska for the benefit of

present and future generations of Americans.

Fort Niobrara NWR habitat management goals will seek

to maintain a healthy Refuge environment that will provide

opportunities for visitors to enjoy wildlife-dependent

uses of the Refuge in a natural setting. Interpreting a

unique assemblage of habitats, wildlife and the Refuge’s

historical heritage, as well as improving facilities will

enhance the visitor’s experience while protecting the

cultural integrity of the area. To meet these challenges,

the Service will seek partnerships with other agencies,

interest groups, landowners, and local communities.

These efforts will result in greater protection of wildlife,

fish, and plant resources throughout north-central

Nebraska.

Legal and Policy Guidance

National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and

goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System),

the designated purpose of the Refuge unit as described in

the establishing legislation and/or executive orders,

Service laws and policy, and international treaties (for a

complete list see Appendix G).

Key concepts included in laws, regulations, and policies

that guide management of the System include primary

versus multiple-use public lands, compatibility, and

priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities.

Examples of relevant guidance include the National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of

1962 (50 CFR), Executive Order 12996 (Management and

General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge

System), and selected portions of the Code of Federal

Regulations, the Refuge Manual, and the Fish and

Wildlife Service Manual.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of

1966, as amended, provided guidelines and directives for

administration and management of all areas in the System,

including wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and

conservation of fish and wildlife threatened with extinction,

wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas,

or waterfowl production areas. Use of any area within the

System was permitted, provided that such uses were

compatible with the major purposes for which such areas

were established.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997 amends the Refuge System Administration Act

by including a unifying mission for the System, a new

formal process for determining compatible uses on refuges,

and a requirement that each refuge will be managed

under a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP or

Plan). This Act states that wildlife conservation is the

priority of the System lands and that the Secretary of

the Interior (Secretary) shall ensure that the biological

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge

lands are maintained. Each refuge must be managed to

fulfill the mission of the System and the specific purposes

for which it was established. Additionally, this Act identifies

and establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of

the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These are

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

and environmental education and interpretation. As

priority public uses of the System, these uses will

receive enhanced consideration over other uses in

planning and management. Furthermore, this Act

requires that a CCP be in place for each refuge by the

year 2012 and that the public have an opportunity for

active involvement in Plan development and revision. It is

Service policy that CCPs are developed in an open public

process and that the agency is committed to securing

public input throughout the process. This Act amended

portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.
24 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Lands within the System are different from other,

multiple-use public lands in that they are closed to all

public uses unless specifically and legally opened. Unlike

other Federal lands that are managed under a multipleuse mandate (i.e., national forests administered by the

U.S. Forest Service and public lands administered by the

U.S. Bureau of Land Management), the System is

managed specifically for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and

plant resources and their habitats. Compatible wildlifedependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate

general public use of the System.

Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,

and environmental education and interpretation are

priority public uses of the System. These uses must

receive enhanced consideration over other public uses in

refuge planning and management.

Before any uses, including wildlife-dependent recreational

activities, are allowed on national wildlife refuges,

Federal law requires that they be formally determined

to be “compatible.”

A compatible use is defined as a use that, in the sound

professional judgement of the refuge manager, will not

materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment

of the mission of the System or the purposes of the Refuge.

Sound professional judgement is further defined as a

finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with

the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and

administration, available science and resources (funding,

personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure), and

adherence with applicable laws. If financial resources are

not available to design, operate, and maintain an activity,

the refuge manager will take reasonable steps to obtain

outside assistance from the State and other conservation

interests. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is

determined to be compatible.

The Service has completed compatibility determinations

for Fort Niobrara NWR (see Appendix E). All six

priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities—

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental

interpretation, environmental education, hunting and

fishing—were determined to be compatible. Hunting

currently is not permitted, but the Refuge may allow

future occasional hunts for the purpose of managing elk

and, if reintroduced, bighorn sheep populations to achieve

habitat management goals.

The Refuge Recreation Act, as amended, authorized the

Secretary to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other

conservation areas for recreational use when such uses

did not interfere with the area’s primary purpose.

Executive Order 12996 (March 23, 1996) identified a new

mission statement for the System; established six priority

public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, environmental education and interpretation);

emphasized conservation and enhancement of the quality

and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat; stressed the

importance of partnerships with Federal and State

agencies, Tribes, organizations, industry, and the general

public; mandated public involvement in decisions on the

acquisition and management of refuges; and required

identification, prior to acquisition of new refuge lands, of

existing compatible wildlife-dependent uses that would

be permitted to continue on an interim basis pending

completion of comprehensive planning.

Existing Partnerships

The Refuge works with a variety of organizations and

individuals on natural resource projects including private

landowners (Partners For Wildlife program); Natural

Resources Conservation Service (Refuge grazing

program, Wetland Reserve Program); Farm Service

Agency (easement program); Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission (wildlife surveys, fish rearing in Refuge

ponds); Cherry County Extension Service (youth

programs, research); local law enforcement agencies

(enforcement, youth rehabilitation); Inter Tribal Bison

Cooperative (bison donations and management); zoos,

conservation districts and other non-profit qualifying

entities (bison, elk, and longhorn donations); veterinarians

for the State of Nebraska, other lower 48 states, and U.S.

Department of Agriculture (disease and health issues,

tests, research); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

(interpretative panels, animal transfers); Fort Niobrara

Natural History Association (Refuge projects, sale of

books, postcards, posters, etc.); Valentine Chamber of

Commerce (community projects); Niobrara Council (River

management); Texas Longhorn Breeders Association of

America and International Texas Longhorn Association

(longhorn pedigree, registration); The Nature

Conservancy (fire management, research); Rural Fire

Protection Districts (wildfire suppression on-and

off-Refuge); and various universities (research).
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 25

Planning Process

Description of Planning Process

The development of this CCP was guided, in the

beginning, by the Refuge Planning Chapter of the Fish

and Wildlife Service Manual (Part 602 FW2.1, November

1996) and later also by the Service’s Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Planning Policy. Key steps included: (1)

preplanning; (2) identifying issues and developing a vision;

(3) gathering information; (4) analyzing resource

relationships; (5) developing alternatives and assessing

environmental effects; (6) identifying a preferred

alternative; (7) publishing the Draft Plan and soliciting

public comments on the Draft Plan (the comment period

for input from the public spanned a total of 105 days); (8)

review of comments and effecting necessary and

appropriate changes to the draft CCP; and, (9) preparation

of the final Plan for approval by the Region 6 Regional

Director, and finally (10) implementation of the Plan.

Comprehensive conservation planning efforts for Fort

Niobrara NWR began in January 1997 with a meeting of

regional management and planning staff and field station

employees at Fort Niobrara NWR. At that meeting a

core planning team was designated with the major

responsibilities of gathering information and writing the

plan. A review team was set up to provide guidance and

direction to the core planning team. A working group was

also organized to provide interchange of information

between Service personnel, outside agencies, and

interested stakeholders of the Refuge.

On March 20, 1997, an open house scoping session was

held in the Cherry County Hall meeting room, Valentine,

Nebraska. The open house provided participants an

opportunity to learn about the Refuge’s purposes, mission

and goals, and issues currently facing management.

People attending were provided the chance to speak with

Service representatives and to share their comments.

A two-day Refuge tour was held with the working group

and Service management and planning staffs in April

1997. The tour gave participants a chance to view fenced

animal management and prominent wildlife species of the

Refuge, discuss management aspects of the Refuge, and

give planning staff ideas for consideration in the planning

process.

On October 28, 1997, a meeting was held with Refuge

permittees that are actively involved with canoeing and

tubing on the Niobrara River through the Fort Niobrara

NWR. The CCP addresses this issue, and the meeting

provided an opportunity for Refuge staff and permittees

to share information concerning this use. This and other

meetings were scheduled to let people know what the

Service was doing to manage the wildlife and habitats of

the Fort Niobrara NWR and to elicit their input on

topics of interest to them.

During the planning process, the review and working

groups had access to information on objectives and

alternatives being considered. Written comments were

exchanged and verbal conversations were held. The

Draft CCP/EA was the first opportunity that these

groups and the public had to review the entire planning

effort and the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan was released

on the last week of April 1999 and distributed in the first

week of May 1999. A 60-day comment period was provided in

which the Service requested information, comments,

concerns, suggestions, and complaints from the public

regarding the Draft CCP/EA. Because of the tremendous

amount of public interest in this Plan, the Service

extended the comment period for an additional 45 days,

for a total of 105 days of public comment. With this

extension, the public comment period did not close until

August 19, 1999.

The voluminous amount of comment letters and electronic

mail communications were reviewed and summarized by

category and subject. After reading and compiling all the

comments received, the review team had a briefing

meeting with the Regional Director and Assistant

Regional Director of the Service’s Region 6, the

Programmatic and Southern Ecosystems Assistant

Regional Directors, the Refuge Supervisor for Fort

Niobrara NWR, the Chief of the Branch of Land

Acquisition and Refuge Planning, and the Regional

Wildlife Biologist. The summary of the comments

received was reviewed at this meeting and appropriate

modifications were made to the Draft CCP/EA in

accordance with scientifically based new information

provided during the comment period and the goals and

objectives of the Refuge. The present Plan contains the

changes made by the Service in accordance to the

recommendations of the directorate and Service

biologists and managers. All the actions undertaken in

the preparation of this Plan satisfy the requirements

under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

This Plan will guide the management on the Refuge for

the next 15 years. Plans are ultimately signed by the

Regional Director, Region 6, thus providing regional

direction to the station project leader. A copy of this Plan

will be provided to all those interested. The project

leader of the station will review the Plan every five years

to decide if it needs revision.
26 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Planning Issues

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified

through discussions with planning team members, key

contacts, and through the public scoping process, which

began with an Open House in March 1997. Comments

were received orally at the meetings, via e-mail messages

and in writing, both before and during the scoping and

the public comment period phases of the comprehensive

conservation planning process. The following issues,

concerns, and comments are a compilation and summary of

those expressed by the public, other Federal and State

agencies, local and county governments, private

organizations and individuals, environmental groups and

persons concerned for the natural resources of the Fort

Niobrara NWR. This section also contains information

developed by the Service throughout the planning

process on the same issues.

Texas Longhorn Cattle

Many people were concerned, for various reasons, about

the Service’s proposal to remove this historic herd from

the Refuge. Some other commentators met this proposal

with approval.

Loss of Revenue to the County: It was speculated that

Cherry County would experience a drastic reduction in

revenue from the loss of monies provided by the receipts

of the sales of Texas longhorn cattle from Fort Niobrara

NWR should this herd be removed from the Refuge.

The Service believes that Cherry County should not see

any drastic reduction of revenue from the relocation of

this herd outside of the Refuge for the following reason:

The annual average of the Refuge Revenue Sharing

receipts, collected, deposited and credited towards the

reserve acres for Fort Niobrara NWR for the past three

years was $43,090 for longhorn cattle and $170,567 for

bison. The average of the percent of these receipts

credited to longhorn cattle for the same years was 20.26

percent. Therefore, if the longhorn cattle sales were no

longer held at Fort Niobrara NWR and no receipts were

collected, Cherry County would lose approximately 20.2

percent in revenue each year from the Refuge Revenue

Share Program (RRSP).

This loss of revenue from the RRSP would generally be

compensated by the Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes payment

(PILT Law, Act of October 20, 1973, PL-94-5a65; 90 Stat

2662; 31 USC-1601) made by the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) each year. In the last three years, Cherry County

has received a PILT payment from BLM for the same

reserved acres based on the PILT formula minus the

amounts paid by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Therefore, if the Service were to make a payment under

the RRSP which was less than the average in the last

years because of the lack of revenue from the sale of

longhorn cattle, then the BLM payment would make up

the difference.

Loss of Historically Important Herd: The Service

understands the historical significance and the importance

to local tourism that this herd has for Cherry County

and the City of Valentine. Nevertheless, the Service

believes that given the need to achieve the habitat

management goals of the Refuge to comply with the

stated purpose of Fort Niobrara NWR, the herd must be

removed from the Refuge. However, the Service has

stated, to the City of Valentine, Cherry County officials,

and other groups and individuals concerned about the

removal of this herd from the Refuge, its willingness to

participate in the creation of a non-profit organization

that would receive this herd and manage it, in accordance

with the same practices and standards used by the Service,

within Cherry County, and if at all possible, within the

limits of the City of Valentine. Thus, this herd could

continue to exist within Cherry County and possibly in

the vicinity of the City of Valentine where tourists could

have access to it. Furthermore, the management entity

could directly benefit from 100 percent of the proceeds of

the excess animals from the herd rather than just 25

percent as it does under present conditions.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 27

Recreational Use and Resources

of the Niobrara River

Many people, groups, and agencies were concerned, for

various reasons, about the Service’s current and proposed

policy on access to and management of the Niobrara

River resources for recreational use.

Limiting Access to the Niobrara River: The Service

has grown increasingly concerned over the possible

environmental effects that the current burgeoning use

of the Niobrara River resources by River floaters may

be having on riparian and upland Refuge resources, as

well as on wilderness values.

Recreational canoeing and tubing use of the stretch of

the Niobrara River designated as scenic by Congress has

increased dramatically in the past few years. In response

to this, the Service has attempted to alleviate effects on

Refuge resources (riparian habitats and the wildlife that

depends upon it, wilderness values, etc.) by placing a

temporary limit on the number of outfitter Special Use

Permits issued by the Refuge and a cap on use while the

environmental effects of this use are assessed.

Furthermore, this temporary limit in use is expected to

contain the overcrowding situation that has developed on

this stretch of the Niobrara River and degraded the

quality of wilderness experience. This temporary

measure has been criticized as unfair, inadequate, and

without basis on hard evidence and science. However, the

Service believes that this interim management policy is

better than complete shutdown of River use on this

stretch of the Niobrara River (worst case scenario) as

discontinuing all use would be no more justifiable than

allowing uncontrolled growth of use. At this time, there is

no logic in depriving all visitors of the wilderness

experience.

Management Plan: The Service will prepare a

Management Plan in the next two years dealing

exclusively with the recreational use of the scenic

Niobrara River as it flows through the Refuge. This Plan

will be prepared by the Service with the participation of

all interested parties, such as the National Park Service,

the Niobrara Council, all River outfitters interested in

participating, and any city and county officials interested

in being part of this effort. The Plan will define

acceptable use levels for weekdays and weekends that

meet legal mandates. Also, actions to be taken when uses

exceed threshold levels or negatively impact resources,

and wilderness values will be clearly defined.

In the interim, River use will be capped at the 1998 levels

and the moratorium on new outfitters will continue.

Weekend and weekday use will be monitored along with

habitat, wildlife, erosion, and social parameters to

determine threshold levels.

It is not the intention of the Service to obstruct the

development of a recreational and revenue-producing

enterprise such as River use outfitting, but rather to

ensure that this use continues to be compatible with

Refuge goals and objectives and with the requirements of

the Wild and Scenic River Act and the Wilderness Act

promulgated by Congress for the benefit of the American

people. The Service believes that the wise use of the

River for recreational purposes will, in the end, be

beneficial, not only to wildlife, but to the community as

well. It is our belief that any decrease in use by River

floaters is caused more by a degrading “wilderness” and

“wild and scenic” experience caused by too many visitors

at certain times of the year, rather than by the Service’s

limits on Special Use Permits. Ensuring visitors a

wildlife-oriented as well as a wilderness experience when

using the River would also ensure a healthy tourist

industry for the City of Valentine and Cherry County.

While not presently documented on Fort Niobrara NWR

riparian habitats along the wild and scenic Niobrara

River, a large body of research exists (mostly from studies

conducted in California, Colorado and in eastern states)

on the issue of effects on migratory birds as public use of

rivers increases. Heavy recreation use of riparian areas

during the summer (bird breeding season) can have

devastating effects on the avifauna, during all portions of

their natural history cycle. Riparian habitats are one of

the most important wildlife habitats occurring in the

Service’s Region 6. Seventy-five percent of the terrestrial

species occurring in this Region are dependent on

riparian and adjacent aquatic zones during some portion

of their life cycle. The effects of heavy recreation on the

riparian habitats and its associated wildlife species is

two-fold: disturbance to the individuals, and disturbance

to the vegetation used by wildlife. These effects have not

been fully assessed for the riparian habitats of Fort

Niobrara NWR. The Service, as a precautionary

measure, decided to place limits on recreational use of

the segment of the wild and scenic Niobrara River that

flows through the Refuge until these effects can be

qualified and quantified. The Service’s mission is the

preservation of wildlife and the habitats on which they

depend. Recreational use of Refuge lands must come

second to wildlife and be carried out in a compatible way

with the purposes of the Refuge. Thus, the necessary use

limits at this time until a River Management Plan is

developed and implemented.
28 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Restricted Access and User Fees: Fort Niobrara NWR,

through its land management authority, has restricted

access and use of certain roads and bridges and has

instituted fees for use of public facilities as the need for

these provisions has grown. Changes in the operation of

the Refuge canoe launch have been implemented over the

years as the number of visitors to the area has increased.

Furthermore, Congress directed refuges to implement

fees in areas where collection could be made and used to

pay for the costs of operating the activities for which a fee

is collected. This fee amount was based on fees charged

at other Federal areas. Monies collected from the fee

program have been used to pump rest rooms, for signs, for

costs related to collections, but primarily to pay the

salary of a law enforcement officer to patrol the River in

an attempt to stop certain inappropriate uses of the

River (alcohol consumption, disorderly conduct,

littering, no life jackets, etc.). Access to the River from a

County road had to be stopped for safety reasons

because people were unloading gear and canoes on the

road, on the road shoulder, and crossing the road on foot

to get to the parking area, thus creating a safety hazard.

Cherry County has a right-of-way across the Refuge for

a road. The right-of-way is not for public recreation such

as launching of canoes or tubes.

Authority to Control River Activities: The Department

of Interior Solicitor’s Office provided the Service with an

opinion regarding the Refuge’s authority to control

activities on the surface of the wild and scenic section of

the Niobrara River flowing through the Refuge.

However, some visitors to the Refuge and residents of

Cherry County disagree with the Solicitor’s opinion, and

this continues to be a point of contention. Nevertheless,

the nine miles of the Niobrara River that span the

Refuge are part of the segment designated by Congress

as part of the Wild and Scenic River System in 1991. The

Service was thus accorded exclusive management

authority on this portion and National Park Service on

the remainder of the wild and scenic Niobrara River. The

entire segment is considered a component of the

National Park Service system, and Congress holds the

Service and the National Park Service accountable for

the preservation and management of this National

resource, not subordinate partners that may or may not

exist.

Bridge and Launch Area: Some people launching at the

Refuge are not aware that they are within the boundary

of a National Wildlife Refuge. The Service must educate

the public to the fact that (1) the Niobrara River flowing

through the Refuge is a designated scenic River, (2) five

miles of the Niobrara River is designated as a

Wilderness Area, and (3) the Service must manage these

resources in accordance with these Congressional

designations and the management that they imply. The

Service will require that all future outfitter literature

and public contact refer to the launch site as “Fort

Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge Canoe Launch Site.”

Cornell Dam: Some commented that the Cornell Dam

has outlived its usefulness; that a study weighing its

environmental and cultural values, as well as safety,

should be undertaken directly to determine whether the

Dam should survive. A few commentators recommended

breaching the dam as restoration of natural stream flow

is entirely consistent with Congressional intent of the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act. Furthermore, they added that the

current Nation’s sentiment is for removal of outmoded,

functionless dams, specially if they block otherwise

pristine, natural flowing rivers. They pointed to the need

for an environmental consequences analysis for retaining

this dam.

The Service’s decision to leave Cornell Dam untouched

at this time stems from the Service’s concern and

responsibility towards federally listed species that have

been known to benefit from the habitats created by this

structure. However, the Service is open to further study

this situation, and if warranted in the future, to eliminate

this structure if it is shown to be no longer necessary to

maintain habitats for threatened and endangered species.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 29

Habitat and Wildlife Management

Many people, agencies, and environmental groups were

concerned about the loss of bird habitat due to the priority

given to large ungulate management. They also felt that

protecting and enhancing bird habitats should be a

priority over other wildlife issues. Some felt that other

wildlife species, including butterflies and other insects,

should be considered, and that enhancement of wildlife

off the Refuge should be discussed as well. Concern was

expressed about the design of the perimeter fence,

vegetation management, and any additional structures

and how they would affect the movements of wildlife to

and from the Refuge, as well as the appearance of the

area. A comment was made that current wildlife

management practices should be evaluated before any

changes are made.

Legislation (National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act, as amended) mandates wildlife

conservation as the overriding mission of the National

Wildlife Refuge System and, as such, it is the most

important issue at Fort Niobrara NWR. Protection of

wildlife habitat, especially for feeding, resting, and

nesting birds and their young, would define the types of

visitor activities and access allowed at the Refuge.

Another responsibility of this and other national wildlife

refuges will be to preserve, restore, and enhance

threatened and endangered species and migratory birds.

To carry out this responsibility, the Refuge’s flora and

fauna must be protected from human adverse impacts

(i.e., pollution, and disruptive or incompatible activities).

Public use of the scenic section of the Niobrara River, the

Refuge’s Wilderness Area, and the rest of the Refuge

lands must be managed to be compatible with avian and

other wildlife objectives. Nonnative plant species must

be controlled and/or eradicated to restore native plant

communities in upland and wetland areas, thereby

enhancing habitat for migratory birds. How to provide

wildlife-dependent recreation and opportunities for

environmental education, while at the same time ensuring

habitat and wildlife protection, is an issue to be resolved

through the CCP process.

Bison: Some commentators expressed opposition to the

Service’s proposed new strategy to manage bison by

elimination of some interior fencing.

The Service is confident bison, as the major grassland

management tool at the Refuge, can be managed to

attain the proposed habitat goals for avian populations.

The Service will only remove that portion of interior fence

that is not necessary for habitat management and

handling of big game animals. Interior wire will be

removed incrementally (over-time) to ensure appropriate

resource management. Bison can also be managed, as

stated throughout this Plan, through methods other

than fencing, such as prescribed fire, water manipulation

and salt supplements. Also the winter population herd

levels of bison will remain at 350 animals, unless

research regarding habitat, native birds, and bison herd

genetics objectives reveals a need to reduce the bison

herd population levels to a number between 350 and 200

animals.

Bighorn Sheep: Some commentators expressed opposition

to the Service’s proposal to introduce bighorn sheep to the

Refuge (i.e., the species never occurred at the Refuge;

would give Refuge a zoo atmosphere; fenced herd would

not be capable of migrating and this practice contradicts

contemporary wildlife management principles; could lead to

an epizootic disease, etc.). While many expressed support for

this proposal, some opposed the proposed limited hunt to

reduce herd size. The opposition to this proposed hunt

presented more than one facet, but with most opposition

hinging on the premise that the area of the Refuge where

bighorn sheep could be introduced is not large enough to

allow for a “sportsman’s” opportunity to hunt sheep.

The Service believes that the remains of bighorn sheep in

the general vicinity of the Refuge, in areas with similar

habitats as those presently found in parts of this Refuge,

point to the likely prior existence of bighorn sheep in

parts of what is today Fort Niobrara NWR.

After reviewing public comments, and during internal

meetings, the Service has decided to postpone the possible

introduction of this species into the Refuge.

The Service has been invited and will participate in the

preparation of the State of Nebraska’s Bighorn Sheep

Management Plan. This participation will proceed any

introduction attempts of this species at this Refuge. This

Management Plan should address habitat needs that will

be used by the Service to assess the possibility or lack

thereof of any introduction effort. Only after the State’s

Bighorn Sheep Management Plan has been finalized and

the Service has consulted with the State on this issue will

the Service make a determination whether to introduce

this species onto the Refuge. Additionally, should the

proposed introduction take place, no hunting of bighorn

sheep would be allowed if the Service determines that a

fair chase, sporting-type hunt cannot be obtained.

Elk: Some concern has been expressed that Chronic

Wasting Disease (CWD) will become a serious disease in

elk within Nebraska and will contaminate the Refuge elk

herd. Disease is a constant threat to the wildlife

populations within the State and Nation. Elk and elk

management has been a goal and objective of the Refuge

since 1912. During this time the Service has managed the

elk herd without any significant disease related problems.

However, the Service will remain vigilant in its effort to

combat new diseases like CWD. The Service will

participate in the development of an Elk Management

Plan for the State of Nebraska which will address

disease concerns about the State’s population of elk and

methods (i.e. modified fencing, etc.) to reduce the

possibility of the spread of diseases.

Some opposition to the hunting of elk was received

because the Refuge is fenced and only 19,131 acres in size

which would not allow for sufficient space to have a

sporting opportunity to hunt elk. The Service has

decided to delay the hunting of elk until the Nebraska

Elk Management Plan has been completed and the

Service has consulted the State on this issue. The

hunting of elk on the Refuge will only be allowed if the

Service has determined that a fair chase, sporting type

hunt can be obtained.
30 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Black-tailed Prairie Dogs: Many commentators

expressed, with different degrees of intensity, opposition

to the Service’s proposal to allow for the expansion of

black-tailed prairie dogs at the Refuge citing many

reasons: inability of the Service to contain them within

the Refuge; damage to habitats; possibility of prairie

dogs spreading diseases to human beings; too many

prairie dogs already exist, etc. Comments were also

received in support of this proposal.

Black-tailed prairie dogs are an integral part of many

grassland ecosystems in the western states of our Nation.

Many other animal species, some listed as endangered,

other deemed species of special concern (i.e., black-footed

ferrets, bald eagles, burrowing owls, mountain plovers,

swift foxes), and migratory birds (raptors) are either

inextricably dependent on or make common use of

prairie dog colonies to obtain basic food, shelter and/or

habitat for nesting and rearing of their young. Fort

Niobrara NWR is located well within the historical range

of this species and has benefitted from the presence of

black-tailed prairie dogs as an integral part of a healthy

ecosystem and as a tourist attraction.

In this Plan, the Service is proposing to allow for the

expansion of the black-tailed prairie dog colony that

presently exists in the Refuge. This proposed expansion is

in line with the Service’s efforts to protect the ever

decreasing numbers in the number and size of blacktailed prairie dog colonies nationwide. The Service has

estimated that this species’ range has decreased by an

alarming 95 percent from the time of the European

settlement of the west. The Service has been petitioned

to list this species under the Endangered Species Act

given the precipitous decline in the species populations

and the Service is currently reviewing this listing

petition.

The Service will allow black-tailed prairie dogs to expand

to a manageable population size and control them within

the boundaries of the Refuge.

Funding and Staffing to Manage the Refuge

Managing this Refuge requires adequate funding and

staffing to effectively carry out habitat and population

management activities, as well as to ensure public uses

that are compatible with the System mission. Some

people expressed concern that the Service might not be

allocated sufficient funding to implement all the goals

and objectives stated in this Plan. Some commentators

felt that building partnerships with public agencies,

private organizations, and volunteers would increase the

Refuge’s management ability.

The Service is aware that adequate funding to carry out

all ongoing and proposed management activities may not

be readily available to the Refuge. Nevertheless, this

Plan outlines the recommended course of action for the

Refuge and this Plan may be the best vehicle to obtain

the necessary funding to accomplish the mission for

which Congress designated this area a National Wildlife

Refuge.

Other Public Uses and Recreation

Some commentators expressed opposition to captive

wildlife hunting while requesting the expansion of turkey,

deer, prairie grouse and pronghorn hunting opportunities, if

not with rifles, maybe with archery, shotguns and

muzzle-loading. These commentators argued that the

Refuge can accommodate hunting.

The Refuge is currently closed to hunting. The original

purpose of Fort Niobrara NWR was “a preserve and

breeding ground for native birds.” Later, this purpose

was enlarged and, as a result, the Refuge is to be

managed (1) as a preserve and breeding ground for native

birds and (2) for the preservation of bison and elk herds

representative of those that once roamed the Great

Plains. Hunting for elk and, if reintroduced, bighorn

sheep will to permit the taking of surplus animals

(maybe one or two animals) under a limited, strictly

controlled hunting environment. Unrestricted hunting

for other species of wildlife on the Refuge would be a

disturbance detrimental to bison and elk management.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 31

Public Involvement Methodology

The Service, through this and other planning processes

involving NEPA, finds itself involved in the complex and

essential task of involving the public in the planning process.

The public involvement process is often a difficult

enterprise given the specific time-frames and schedules

that accompany most Service actions, this Plan not being

the exception.

Throughout the process that led to the preparation of

this Plan, the Service complied with NEPA requirements

to involve the public through meetings of different kinds

(i.e., public scoping meetings, open house meetings,

meetings with specific groups), personal communications,

and the disbursement of the Draft CCP/EA that preceded

this final Plan and other kinds of information, and finally,

through a period of time in which all interested parties

had 105 days in which to provide written comments on

the proposed future Refuge goals, objectives, strategies

and actions. The Service effected changes to the Draft

CCP/EA as a consequence of comments and information

received prior and during the public comment period.

The Service, throughout the preparation of the Draft

CCP/EA, attempted to consult with and involve all the

groups, entities, and individuals that expressed interest

in participating. The refuge manager, his staff, and

Region 6 Regional Office personnel conducted various

meetings to disseminate information, address most, if not

all possible issues, and collect all possible relevant data

and comments for the preparation of these Draft Plans.

After these Draft Plans had been prepared, all those

involved had an opportunity to provide written comments

on the Draft CCP/EA. The original public comment

period was open for 60 days, but due to the high volume

of comments, the Service agreed to reopen the comment

period for an additional 45 days. A typical public comment

period is open for 30 days. Thus, the Service gave

commentators a total of 105 days in which to provide

written comments, by letter or electronic mail, to the

Service.

An Open House was held on June 10, 1999, in Valentine,

Nebraska. It was scheduled to take place from 3 to 8

PM; instead it ran from 2:45 until 9:30 PM due to the

interest shown. The purpose of the Open House was to

inform the public as to the major aspects of these Plans.

The public was encouraged to provide their written

comments to the Service. An Open House meeting format

affords the event organizers the opportunity to reach

out to a greater segment of the public and each individual

person from the public to voice their comments and

concerns.
32 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 33

Summary of Refuge and

Resource Descriptions

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Fort Niobrara NWR is 19,131 acres in size and located in

north-central Nebraska along the Niobrara River. The

Refuge and surrounding area is recognized by ecologists

for its biogeographic significance due to the co-occurrence

of five distinctly different, major vegetation communities

within and adjacent to the Niobrara River corridor. The

region is the only place in North America where Rocky

Mountain Coniferous Forest (eastern limit), Northern

Boreal Forest (southern limit), Eastern Deciduous

Forest (western limit), Mixed Prairie and Sandhill Prairie

meet and intermingle (Kaul and Rolfsmeier 1993). The

unusually diverse plant and animal assemblages found in

this area are due to unique surface and subsurface

geologic formations, water and soil conditions, current

and past climates, and differential sun exposure

(Churchill et al. 1988). Additional ecological factors that

had significant affect on the biological diversity that

evolved in this region prior to Euro-American settlement

includes wildfire and the use of fire by aboriginal men

(Higgins et al. 1986, Steuter 1991), and the unrestricted

grazing and impacts associated with grazing of bison, elk,

pronghorn antelope, and prairie dogs (Knopf 1994, Bragg

and Steuter 1996). Though changes in composition and

density of native flora and fauna have occurred since

settlement, Bogan (1995) reported that Fort Niobrara is

one of the few areas where the basic components of the

1850 landscape are still present and viable.

The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to

national natural resource management and has identified

52 ecosystems within the United States (USFWS, 1994).

The Service has formed teams to address the most

important conservation and restoration issues that each

one of these identified ecosystems faces. Each one of

these teams has advanced, depending on the complexity

of issues within a determined area, at different paces in the

identification and categorization of all of the conservation

issues (Service’s Resource Priorities) and goals for each

of these ecosystems. The area where this Refuge lies has

been difficult to characterize and include into one single

ecosystem given the diversity of habitats and other

natural resources found there.

Fort Niobrara NWR is bisected by the Niobrara River

(which according to early Service watershed-based

ecosystem maps separates two distinct ecosystems) and

thus, theoretically, lies within two different ecosystems

which are the Main Stem Missouri River Ecosystem

(basically the northernmost area of the Refuge

constituted mostly by the designated Wilderness Area

on the northern banks of the Niobrara River) and the

Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem (the largest portion of

the Refuge on the southern banks of the Niobrara River).

The Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem team has been

given the responsibility to address ecosystem issues on

Fort Niobrara NWR. This team has identified the five

main areas of concern that need to be addressed for this

ecosystem.

The Service resource priorities for the Platte/Kansas

Rivers Ecosystem are:

P Prairie Grassland (including the Sandhills region)

restoration and preservation

P Species of Concern (rare species)

P Water quality

P Native fishes, small fishes and mussels

P Water Quantity

The Service believes that the Refuge’s goals and objectives

delineated in this Plan will help the Service attain the

goals and objectives for these resource priorities for the

Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem.
34 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Climate

The climate of the region is highly variable and

characterized by cold winters and hot summers. Total

annual precipitation averages 18 inches with approximately

65 percent occurring during the May-to-September

growing season (NOAA National Climatic Data Center

1996). Winter precipitation is usually in the form of snow

with the annual accumulation averaging 37 inches.

Temperatures range from -39o F to 114o F with July and

August being the warmest months (average high

temperature 85-87o F) and January and February the

coldest months (average low temperature 8-12o F). The

average frost free period is approximately 150 days.

Winds ranging from 5-15 mph are common throughout

the year and are generally out of the north, west, or

northwest direction in the winter and out of the south,

west, or southwest direction during the summer. Low

humidity, high temperatures and moderate to strong

winds cause a rapid loss of soil moisture by

evapo-transpiration during the summer.

Air Quality

Air quality is good due to the absence of significant air

pollution sources. The Fort Niobrara Wilderness is a

Class 2 Status Area under the Clean Air Act.

Topography

The Refuge topography is varied and well-defined. The

Niobrara River valley extends from east to west across

the Refuge and is entrenched 150 to 350 feet below the

general upland level. High terraces, or benches, lie at

different levels from 175 to 275 feet above the present

River channel and from 30 to 250 feet below the general

level of the uplands (Layton 1956). Most benches are

discontinuous strips 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile wide with level to

rolling or hummocky relief. Steep valley sides, or breaks,

are on both sides of the River and along lower courses of

its major tributaries. Table land north of the River valley

is nearly level to gently rolling with several surface

areas modified by narrow, steep-sided and shallow

drainage ways, by small areas of typical sandhills,

numerous hummocks, and low, elongated sandy ridges.

Sandhill terrain south of the River is undulating to hilly

with dune tops 10 to 100 feet higher than the surrounding

area. The range of hills, with alternating pockets or

narrow valleys, usually run parallel in an irregular

northwest-southeast direction. Generally, the southerly

(leeward) sides of the hills are steeper than the northerly

(windward) sides. Elevations on the Refuge range from

2,000 feet above sea level to 2,800 feet.

Geology

The geologic framework of the Refuge, as summarized

by Osborn 1979, consists of six formations and are as

follows (from oldest to youngest): Rosebud Formation

“bedrock” makes up the Niobrara River valley walls and

lower courses of the major tributaries within the Refuge;

Valentine Formation is a sandy, stream-deposited unit

unconformably overlying the Rosebud and forming

gentle slopes; Ash Hollow Formation is a hard, sandy

unit with many ledges and layers of volcanic ash which

forms a “caprock” on the north rim of the Refuge; High

Terrace Deposits are sand and gravel deposits high

above the present Niobrara River that were deposited

during the later part of the Pleistocene Ice Age when the

River was flowing at a higher elevation and forms the

flats upon which the Refuge headquarters is built;

Sandhills are stabilized dune sand of the late Pleistocene

and Holocene age; Low Terrace and Floodplain Deposits

are adjacent to the modern Niobrara River and contain

rocks derived from older formations but are not of

significant age geologically.

Soils

Soil groups and series found on the Refuge are mapped

and described in detail in the 1956 Soil Survey of Cherry

County (Layton 1956). Dominant soils south of the Niobrara

River in the Sandhills portion of the Refuge are Valentine

(fine sand, undulating), Valentine-Rosebud (loamy fine

sands, undulating) and Dune Sand (stabilized, rolling).

Within the Niobrara River valley, Tripp (fine sandy loam)

soils are generally found on terraces above streams,

Sarpy (loamy fine sand) soils occur on bottom land along

the River and streams, and little soil development exists

on rough broken land and steep bluffs. Benchland north

of the Niobrara River and small areas near River

“breaks” consist of mostly Holt (fine sandy loam, gently

undulating) and Rosebud (loamy fine sand, gently

undulating) soils.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 35

Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses

Water Resources and Associated Wetlands

The Niobrara River flows from west to east across the

Refuge for approximately nine miles with the channel

above Cornell Dam braided and shallow with the

downstream portion of the River confined to a single,

narrow channel. The River is laden with sand and silt and

flows swiftly at about 6-8 miles per hour. River flow is

fairly stable throughout the year, averaging close to 1,000

cubic feet per second (Bentall 1990). Numerous streams

and seeps along the Niobrara River valley flow

intermittently or perennially. Several waterfalls exist on

the Refuge where spring creeks flow over hard rock

layers. River and stream flows derive almost entirely

from steady groundwater seepage from the Ogallala or

High Plains aquifer. Floods along the Niobrara River

mostly result from winter ice jams with spring and

summer floods rare. Tributary creeks, especially on the

north bank, flash flood occasionally during severe

summer thunderstorms.

Small areas of palustrine wooded wetlands are situated

alongside the River channel and consist of various tree

species including cottonwood, green ash, peachleaf willow

with an understory of shrubs (sandbar willow, western

snowberry), grasses, grass-like plants and forbs.

Palustrine emergent wetlands vegetated with cattail,

bulrush, phragmites, sandbar willow, prairie cord grass

and various sedges are present on River and tributary

floodplains and channels, isolated catchments and slopes,

and at 12 man-made impoundments near the mouth of

some feeder streams. Total water/wetland acres on the

Refuge are approximately 375. Refuge wetlands are

shown on Figure 3.

Ground and surface water quality are generally good.

The Nebraska Department of Water Quality rated the

Niobrara River as Class A for which quality will be

maintained and protected. Fecal coliform counts are

generally within standards for water contact recreation;

however, samples exceeding health standard levels were

obtained at the confluence of a River tributary on the

Refuge several years ago. A new wastewater treatment

plant for the city of Valentine has improved the quality of

water discharged into a Niobrara River tributary.

Vegetation

Churchill et al. (1988) recorded 581 species of vascular

plants in this area which represents 1/3 of the total

known for Nebraska. Native species equal 519 while 62

are introduced. Preliminary mapping of principal plant

communities of the Refuge is found in Figure 4 with

general descriptions (Churchill 1988, Kaul 1990, Kantak

1995) summarized below.

Grasslands

Sandhills prairie is found atop sand dunes south and

west of the River and is dominated by a mixture of tall-,

mid- and short-grasses with their relative abundance

differing according to variation in water holding capacity

of the sandy soil as influenced by topography. Common

grass species include sand and little bluestems, sand

lovegrass, prairie sandreed, switchgrass, blue and hairy

grama, sand dropseed, sandhill muhly, needle-and-thread,

prairie junegrass and western wheatgrass. Shrubs

include leadplant, prairie rose, sand cherry, poison ivy,

buckbrush, and yucca. Typical forbs are hoary vetchling,

purple and silky prairie clovers, sand milkweed,

spiderwort, bush morning glory, prairie coneflower,

lemon scurfpea and several penstemon species.

Mixed prairie is located most extensively on the flat

tableland above the pine-covered slopes north of the

Niobrara River where drier, sandy loam soils support

shallow-rooted, drought-tolerant species. This vegetation

type also occurs south of the River where appropriate

soil moisture characteristics exist. Dominant grass

species include little bluestem, blue grama, side oats

grama, needle and thread grass, and threadleaf sedge.

Silver-leaf scurf pea, prickly-pear cactus, yucca,

leadplant, prairie rose, and several other forbs and

shrubs are present.

Total grassland acreage on the Refuge is approximately

14,264 acres. Included in this total is an estimated 148

acres of restored native prairie.
36 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Woodlands

Ponderosa pine savanna and forest, the eastern extension

of Rocky Mountain Coniferous Forest, is located on

rocky soils and steep eroding cliffs of the north wall of

the River valley and upper slopes of canyons on the

south side where there is no shading by deciduous trees.

Other native woody species found on these xeric sites

include choke cherry, fragrant sumac, prairie rose, sand

cherry, and yucca. Herbaceous understory species are

typical of adjacent prairie. Total acreage on the Refuge is

approximately 3,022 acres.

Eastern Deciduous Forest covers much of the River

floodplain, south wall of the River valley, and canyons of

larger tributaries where a permanent water supply is

accessible via the shallow floodplain water table or from

permanent spring seeps. This woodland type is also

found in moist slopes and draws. Bur oak are common

with ironwood, American elm, green ash, basswood, and

hackberry present. The understory is varied and

comprised of typical mesic, shade-tolerant species. Paper

birch, a characteristic species of the Northern Boreal

Forest community, is restricted and clustered around

cold springs in sheltered spring branch canyons, or near

spring-fed seeps along the steep canyon walls of the

south side of the River valley. Understory consists of

boreal-type (cold water marsh or bog habitats) grasses,

sedges and mosses. Eastern red cedar has invaded these

woodland communities and is dominant in some areas.

Total Refuge acreage is approximately 1,296 acres.

Tree Plantations established in the 1930’s by the

Civilian Conservation Corps and later by Refuge staff are

located mostly in administrative areas and consist of

Eastern red cedar, black and honey locusts, American

elm, green and white ash, and/or ponderosa pine totaling

approximately 59 acres.

Exotic and Invading vegetation found on or near the

Refuge includes leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, Canada

thistle, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, downy

brome, sweet clover, reed canary grass, phragmites,

Eastern red cedar, Russian olive, black and honey

locusts.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 37

Figure 3. Wet.and Map
38 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 39

Figure 4. Vegetation Map
40 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 41

Wildlife

A rich and significant diversity of wildlife species with

eastern, western, northern and southern affinities as well

as niches specific to the northern Great Plains inhabit

the Refuge and surrounding area (Armstrong et al. 1986,

Labedz 1990, Freeman 1990, Hrabik 1990). Population

numbers vary according to amount of suitable habitat

and other factors. Species lists for birds, mammals,

amphibians, and reptiles are found in Appendix F.

Birds

A tremendous diversity of native birds inhabit Fort

Niobrara NWR seasonally or year-round with a total of

227 species recorded since the Refuge’s establishment.

Approximately 48 percent of avian species have ecological

affinities with the woodlands in and adjacent to the

Niobrara River valley due to complex and varied habitat

stratification. Dominant breeding species in the woody

habitats include ovenbird, great crested flycatcher,

black-and-white warbler, American redstart,

black-capped chickadee, red-eyed vireo, house wren,

eastern kingbird, orchard oriole, common yellowthroat,

brown thrasher, and rufous-sided towhee (Sedgwick

1995). Wild turkey are common year-round residents of

the woodlands while bobwhite quail are rare. Raptors

likely to be seen in suitable woody habitat include

Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, merlin, kestrel, and

rough-legged hawk. Bird species that evolved with

ecological niches in grasslands comprise 11 percent of

total Refuge species which is typical of the Great Plains.

Species that are relatively abundant on Fort Niobrara NWR

include grasshopper sparrow, western meadowlark,

sharp-tailed grouse, greater prairie chicken, and upland

sandpiper. Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, prairie

falcon, and ferruginous hawk have grassland affinities and

are present periodically in low numbers. Approximately

four pair of burrowing owls inhabit the 20 acre prairie

dog town and raise young each year. Thirty-two percent

of Refuge bird species inhabit the Niobrara River,

streams, ponds, and various wetlands. Canada goose,

mallard, and wood duck are common breeders and

several additional species of waterfowl, shorebirds, gulls,

terns, marsh and waterbirds are present for several

days or months but not often seen. Species encountered

in multiple habitats and common on the Refuge include

turkey vulture, mourning dove, belted kingfisher, and cliff

swallow with golden eagle and osprey seen occasionally.

Peregrine falcons migrate through the area in late April

and early May and in September and October. Sightings

by Refuge staff are rare.

Species of management concern by the Service that have

been recorded on the Refuge include burrowing owl,

ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, long-billed curlew,

upland sandpiper, short-eared owl, sedge wren, eastern

meadowlark, dickcissel, grasshopper sparrow, Baird’s

sparrow, McCown’s longspur, chestnut-collared longspur,

red-headed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, and

loggerhead shrike.

Mammals

The mosaic of habitats found in this area of the northern

Great Plains support an abundant diversity of native

mammals. Approximately 44 of the original 52 native

mammalian fauna currently inhabit the Refuge and

surrounding area with seven additional species introduced

or their ranges extended (Bogan and Ramotnik 1995).

Bison and elk, extirpated in Nebraska in the late 1800’s,

were reintroduced to the Refuge in 1913. Other large

native ungulates that are common include white-tailed

deer and mule deer with pronghorn antelope being

scarce. Black-tailed prairie dogs are found both on and

off the Refuge in areas of “harder” ground but their

numbers are limited. Smaller native mammals that are

abundant include Ord’s kangaroo rat, white-footed

mouse, deer mouse, prairie vole, and western harvest

mouse (Bogan 1995). Less numerous species include

northern short-tailed shrew and masked shrew which are

found in mesic sites. A maternity colony of big brown bats,

estimated 200 individuals, inhabits the historic hay barn

during the summer. Coyote are a common, widespread

predator with bobcat less numerous and observed

periodically in and adjacent to the River corridor. Beaver

are widespread and found on the Niobrara River and

numerous streams. River otter were historically common

along the River but today are rarely sighted and are

listed as endangered by the State of Nebraska. Species

that extended their range into this area include raccoon,

eastern fox squirrel, and black-tailed jackrabbit. Texas

longhorn cattle, a nonnative species, was introduced to

the Refuge in 1936 but had historically been trailed to

Fort Niobrara Military Reservation during the late

1800’s as a source of meat for Native Americans.

Amphibians and Reptiles

At least 24 species of reptiles and amphibians occur on

the Refuge and/or surrounding area which is a significant

proportion of the herptofauna of the northern Great

Plains. Corn et al., (1995) documented 16 of these species

during surveys conducted 1991-1992. Species recorded in

the Niobrara River, streams, and associated wetland

habitat included Blanchard’s cricket frog, western

chorus frog, bull frog, northern leopard frog, common

snapping turtle, and painted turtle. Species found in

association with drier habitats include plains spadefoot,

ornate box turtle, pale milk snake, bull snake, rattle

snake and prairie racerunner. Woodhouse’s toad, eastern

yellow-bellied racer, and red-sided garter snake are wide

spread in distribution and common on the Refuge. A

spiny softshell turtle was documented for the first time

in Cherry County just off the Refuge in the

Minnichaduza Creek in 1992. Yellow mud turtle,

identified by the Service as a species of management

concern, probably inhabits the Refuge; however, no

recent sightings have been made.
42 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Fishes

Fish communities found in the Niobrara River and its

tributaries are unique to Nebraska. According to Hrabik

(1990), relict populations of more typical northern,

southern, eastern, and western species, as well as fishes

common to the northern Great Plains, are found on the

Refuge and surrounding area due to repeated glaciation

and tectonic activity. The presence and distribution of

these has not changed much since historic time due to the

stable flows, consistent temperatures, reduced

sedimentation, low dissolved solids of the Niobrara River

drainage (Bentall 1990; Farrar 1983) and lack of

degradation from agriculture (Case 1986). Numerous

species of cyprinids, ictalurids, and percids are common.

Species of concern (Nebraska List) that may inhabit

waters on Fort Niobrara NWR include northern

redbellied dace, earl dace, finescale dace, and blacknose

shiner.

Twelve man-made ponds maintained by the Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission periodically contain various

species of game fish.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Several plant and animal species listed under provisions

of the Endangered Species Act have been documented on

the Refuge and/or in the surrounding area.

Bald eagles migrate through the area during the spring

and fall and also spend the winter (late October-early

April) along the Niobrara River. Winter populations

average 5-7 with as many as 15 eagles recorded on the

Refuge in some years. Wintering eagles depend on

suitable night and severe weather roosts in sheltered

timber stands located close to food sources (Peterson

1986). Roost trees on Fort Niobrara NWR are mostly

mature cottonwoods with open structure and stable

limbs located along the shores of the Niobrara River. No

eagles nest on the Refuge; however, nesting has been

documented several miles east at the confluence of the

Niobrara and Keya Paha Rivers since 1996 (J. Dinan

pers. comm.). Eagle mortality due to pesticide poisoning

(Famphur), gunshot, and electrocution has been

documented in the area with actions taken to reduce its

occurrence (law enforcement, education, removal or

modification of source) annually.

Whooping cranes migrate through the area in April and

October. One adult whooping crane was sighted with

approximately 100 sandhill cranes resting in native

prairie north of Fort Niobrara on October 21, 1997. The

most recent sighting of whooping cranes on the Refuge

was made in October, 1993 when two adult cranes spent

several days roosting and feeding on shallow, sparsely

vegetated segments of the Niobrara River above Cornell

Dam.

Piping plovers are occasionally sighted on the Refuge

during spring and fall migrations.

Most of the exposed sandbar habitat on the Refuge is

located above Cornell Dam with sandbars downstream

usually exposed in July and August.

Threatened and endangered plants and animals

documented in the area, but not documented on the

Refuge, include blowout penstemon, western prairie

fringed orchid, American burying beetle, and the interior

population of the least tern.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 43

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Numerous significant cultural and paleontological,

remains exist on the Refuge. The following summaries

were taken from Cultural Resource Inventory And

Assessment For Selected Areas Within Fort Niobrara

National Wildlife Refuge, Valentine, Nebraska: A Final

Report by Osborn 1979.

Paleontologic resources of the Niobrara River valley are

unusually rich with 17 distinct fossil sites excavated on

the Refuge within the wilderness area. Two fossil beds of

the lower Pliocene and upper Miocene epochs provided

the non-articulated skeletons and bone fragments of

more than 20 extinct mammalian species including

three-toed horses, camels, antelopes, rhinoceroses,

rodents, and rabbits.

Archaeological remains collected in this area suggest

short-term occupation by prehistoric and historic

aboriginal groups for hunting and gathering. Artifacts

date back through several cultures to the Paleo-Indian

period of 7,500-11,500 years ago and include scattered

flint chips, projectile points, other stone tools, animal

bone fragments, charcoal pieces, and pottery pieces.

Aboriginal occupation of this region documented in

various expeditions of the middle and late 1800’s was by

the Dakota Sioux, Ponca, and Pawnee.

Military history of the area began in the late 1870’s with

the restriction of Sioux Indian tribes to the Great Sioux

reservation in Dakota Territory (now western South

Dakota) and establishment of Fort Niobrara Military

Reservation. The Fort was established in 1879 to monitor

Sioux activity and control operations of cattle rustlers

and horse thieves. “Long-horned” cattle trailed from

Texas were distributed to the Sioux, and the Fort served

as a market for locally furnished goods and services.

Soldiers were dispatched to several skirmishes although

no major battles or events occurred. The Fort was closed

in 1906 and retained by the War Department as a remount

station until 1911 when a portion was transferred to the

Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey

to be used as a preserve and breeding ground for native

birds. A hay shed, constructed in 1897 by the Army,

remains on the Refuge and is listed on the National

Register of Historic Places.

Euro-American settlement of the Sandhills began in the

late 1870’s and 1880’s and corresponded with the strong

cattle market provided by the Military Fort. The railroad

(Fremont, Elkhorn, and Missouri Valley) reached Fort

Niobrara in 1883 resulting in the development of the town of

Valentine. Homesteading was further encouraged by the

Fort’s ready market for local farm produce and labor.

Several saw and flour mills were in operation along the

Niobrara River by the mid-1880’s. Homesteading and

farming grew during the 1880’s but were challenged by

drought and recession in the 1890’s. The 1904 Kinkaid

Act encouraged more settlement; however, the Sandhills

was nearly the last of the Great Plains to be homesteaded.

Population in the area increased and peaked during

World War I with elevated commodity prices but steadily

declined to current levels (Miller 1990).

Socio-Economic and Political Environment

The Refuge is located in Cherry County approximately

three miles east of the city of Valentine, the County seat

and biggest city in the County with a population of

approximately 2,800 (see Figure 1). Cherry County is the

largest County in Nebraska with a total area of

approximately 6,013 square miles. Rural population in

the County is very sparse due to large ranch sizes.

Predominate land-use in the County is native prairie

grazing and haying with less than 10 percent of the

acreage cropped or irrigated (Miller 1990). Family-owned

ranching is the primary source of income in the county,

although income generated from tourism is increasing.

According to the County and City Data Book (U.S.

Bureau of Census, 1994), for the year 1989, the median

family income for Cherry County was $22,902, the

median household income was $18,962 and the per capita

income was $10,758. The percentage of households, for

the same year, with annual income levels below $15,000

was 37.8 percent. The number of families with income

below the poverty level was 286 and the number of persons

was 1,386. According to the same source, Cherry County

minority population (excluding women) accounted for

only .4 percent of the total population (218 persons out of

6,336 in the 1992 Cherry County population).

Access to the Refuge is by Nebraska Highway 12 and a

County maintained gravel road and bridge. Major

highways traversing the County are US Highway 83

(north/south) and US Highway 20 (east/west). The

nearest airport with scheduled passenger service is in

North Platte located 136 miles south of Valentine.

Neighboring jurisdictions of Fort Niobrara include the

National Park Service (Niobrara National Scenic River),

Nature Conservancy (Niobrara Valley Preserve),

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (Merritt

Reservoir Recreation Area, Smith Falls State Park,

Bowring Ranch, Cowboy Trail, Valentine Fish Hatchery,

several Wildlife Areas), Middle Niobrara Natural

Resource District (Brewer Bridge Recreation Site), U.S.

Forest Service (Nebraska National Forest), and Bureau

of Land Management (several small tracts).

Public Uses

Public use of the Refuge occurs year-round with the

greatest amount of visitation documented from mid-May

to mid-October. Activities include wildlife/wildland

observation, photography, interpretation/education,

picnicking, hiking, floating the Niobrara River, fishing

and periodic special events. A more detailed look at

current levels of use can be found in the Environmental

Assessment on Appendix H. NEPA Documentation,

under the Current Management (No Action) Alternative

discussion.
44 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Special Management Areas

Special Legislated Designations

Wilderness Area

Definition of Wilderness

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577 [16 U.S. C.

1131-1136]) defines wilderness as follows: “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 5,000 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.”

Principles Governing the Management of Wilderness Areas

Manage wilderness as a distinct resource with inseparable

parts.

1. Manage the use of other resources and activities

within wilderness in a manner compatible with the

wilderness resource.

2. Allow natural processes to operate freely within

wilderness.

3. Attain the highest level of primeval wilderness

character within legal constraints.

4. Preserve wilderness air and water quality.

5. Produce human values and benefits while preserving

wilderness.

6. Preserve outstanding opportunities for solitude or a

primitive and unconfined recreation experience in

each wilderness.

7. Control and reduce the adverse physical and social

impacts of human use in wilderness through education

or minimum regulation.

8. Favor wilderness-dependent activities when managing

wilderness use.

9. Exclude the sight ,sound, and other tangible

evidence of motorized or mechanical transport

wherever possible within wilderness.

10. Remove existing structures and terminate uses and

activities not essential to wilderness management or

not provided for by law.

11. Accomplish necessary wilderness management work

with the “minimum tool.”

12. Establish specific management direction with public

involvement, in a Management Plan for each wilderness.

13. Harmonize wilderness and adjacent land management

activities.

14. Manage wilderness with interdisciplinary scientific

skills.

15. Manage special provisions provided for by wilderness

legislation with minimum impact on the wilderness

resource.

A 4,635 acre portion of the Refuge was designated as

wilderness on October 19, 1976. This area includes a

portion of the Niobrara River Valley as it straddles the

River and the timbered bench land interspersed with

native prairie north of the River. Designated wilderness

equals 3,810 acres in one single unit. The remaining 825

acres include portions of four other habitat units and

approximately five miles of Niobrara River corridor.

Section 4 (b) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 reads as

follows: “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each

agency administering any area designated as wilderness

shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness

character of the area and shall so administer such area

for such other purposes for which it may have been

established as also to preserve its wilderness character.

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas

shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational,

scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and

historical use.”

The Fort Niobrara Wilderness is managed according to

the Wilderness Act of 1964 which requires wilderness areas

to be managed in a natural condition with opportunities for

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.

The major area serves as a winter pasture for the buffalo

herd; the Niobrara River corridor is fenced separately

and has not been grazed for several years. The remainder of

the area included in other habitat management units

receives grazing use by elk and Texas longhorns. Due to

use by Bison and the status of private land adjoining the

Wilderness, it is necessary to maintain the boundary

fence, control wild fires, and monitor and move the bison

herd. Previously existing fire trails and rustic bridges

are utilized for access by horseback and limited service

access by motorized equipment necessary for fence

maintenance and wildfire suppression.

Public use of the main portion of the Wilderness Area to

the north of the River is primarily by hikers or horseback,

largely for wildlife observation. Day-use is permitted,

with public access by foot, horseback, or cross-country

ski. The primary public users of the Niobrara River

corridor portion of the Wilderness Area are River

floaters, who access the area for day-use by canoe or

inflatable inner tubes on the River, or by hikers on the

Fort Falls Nature Trail. Virtually all of the Niobrara

River used by the public on the Refuge is inside the

Wilderness Area, as the Wilderness boundary is only a

few hundred yards downstream from the launch point.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 45

Wild and Scenic River

Congressional Declaration of Policy

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 ([Public Law 90-

542, as amended], [16 U.S.C. 1271-1287]) states that: “It is

hereby declared to be the policy of the United States

that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with

their immediate environments, possess outstandingly

remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and

wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall

be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and

their immediate environments shall be protected for the

benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.

The Congress declares that the established national

policy of dam and other construction at appropriate

sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be

complemented by a policy that would preserve other

selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing

condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and

to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes.”

Designation of Sections of the

Niobrara River as Wild and Scenic

In Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Congress

states: “The following rivers and the land adjacent

thereto are hereby designated as components of the

national wild and scenic rivers system: “and in subsection

117 we read: “NIOBRARA, NEBRASKA. – (A) The 40-

mile segment from Borman Bridge southeast of Valentine

downstream to its confluence with Chimney Creek and

the 30-mile segment from the River’s confluence with

Rock Creek downstream to the State Highway 137

bridge, both segments to be classified as scenic and

administered by the Secretary of the Interior. That

portion of the 40-mile segment designated by this

subparagraph located within the Fort Niobrara National

Wildlife Refuge shall continue to be managed by the

Secretary through the Director of the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service.”

Review Requirements for Early Designations

and Management Plans

Regarding management plans for designated wild and

scenic rivers, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act further

states: “(1) For rivers designated on or after January 1,

1986, the Federal agency charged with the administration

of each component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers

System shall prepare a comprehensive management plan

for such River segment to provide for the protection of

the River values. The plan shall address resource

protection, development of lands and facilities, user

capacities, and other management practices necessary or

desirable to achieve the purposes of this Act. The plan

shall be coordinated with and may be incorporated into

resource management planning for affected adjacent Federal

lands. The plan shall be prepared, after consultation with

State and local governments and the interested public

within three full fiscal years after the date of designation.

Notice of the completion and availability of such plans

shall be published in the Federal Register; (2) For rivers

designated before January 1, 1986, all boundaries,

classifications, and plans shall be reviewed for

conformity within the requirements of this subsection

within 10 years through regular agency planning

processes.”

Seventy-six miles of the Niobrara River which includes

the nine-mile portion on the Refuge was included in the

Wild and Scenic River System in 1991.

Research Natural Area

A relatively dense stand of ponderosa pine (approximately

200 acres in size) located within the Wilderness Area, was

established as a Research Natural Area in 1960.

National Recreational Trail System

Five miles of the Niobrara River on the Refuge has been

included in the National Recreational Trail System since

1982.

National Historic Building

The “hay barn” built in 1897 and the only building remaining of

the historic military Fort Niobrara is registered as a

National Historic Building.

National Register of Historic Places

Fort Niobrara was nominated to the National Register of

Historic Places.
46 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 47

Management Direction

Refuge Management Direction: Goals,

Objectives, and Strategies/Projects

Refuge Goals and Objectives

The mission and purposes of the National Wildlife

Refuge System, the purpose(s) for which a refuge was

established, and the existence of a wild and scenic River

corridor and a designated wilderness area within the

Refuge boundaries are the primary references for

setting Refuge goals and objectives. The ecosystem

priorities provide a secondary reference for setting

Refuge goals and objectives.

Refuge goals are qualitative statements that define what

outputs and outcomes a refuge must achieve to satisfy

the System’s mission and purposes as well as the

refuge’s purpose(s). Refuge objectives are benchmarks

indicating progress toward achieving the mission,

purposes and goals.

Fort Niobrara NWR goals and objectives are listed

below. These goals and objectives were developed during

the developmental stages of this Plan and refined, updated,

and merged with each revision during the planning

process of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Assessment.

The goals and objectives were the benchmarks used for

the development of the Preferred Alternative from among

the management actions discussed in the Alternatives

presented in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation

Plan and Environmental Assessment (see Appendix H

for more information on the alternatives considered

during the draft stages of this Plan).

The Refuge planning team spent considerable time

defining habitat and other objectives to further describe

management actions needed to meet Refuge goals. They

are presented in this Plan to provide a logical step-down

from the broad purpose and mission statements to

concrete management decisions.

Interrelationships of Goals and Objectives

The Refuge goals and objectives are presented separately

for ease of understanding and reference. They are not,

however, independent of each other. The goals and

objectives and the resources and activities discussed are

completely interrelated in spatial, ecological, and

management considerations.

The habitat goals and objectives are the primary criteria

which refuge managers will use to guide their efforts and

evaluate successes. Goals and objectives for habitat, wildlife,

threatened and endangered species, interpretation and

recreation, and ecosystem provides additional information

for managers to refine specific actions and to help in

evaluating success of habitat management and use of the

Refuge by the public. In order for refuge managers to

achieve the mission of the Refuge fully, these objectives

need to be understood holistically and applied in

combination, each being a critical part of the Refuge

vision.
48 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

P Habitat Management

Goal: - Preserve, restore, and enhance the unique diversity

of upland and riparian plant communities and associated

water resources representative of the physiographic

regions described as Sandhills Prairie, Mixed Prairie,

Rocky Mountain Coniferous Forest, Eastern Deciduous

Forest, and Northern Boreal Forest within the Northern

Great Plains to ensure their rarity, richness, and

representativeness is sustainable into the future.

The Niobrara River, numerous tributary streams, and

associated riparian habitat will be maintained. Cornell

Dam will be maintained to provide shallow-braided River

and sandbar habitat upstream. Twelve ponds formed by

damming tributary streams will continue to be held at

full capacity throughout most of the year for use by

waterfowl and other birds, bison and elk, and fish rearing

under cooperative agreement with the Nebraska Game

and Parks Commission. Breached impoundments in the

wilderness area will be returned to their natural state.

Nearly all of the River and associated habitat will

continue to be fenced to control access by bison, elk, and,

if reintroduced, bighorn sheep.

The Service will remove Texas longhorn cattle from the

Refuge within one to two years of completion of this Plan.

The Service will disburse the animals that compose this

herd between the Wichita Mountains NWR and a non-profit

organization willing to continue maintaining the genetic

integrity of the herd through a management system similar

to the one currently in use at the Refuge. Wichita Mountains

NWR, whose purpose is to preserve the genetic integrity of

another herd of these animals, will receive those animals

from the Refuge herd that they request based on genetic

makeup of the animals. The Service will then support or

facilitate the creation of a non-profit organization to

manage the remaining herd, preferably in the City of

Valentine, Cherry County or State of Nebraska. The last

option for disbursing the herd will be through public

auction.

Efforts to improve the woodland community will focus on

reduction of cedars and regeneration of native woodland

species through the use of prescribed fire and other

forest management practices. Management will ensure

that an adequate number of mature trees are maintained

for winter roosting use by bald eagles.

The Service will continue its integrated pest management

program. A combination of biological, mechanical, and/or

chemical control methods will continue to be used to

reduce the presence of purple loosestrife and leafy spurge.

Cedar control efforts will increase through the use of

prescribed fire and mechanical methods. Management

efforts will be implemented to reduce the presence

invasive cool season grasses, sweet clover, Russian olive,

and other exotic/invasive species.

Grassland Objective: Maintain the approximate 14,264

acres of Sandhill Prairie and Mixed Prairie vegetation

communities in early through late successional stages to

meet nesting, brooding, feeding, and/or protective cover

requirements of various grassland dependent birds,

fenced animals and other wildlife. Species composition on

a minimum of 90 percent of the grasslands will be

middle-to-late successional stage and consist of 75-85

percent grasses, 5-10 percent grass-like plants, 5-10

percent forbs, and 5 percent shrubs (dominant species as

described by Kaul and Rolfsmeier 1993, Schneider et al.

1996, USDA Soil Conservation Service 1983). Vegetation

structure will exist in a range of heights and densities

with complete visual obstruction to an average height of

six inches in the fall on a minimum of 50 percent of the

grassland acreage (Prose 1985; Prose 1987). A minimum

of 50 percent of the grasslands will not have planned

burning or grazing during the native bird breeding

season (April 15 - July 15).

Reduce vehicle trails on the Refuge. Identify main access

trails to be maintained and discontinue use of other

trails. Complete minimum trail maintenance required for

Refuge vehicle access (i.e., mulch with native prairie hay).

Stabilize and encourage revegetation of blowouts located

on or adjacent to boundary fence, main access trails, etc.

Allow other blowouts to exist in a natural state if they

provide suitable habitat for blowout penstemon.

Ponderosa Pine Savanna/Woodland Objective: Manage

the approximate 3,022 acres of Rocky Mountain Coniferous

Forest community to provide nesting, brooding, feeding

and/or protective cover requirements of various native

birds, fenced animals, and other wildlife. Approximately

85 percent of the acreage will be maintained as savanna

and consist of 70 percent grasses, 10 percent grass-like

plants, 5 percent forbs, 5 percent shrubs, and 10 percent

trees with the remaining acreage managed as a

woodland/forest. Species composition to manage for will

be based on descriptions by Kaul and Rolfsmeier 1993,

Schneider et al. 1996, USDA Soil Conservation Service

1983. A minimum of 50 percent of this community type

will not have planned grazing or burning during the

native bird breeding season (April 15 - July 15).

Riparian Eastern Deciduous/Northern Boreal Forest

Objective: Maintain and preserve the approximate 1,296

acres of Eastern Deciduous Forest/Northern Boreal

Forest riparian community to provide nesting, brooding,

feeding and/or protective cover requirements of various

native birds and other wildlife. Species composition to

manage for will be based on descriptions by Kaul and

Rolfsmeier 1993, and Schneider et al. 1996. Habitat

diversity will be enhanced by managing for a mix of trees

(size and age classes with a minimum of 10 percent

mature trees), and well-developed shrub and herbaceous

layers. Strips of woodlands (150 acres) in habitat units

utilized by fenced animals will be protected to the extent

necessary to ensure regeneration. A minimum of 50

percent of this community type will not have planned

grazing or burning during the native bird breeding

season (April 15 - July 15).
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 49

Niobrara River and Associated Wetlands Objectives:

Restore and maintain the approximate 375 acres of the

Niobrara River and associated wetlands with emphasis

on maintaining streambed quality, stream bank stability,

water flow, water temperature, and quality. Use existing

data on the Niobrara River water flow, quality (sediment,

nitrate, pollutants) and water temperature as minimum

baseline levels and repeat at five year intervals. Ensure

vegetation adjacent to the River and streams are

adequate to minimize erosion, dissipate water energy and

trap sediments.

Exotic and Invading Species Objective: Prevent

additional exotic plant species from becoming established

and reduce the occurrence, frequency and stand density

of existing invading and exotic vegetation. Target level of

combined total of invading and exotic plant species is less

than 5 percent of species composition. Invading and

exotic plant species to manage include leafy spurge,

purple loosestrife, Canada thistle, Kentucky bluegrass,

smooth brome, downy brome, sweet clover, reed canary

grass, eastern red cedar, Russian olive, and phragmites.

Reduce the presence of nonnative tree species in Refuge

plantations by allowing natural degeneration to occur.

Future replantings/plantings will include only native

tree and shrub species.

P Wildlife

Goals: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological

diversity and abundance of migratory and resident

wildlife with emphasis on native birds. Maintain

representative breeding herds of nationally significant

animals under reasonably natural conditions.

Between 200-350 bison (depending on herd genetic

viability needs) and 70-100 elk will be managed on the

Refuge under reasonably natural conditions. Bighorn

sheep might be reintroduced to the Refuge and allowed

to grow to a herd of 50 if this introduction is deemed

feasible and in accordance with the future Bighorn Sheep

Management Plan currently being prepared by the

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Texas

longhorns will no longer be managed at Fort Niobrara.

In accordance with Service policy, animal numbers above

winter population levels will be transferred to Native

American Tribes, other refuges, sold, or donated annually.

Limited Refuge hunts may be used as a tool periodically

to reduce the elk and, if reintroduced, bighorn sheep

populations. Sex and age ratios of the herds will

approximate historic free-ranging herds. Bison, elk, and

bighorn sheep populations will be managed as “open”

herds with introductions or exchanges made periodically

to maintain the genetic integrity of the herds and

minimize the negative effects of inbreeding. Sufficient

monitoring of the herds will be accomplished to ensure

genetics and health of the animals are maintained and

herd levels are at or below desired numbers.

Bison, elk, and, if reintroduced, bighorn sheep herds will

have access to nearly all of the grasslands and ponderosa

pine savanna habitats with the addition of 8-11 miles of

big game fence. Some interior fence will be removed so

that herds have a more natural and open movement

pattern. Prescribed fire, water, and salt will be used to

influence habitat use. The prescribed fire program will

increase with up to 1,000 acres treated annually to

invigorate native prairie, influence big game use, control

cedars, and encourage regeneration of unique forest

types. Other annual management actions will include one

or more years of rest on approximately 10 percent of the

acreage and suppression of all wildfires. A Habitat

Management Plan will be developed and an adaptive

management approach will be used to measure

achievement toward the grassland habitat objectives.

A large ungulate herd will consume and/or remove by

trampling an estimated 3,400 - 5,900 AUMs of forage a

year which is approximately 16 to 28 percent of total plant

production, leaving approximately 72 to 84 percent of the

vegetation for plant vigor and use by other wildlife (Waller

et al. 1986, USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service 1996). Exhibition herds and government horses

will be supplemented during the winter as conditions

warrant with approximately 40 tons of prairie hay

harvested from Valentine NWR.
50 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Maintaining long-term population genetic variability of

the bison, elk, and bighorn sheep herds, which affects

population fitness or health, will be addressed through

population size, sex, and age ratio and addition of animals

from other populations. Elk and bighorn sheep will be

maintained below minimum population levels; therefore,

periodic introductions of animals from other populations

will be accomplished to minimize inbreeding. Maintaining the

bison herd at 350 animals along with sex and age ratio of historic

herd will provide the effective population size required for

maintaining levels of genetic variability that commensurate

with accepted standards of conservation biology (Berger

1996, Berger and Cunningham 1994). Should the bison

herd level exist below 350, periodic introduction will be

needed to minimize inbreeding.

In addition to implementing habitat management actions

that improve and maintain the diverse native plant

communities, the Service will consider and implement

management regimes that meet various native bird

requirements. Biological monitoring of native birds and

other wildlife will increase to better document population

trends and effects of management.

Refuge acreage inhabited by prairie dogs will be allowed

to expand to a manageable size. Population and disease

monitoring actions will be implemented. Prairie dogs will

be excluded from areas where their presence creates a

safety hazard or conflicts with management objectives.

Alternative summer roosting habitat will be provided for

the maternity colony of big brown bats currently using

the historic barn. The barn will then be appropriately

sealed to prevent further degradation.

Prairie Grouse Objective: Maintain a five-year average

density of one prairie grouse lek/1.4 sq. mile with an

annual target of 100 sharp-tailed grouse and 65 prairie

chicken breeding males in the grasslands (approximately

12,271 acres) south and east of the Niobrara River

(USFWS, unpublished Refuge data).

Native Birds Objective: Maintain or increase breeding

and migration use on Fort Niobrara by Species of

Management Concern, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Region 6, including northern harrier, ferruginous hawk,

upland sandpiper, long-billed curlew, burrowing owl,

short-eared owl, red-headed woodpecker, loggerhead

shrike, dickcissel, lark bunting, grasshopper sparrow,

chestnut-collared longspur, eastern meadowlark, and

other habitat sensitive migratory birds such as western

meadowlark, bobolink, clay-colored sparrow, belted

kingfisher, willow flycatcher, and yellow-breasted chat.

Monitor and document migration use by peregrine

falcons as it occurs. Use existing data as minimum

baseline levels and implement monitoring procedures

that provide an index to overall species richness/diversity

and document population trends of selected species over

a five year period.

Bison and Elk Objective: Preserve and maintain

breeding populations of bison and elk with age and sex

composition approximating historic herds. Implement

management actions that maintain or increase levels of

genetic variability to assure viable, sustainable populations

according to accepted standards of conservation biology

(Berger 1996, Berger and Cunningham 1994). This

objective is intended not as an end in itself but as a means

to attain the Refuge’s goals and objectives for native

avian species while conserving essential populations of

these important prairie ungulates.

Incrementally remove some interior fence where feasible

and construct 8-11 miles of big game boundary fence.

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Objective: Reintroduce,

if feasible and in accordance with the State’s future

Bighorn Sheep Management Plan, Rocky Mountain

bighorn sheep to the Refuge to restore an indigenous

species into its historic range and aid in habitat

management goals.

Prairie Dog Objective: Allow the expansion of the

existing black-tailed prairie dog town in the Refuge to a

manageable size to enhance Refuge biological diversity

and attain stated goals and objectives for native and

migratory avian species.

Other Indigenous Wildlife Objective: Ensure the

diversity and abundance of other indigenous mammals,

reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates continues.

Use existing data as minimum baseline levels and

monitor periodically to document population trends.

(Bogan, 1995)
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 51

P Threatened and Endangered Species

Goal: Contribute to the preservation and restoration of

threatened and endangered flora and fauna that occur or

have historically occurred in the area of Fort Niobrara

NWR.

In addition to continuing to provide for wintering bald

eagle use, the Service will conduct an American burying

beetle survey, introduce blowout penstemon into suitable

habitat for this species, and continue to provide migration

habitat for whooping cranes, plovers, and terns in the

braided River channel habitat upstream of Cornell Dam.

Blowout Penstemon Objective: Evaluate the Refuge for

blowout penstemon habitat. If suitable habitat exists,

establish plants in at least two sites

Bald Eagle Objective: Maintain a minimum of 10 percent

of the woodlands within the Niobrara River corridor in

mature or old-growth timber with an open and

discontinuous canopy to provide undisturbed roosting

habitat for wintering populations of bald eagles. Monitor

and document eagle use on the Refuge and mortality in

the area.

Whooping Crane, Piping Plover, and Least Tern Objective:

Maintain the shallow braided River habitat above Cornell

Dam for use by whooping cranes, piping plovers, and

least terns during migration. Keep use areas free from

human disturbance. Monitor and document migration

use by whooping cranes, piping plover, and least terns as

it occurs.

American Burying Beetle Objective: Determine if

American burying beetles inhabit the Refuge. Implement

appropriate management strategies if a population

exists.

P Interpretation and Recreation

Goal: Provide the public with quality opportunities to

learn about and enjoy the ecological diversity, wildlands,

wildlife, and history of the Refuge in a largely natural

setting and in a manner compatible with the purposes for

which the Refuge was established.

River Use

The Service will address overcrowding on the portion of

the Niobrara River that flows along the designated

Wilderness Area of the Refuge on summer weekends as a

result of people floating the River by developing, with

participation from other interested parties, a detailed

River Management Plan within two years. This

overcrowding could be affecting not only Federal Trust

Resources but the recreational experience of Refuge

visitors that seek a wild and scenic river and wilderness

experience. In the interim, no new outfitters will be

issued permits to launch canoes or tubes on the Refuge.

River use on weekends in the summer will be capped at

1998 levels.

Data collection during a social carrying capacity study of

the River conducted in 1998 along with future monitoring

of River use, habitat, wildlife, erosion, and other factors

will be used to set upper limits of use for summer

weekends during the summer, and the remainder of the

year. Actions to be taken when peak use levels have been

reached will be defined in detail.

A user fee of $2.00 per vessel per day or $25.00 per year

that was implemented in 1998 will be continued. Monies

collected from the fee program have been used to pump

rest rooms, for signs, for costs related to collection, law

enforcement and other related costs. The Service will

make adjustments to the user fee as necessary to ensure

that a safe and quality experience is provided to the

public.

Bans on possession of alcohol, high volume radios

(normally known as boom boxes), or any device capable

of shooting or directing a projectile or liquid at another

person to include, but not limited to, water balloons, high

pressure water guns (normally known as water cannons),

paint ball guns, potato guns, and sling shots will be

implemented. No more than five tubes will be allowed to

be tied together, and River floating will only be allowed

downstream of Cornell Dam. River floaters will be

encouraged to follow a code of ethics developed by the

Niobrara Scenic River Council.

The Service’s Regional Dam Safety Officer will continue

to inspect Cornell Dam periodically to ensure compliance

with applicable laws, policies, directives, and technical

recommendations governing Federal safety of dams.

Furthermore, this Officer will provide technical assistance

should determination be made that the Dam is no longer

safe and needs to be removed.
52 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Hunting and Fishing

Limited Refuge hunts may be used as a tool periodically

to reduce elk and, if reintroduced, bighorn sheep

populations.

The Service will allow fishing on the Niobrara River and

Minnichaduza Creek. Special events, such as youth

fishing day, will continue.

Other Public Uses

The Service will seek funds to construct and staff a new

environmental education/visitor center to improve

environmental education and interpretation of wildlife,

cultural, and historic resources on the Refuge. A Site

Plan, being developed, will include a concept design for

an environmental education/visitor center. The Site Plan

will also contain suggestions for improving the existing

visitor center until such time as a new center is

constructed.

Wildlife/wildland observation opportunities will be expanded

and include an access point for hiking and horseback

riding in the Wilderness Area and construction of a trail

to a scenic overlook of the Niobrara River Canyon.

Viewing of bison and elk will continue to be available year

round in an exhibition habitat unit. Current facilities and

wildlife observation and photography uses will remain

open. Access to the main herds will be allowed through a

concessionaire during peak public use periods, mainly

the summer months.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

The Service will develop a Cultural Resource/

Paleontological Management Plan. The Plan will

include Refuge-wide cultural resource inventory and

paleontological resource inventory strategies. It will also

include increased interpretation, protection, and education

about the cultural and paleontological resources on the

Refuge. The historic hay shed will be protected from

further degradation by sealing the building and

relocating the bat colony.

Interpretation, Wildlife Observation and Photography,

and Environmental Education Objectives: Provide

visitors with quality interpretation, environmental

education, wildlife observation and photography

opportunities.

Ensure a safe, quality river-floating experience on the

Wild and Scenic Niobrara River that follows the standards

of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, National

Wildlife Refuge System and maintains the integrity of

the Fort Niobrara Wilderness Area.

Protect and interpret Refuge cultural and paleontological

sites.

Fishing Objective: Provide opportunities for warm water

fishing in the Niobrara River and Minnichaduza Creek.

Hunting Objective: Offer ethically sound, limited and

strictly controlled hunting opportunities for elk and, if

reintroduced, for bighorn sheep to facilitate removal of

herd excess.

P Ecosystem (Partners)

Goal: Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and

enhance a diverse, healthy, and productive ecosystem of

which the Fort Niobrara and Valentine NWR’s are part.

Ecosystem Objectives/Strategies for the Fort

Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex: Support the

National Scenic River, the National Park Service and

other management entities to meet desired future

conditions of the Niobrara Scenic River.

Support the Sandhills Management Plan through

Partners for Wildlife Program to enhance wildlife habitat

on private lands.

Support use of Refuges as research areas for relevant

natural resource studies. Conduct applied research on

management of threatened and endangered plant and

animal populations.

Develop an effective outreach program that results in

two wildlife habitat/public use projects completed

annually with nongovernmental organizations.

Develop greater cooperation with state and local

governments that result in completion of at least two

projects annually. Projects are to benefit area wildlife

resources or enhance public use opportunities such as

fish rearing in Refuge ponds.

Use this Plan to help in marketing Refuge needs through

grant writing and networking with other entities.

Support the National Scenic River; coordinate and

cooperate as appropriate with River management

partners including the National Park Service, Natural

Resource Districts, etc., to meet desired future conditions

of the Niobrara Scenic River and related resources.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 53

Implementation

and Monitoring

Funding and Personnel

Staffing Needed to Implement This Plan

The following Staff Chart shows current staff and

proposed additional staffing needed to fully implement

this Plan. If all positions were filled, the Refuge Complex

would be able to carry out all aspects of this Plan to a high

standard. If some positions are not filled, all aspects of

this Plan may not be able to be completed or those

completed may be done over a longer period of time.

Staffing and funding are expected to come over the 15-year

life of this Plan. Positions marked with an * are shared

with Valentine NWR. The new refuge operations

specialist position would be responsible for the Partners

For Wildlife Program, Holt Creek WMA, and Tower

WMA. (U = filled; Y = vacant)

Position Current Proposed

Refuge Manager* U U

Refuge Operations Specialist U U

Refuge Operations Specialist* Y U

Outdoor Recreation Planner* Y U

Law Enforcement Officer* U U

Administrative Officer* U U

Office Automation Clerk* U U

Wildlife Biologist U U

Bio. Technicians/Seasonal (2) Y U

Heavy Equipment Operator* U U

Maintenance Worker (2) U U

Maintenance Laborer/Seasonal(2) Y U

Asst. Fire Management Officer* U U

Range Technician (Fire) U U

Firefighters/Seasonal (3) U U

Funding Needed to Implement This Plan

Currently, a large backlog of maintenance needs exists

on the Refuge. The needs are recorded in a national

Maintenance Management System (MMS). In 1997,

under current management plans, the backlog for Fort

Niobrara NWR was $3,830,000. Most of these needs

would also need to be met under this Plan. A synopsis of

these needs is listed below:

Vehicles and Equipment $ 708,000

Fences, Corrals, and Wells $ 943,000

Water Control Structures and Dikes $ 197,000

Roads and Bridges $ 292,000

Public Use Facilities $ 709,000

Buildings and Maintenance Facilities $ 821,000

Residences $ 160,000

TOTAL $ 3,830,000

The System uses another database, the Refuge Operating

Needs System (RONS), to document proposed new

projects that will implement a Plan, implement

ecosystem or federally listed species goals or meet legal

mandates. The total cost to implement this Plan is

$3,908,000. A synopsis of these needs is listed below:

Biological Monitoring and Studies $ 110,000

Habitat Management $ 443,000

Possible Reintroduction of Bighorn Sheep $ 20,000

Resource Protection $ 393,000

Public Education and Recreation $ 742,000

Environmental Education Center $2,200,000

TOTAL $3,908,000
54 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

CCP Implementation and Step-down

Management Plans

This section is intended to provide additions to the

Refuge Management Direction section above. Where

possible, time frames are delineated, specific strategies

and actions are stated, and a list of projects is presented.

The Service has traditionally used a Refuge Manual to

guide field station management actions. The policy

direction provided through the Manual has been used to

prepare annual work schedules, budget, land management

plans (i.e., prescribed fire, grazing, haying), sale of

surplus animals, biological monitoring, public use, safety,

and other aspects of public land management in the

Refuge.

This CCP is intended as a broad umbrella plan that

provides general concepts, specific wildlife and habitat

objectives, federally listed species, public use, and

partnership objectives. Depending on the Refuge needs,

these may be very detailed or quite broad. The purpose

of step-down management plans is to provide greater

detail to managers to implement specific actions

authorized by the CCP. Step-down management planning

is the formulation of detailed plans that describe

management activities necessary to implement strategies

identified in this CCP. Step-down plans describe the

specific management actions to be followed, “stepping

down” from general goals, objectives, and strategies

Step-down plans provide a detailed assessment and

strategy that is based upon and complement the Fort

Niobrara NWR CCP. While many potential topics for

step-down plans exist, the most critical ones include

Habitat Management, Wilderness Management Plan,

Wildlife Inventory, River Use, and Public Use Plans. The

objectives and implementation strategies in each stepdown plan will dovetail with each other and the CCP.

The Refuge, within a reasonable amount of time, will

prepare all the necessary Step-down Management Plans

to attain the goals and objectives described in this CCP:

for example, a Niobrara River Use Management Plan (in

approximately two years), a Public Use Plan, and a

Fishing Management Plan.

Habitat Management and Monitoring

A step-down Habitat Management Plan for the Refuge

will include an assessment of the current status and

distribution of plant communities and wildlife habitat,

and a prescription and strategy for habitat management

that will achieve long-term habitat, wildlife population,

and ecosystem goals for the Refuge and surrounding

landscape. The habitat prescription, or objectives (how

much of what kind located where), will be based on: (1)

Refuge resource priorities identified locally, regionally,

and nationally; (2) potential contribution of a site to

resource priorities (rare species/communities, other

priority species, ecosystem function); and (3) historical,

current, and potential plant community types for

particular site in the Refuge area.

The habitat objectives will be combined with an

implementation strategy to produce a Habitat

Management Plan. Habitat strategies will include sitespecific manipulations to achieve site objectives and

evaluations of the manipulations. Manipulations include

standard practices of wetland, grassland, or forest

restoration and management, prescribed burning, moist

soil and water management, and allowing natural

ecosystem processes to dictate the ecological community

type. The cycle time for some of the habitat management

strategies is very long-term. However, many habitat

management actions may be initiated immediately, if staff

and dollars are available.

An overall Habitat Management Plan will be developed

to guide all aspects of habitat management including but

not limited to: annual grazing by large animal herds, the

use of prescribed fire, prairie dog colony growth and

management, other wildlife (i.e., bison, elk, bighorn

sheep), and rest required by habitat for native birds.

The Refuge staff will develop and implement an updated

Wilderness Management Plan, taking into consideration

wilderness values (in compliance with the Wilderness

Act), Service policy, adjoining land uses, and comments

and concerns addressed in the CCP, and providing a basis

for other related plans.

Develop and implement a monitoring program that

assesses landscape and individual habitat variables such

as vegetation species composition, grassland structure

(density, height) and ground cover, woodland structure

(percent tree, shrub, herbaceous, bare ground, canopy

cover; basal area, diameter and height, age, snags), and

utilization by large ungulates. Procedures will be

completed annually or at three- to five-year intervals

depending upon available staff and technique requirements.

Fire-funded personnel will develop and implement a fire

effects monitoring program that integrates with other

Refuge biological monitoring activities.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 55

Wildlife Management and Monitoring

Continue to conduct sharp-tailed grouse and greater

prairie chicken lek counts. Obtain prairie grouse lek data

from the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and

harvest data from Valentine NWR for general

comparison to Fort Niobrara NWR population trends.

Implement nongame bird monitoring techniques in the

grasslands and woodlands to document population

trends and species richness/diversity.

Conduct a graduate research project that documents

native bird response pre- and post-change in management

from current habitat management emphasizing fenced

animals to a more natural, less-controlled management

regime emphasizing native birds. Conduct a graduate

research project that compares native bird use within the

River corridor during high and low public use periods.

Continue to maintain a general observation log of bird

sightings to document presence/absence, relative

abundance, and use areas.

Maintain the bison herd at its current winter population

level of 350 animals. The population level may vary

between 200-350 animals depending on habitat, native

bird, and bison herd genetic viability needs and objectives.

Surplus bison will be disbursed to Native American

Tribes (in accordance with Service policies and

agreements), donations to tax supported entities, other

Service herds, with the remaining going to public auction.

Continue to implement fenced animal management practices

that ensure long-term health and survival of the herds.

Actions to be taken include periodic animal introductions

to minimize inbreeding, disease testing and vaccination,

and mineral supplementation. Geneticists and health

care professionals will be consulted on a regular basis

regarding recommended practices and/or requirements.

Consult with population ecologists and/or bison geneticists

regarding genetic management recommendations/options

for the Fort Niobrara NWR bison gene pool. Collect and

analyze bison genetic material to establish baseline for

future comparison.

Conduct seasonal population surveys of bison, elk, and, if

reintroduced, bighorn sheep to document numbers by age

and sex, mortality, natality, and general health/condition.

Annually test excess animals for various diseases and

ensure that animals introduced to the Refuge meet all

health test requirements. Complete genetic testing of

the herds at intervals recommended by geneticists to

assess if fenced animals are being managed appropriately.

Allow the black-tailed prairie dog colony to increase to a

manageable size. Manage predator populations and

vegetation to hold prairie dogs to designated acreage

with other control measures implemented as necessary.

Relocate big brown bat colony by sealing historic hay barn

and maintain/enhance natural artificial bat roost sites.

Complete surveys of small mammals, reptiles, amphibians,

and fish at five year intervals.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Management and Monitoring

Identify habitat suitable for blowout penstemon and, if it

exists, introduce plants at a minimum of two sites with

assistance from University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Implement management actions that result in a

sustainable population of blowout penstemon.

Conduct an American burying beetle survey.

Continue to conduct biweekly eagle surveys OctoberApril. Monitor bald eagle mortality and submit carcasses to

the National Health Lab for analysis. Implement

appropriate protection measures. Conduct an aerial survey

of the Niobrara River every two years to document

proximity of or possible nesting activity on the Refuge.

Conduct periodic surveys of the Niobrara River to

document use or non-use by whooping cranes, least

terns, and piping plovers. Document habitat selection,

usage, and distribution. Implement appropriate protection

measures.
56 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Interpretation and Recreation Resources

Management and Monitoring

Niobrara River Use Management and Monitoring

The Service will prepare a Fishing Plan to provide a

basis for special regulations concerning this use on the

Niobrara River and Minnichaduza Creek. Sport fishing

regulations will follow those of the Nebraska Game and

Parks Commission except that taking of frogs, turtles,

and minnows will be prohibited. No motorized boats will

be permitted.

The Service will develop and implement a Niobrara River

Management Plan, within two years of the issuance of

this Plan, and will invite the participation of other

Federal and State agencies, local and county government

representatives, River outfitter groups, environmental

groups, and other groups or individuals.

This Management Plan will ensure that this use is

compatible with the six wildlife-dependent uses of the

System, it protects the natural resources of this riparian

corridor, and it preserves the characteristics for which it

was designated a Wild and Scenic River area.

Furthermore, this Management Plan will also ensure

that the wilderness area that this stretch of the River

crosses is not adversely impacted by recreational uses.

This Management Plan will be subordinate to the statutes

and requirements of the Wild and Scenic River Act and

the Wilderness Act that have jurisdiction over the Niobrara

River as it flows through the Fort Niobrara NWR.

Bans on possession of alcohol, high volume radios

(normally known as boom boxes), or any device capable

of shooting or directing a projectile or liquid at another

person to include, but not limited to, water balloons, high

pressure water guns (normally known as water cannons),

paint ball guns, potato guns, and sling shots will be

implemented. No more than five tubes will be allowed to

be tied together, and River floating will only be allowed

downstream of Cornell Dam. River floaters will be

encouraged to follow a code of ethics developed by the

Niobrara Scenic River Council.

During the period of development of this River

Management Plan, the Service will not increase the

number of Special Use Permits issued until the

environmental effects of this use are assessed, and the

Management Plan can be implemented and incorporated

into the Refuge goals and strategies. The Service will

continue to study and monitor the environmental effects

of the current uses of the Niobrara River by River floaters

and other to riparian and upland Refuge resources. With

the River Management Plan, the refuge manager will

have specific information and data on which to base sound

scientific decisions for the future management of this

important resource.

Permits will be required for Scout, church, educational

and other such groups floating the River that want to tie

more than five tubes together.

Public Use Management and Monitoring

The Service will seek funds to construct and staff a new

environmental education/visitor center to improve

environmental education and interpretation of wildlife,

cultural, and paleontological resources on the Refuge. A

Site Plan, being developed, will include a concept design

for the new center and suggestions for improving the

existing visitor center until such time as a new center is

constructed. Interim projects to complete include

updating exhibits and broaden themes to include wildlife

and their habitats; unusual ecological diversity; cultural

and paleontological resources; and management.

Investigate the possibility of a shared environmental

education/visitor center with the Nebraska Game and

Parks Commission, National Park Service, Forest

Service, The Nature Conservancy, Valentine Chamber of

Commerce, and others.

Fort Falls Nature Trail will be maintained for public

enjoyment. The self-guiding interpretative brochure will

be updated.

Provide a wilderness access point for hiking and

horseback riding. Use will be limited to three groups at

one time with a maximum group size of 5 horses or 10

people. An outfitter, selected by lottery, will be allowed

to guide a maximum of one group per day and will pay a

fee and/or a certain percent of gross receipts to the

Refuge.

Construct a trail to a scenic overlook of the Niobrara

Canyon and provide appropriate interpretation.

Establish a concessionaire contract to view and interpret

the bison and elk herds during the summer tourist

season.

Continue to improve the main auto tour route by

resurfacing with gravel and closing/revegetating

numerous side trails. Expand the display habitat unit

and provide more natural and aesthetic setting by

removing and/or relocating fence.

Staff and expand the hours of operation of the visitor/

environmental education center.

Maintain the visitor center, information kiosks/leaflet

dispensers, education panels, other signs, picnic tables,

and rest rooms in clean, orderly, well cared for condition.

Update Refuge brochures to new Service standards.

Develop a Refuge specific environmental education

curricula for teachers to use independently.

Continue to prepare periodic news releases and send to

newspapers, radio, and television to inform the public

about Refuge events and issues.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 57

Ecosystem (Partners) Management

and Monitoring

Maintain a contaminant database on the Niobrara River.

Cooperate with various entities (i.e., USFWS Ecological

Services; State of Nebraska) to collect data on flow,

temperature, sediment, nitrates, and other pollutants.

Work with Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 4-H, National

Audubon Society, Niobrara Outfitters Association, Fort

Niobrara Natural History Association, Cherry County

Schools, and others to complete at least two wildlife/

public use projects a year.

Contact and seek cooperation/partnership with universities

regarding a paleontological inventory of the Refuge.

Consider acquisition of nondevelopment easements from

willing adjacent landowners to protect Refuge integrity.

Contact and seek cooperation/partnership with

International Safari Club, Rocky Mountain Elk

Foundation, and others regarding large ungulate

projects. Participate on NPS working group to develop

general management plan for Niobrara National

Scenic River to include biological monitoring at an

ecosystem level.

Work with USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS), Nebraska Game and Parks Commission,

U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Middle

Niobrara Natural Resource District, and others to

complete at least two wildlife habitat and/or public use

projects a year.

Continue to cooperate with NRCS on soil mapping and

data digitizing of Service lands, review and comment on

revised National Range and Pasture Handbook,

participation in range judging contests, range condition

surveys, and provide technical assistance on wildlife/

wildland concerns.

Continue to cooperate with the Nebraska Game and

Parks Commission on wildlife surveys and fish rearing in

Refuge ponds.

Write a minimum of three grant proposals a year to seek

outside funding.

Work with State of Nebraska Veterinarian, Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission, National Park Service, and

others on management of fenced and free-ranging elk.

Work with veterinarians for the State of Nebraska,

neighboring states, USDA-APHIS, and private sector on

disease/health issues, regulations, etc.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Management and Monitoring

A Cultural Resource and Paleontological Resources

Management Plan to provide a basis for research and

enactment of special regulations concerning protection of

these resources on the Refuge will be prepared by the

Service.

Complete a Refuge-wide cultural resource survey and

develop a management plan based on results. The Plan will

include management strategies for the historic hay shed

based on future objectives and possible uses (i.e., storage,

environmental education) for the designated historic site.

Relocate the big brown bat colony away from the historic

barn and complete appropriate bat proofing and

renovations according to future management plans.

Conduct a Refuge-wide paleontological inventory.

Display and interpret cultural and paleontological specimens.
58 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Partnership Opportunities

Only with public support will the Service succeed in its

mission. That support comes through outreach:

fostering education, understanding, and communicating

the importance of the Service commitment to protecting

habitat upon which wildlife depends. Outreach includes a

broad array of activities and services focused on building

relationships and communication. The Service is

committed to getting its message to both traditional and

nontraditional groups.

The Service continues to seek opportunities to work with

various conservation groups, State and local agencies,

and private corporations and organizations to advance

the Fort Niobrara NWR mission. Generally, the Fort

Niobrara NWR and Valentine NWR Complex will strive

to combine resources with appropriate entities to

expedite and carry out planning projects.

The Service will continue to cooperate with Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission for rearing of brood fish in

tributary impoundments. Agreements in place for

wildlands wildfire suppression efforts, excess bison for

the Inter Tribal Bison Council, participation in the

Niobrara Council, and other common coordination efforts

with other agencies and landowners will continue. The

Service will continue to uphold and develop partnerships

with the National Park Service on many issues, including

use and protection of the wild and scenic portion of the

Niobrara River, and will seek to increase partnerships

with others as well.

The Service will seek to develop outside funding sources

and support for implementing some aspects of this Plan.

Examples would be construction of the environmental

education center, big game fence, and possible acquisition

of nondevelopment easements on the Refuge’s north and

west borders.

Partnerships require extensive time to coordinate,

develop, and nurture. This must be accounted for in the

development of budgets and annual work plans.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term

management of biotic resources that is directed over

time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and

other information. Biological management techniques

and specific objectives will be regularly evaluated in light

of monitoring results and other new information. These

periodic evaluations will be used over time to adapt both

the management objectives and techniques to better

achieve management goals.

Monitoring is an essential component of this Plan, and

specific monitoring strategies have been integrated into

the goals and objectives outlined above. All habitat

management activities will be monitored to assess

whether the desired effect on wildlife and habitat

components has been achieved. Monitoring the number of

breeding pairs and the reproductive parameters of native

and neotropical bird species will follow established

Federal and statewide protocols, at a minimum. Baseline

surveys will be established for other species of wildlife

for which existing or historical numbers are not well

known. It also will be important to begin studies to

monitor the response of wildlife to increased public use in

the form of observation and environmental education.

This Plan is designed to be effective for a 15-year period.

Periodic review of the Plan will be required to ensure

that established goals and objectives are being met and

that the Plan is being implemented as scheduled. To

assist this review process, an ongoing monitoring and

evaluation program will be implemented, focusing on

issues involving public use activities, wildlife-dependent

recreational activities, and habitat and population

management.

Monitoring of public use programs will involve the

collection and compilation of visitation figures and

activity levels. In addition, research and monitoring

programs will be established to assess the impacts of

public use activities on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The

Refuge will strive to establish the collection of baseline

data on all wildlife populations. This data will be used to

update existing records of wildlife species using the

Refuges, their habitat requirements, and seasonal use

patterns. This data will also be used to evaluate the

effects of public use and habitat management programs

on wildlife populations.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 59

Refuge habitat management programs will be

continually monitored for positive and negative impacts

on wildlife and wildlife habitat, and to determine if these

management tools are helping to meet Refuge goals and

objectives. Monitoring will focus on habitat changes and

the associated changes in the wildlife community.

The establishment of a monitoring and evaluation

program is important to support the direction of the

Plan. The information gathered through this program

will provide necessary data to ensure that goals and

objectives established in the Plan are being met.

The Service will conduct, at the very minimum, the

following monitoring actions:

! wildlife herd monitoring sufficient to maintain age

and sex ratios, health, genetic diversity, and annual

excess removal

! native bird species monitoring to supply trend

information on prairie grouse, species of

management concern, grassland neotropical

migrants, biodiversity trend indexes

! monitor habitat parameters (i.e., vegetation composition

and structure, tree canopy, etc.) sufficient to ensure

that habitat objectives are being measured and

determined successful according to a Habitat

Management Plan and the adaptive management

process

! water quality parameters on the Niobrara River

! federally listed species monitoring, American

burying beetle survey

! monitoring/research on River use through the

Wilderness Area and it’s wildlife and social impacts

! monitoring fire effects as part of the prescribed

burning program.

Plan Amendment and Revision

This Refuge CCP is a dynamic Plan. While it will serve

as a guide for overall Refuge direction, it will be adjusted

to consider new and better information, ensuring that

Refuge activities best serve the intended purpose for

which this Refuge was established and the mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System. The CCP will be

reviewed every five years, and monitored continuously to

ensure the management actions developed support the

goals and objectives of the Fort Niobrara NWR.

This Plan will be informally reviewed by Refuge staff

while preparing annual work plans and updating the

Refuge Management Information System (RMIS)

database. It may also be reviewed during routine

inspections or programmatic evaluations. Results of the

reviews may indicate a need to modify the Plan. The

monitoring of objectives is an integral part of the Plan,

and management activities may be modified if desired

results are not achieved. If minor changes are required,

the level of public involvement and associated NEPA

documentation will be determined by the project leader.

This CCP will be formally revised at least every 15

years.
60 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 61

Appendix A. Glossary

(including acronyms and abbreviations)

Adaptive Management: Refers to the process in which

policy decisions are implemented within a framework

of scientifically driven experiments to test

predictions and assumptions inherent in

management plans. Analysis of results help

managers to determine whether current

management should continue as is or it should be

modified to achieve desired conditions.

Alternative: 1) A reasonable way to fix the identified

problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 1500.2);

2) Alternatives are different means of accomplishing

refuge purposes and goals and contributing to the

System mission (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

AUM or Animal Unit Month: A measure of the

quantity of livestock forage. Equivalent to the forage

sufficient to sustain a 1,000 pound animal (or 1 cow/

calf pair) for 1 month during the normal range

season.

Biological Control: The use of organisms or viruses to

control weeds or other pests.

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its

processes, including the variety of living organisms,

the genetic differences among them, and the

communities and ecosystems in which they occur.

CCP or Plan: Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Compatible Use: A wildlife-dependent recreational use

or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound

professional judgment of the Director, will not

materially interfere with or detract from the

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the

purposes of the refuge.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Plan, or CCP: A

document that describes the desired future

conditions of the refuge and provides long-range

guidance and management direction for the refuge

manager to accomplish the purposes of the refuge,

contribute to the mission of the System, and to meet

other relevant mandates.

EA or Environmental Assessment: A concise public

document, prepared in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the

purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such

action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis

of impacts to determine whether to prepare and

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Ecosystem: Dynamic and interrelated complex of plant

and animal communities and their associated

nonliving environment.

Ecosystem Approach: Protecting or restoring the

natural function, structure, and species composition

of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components are

interrelated.

Endangered Species (Federal): A plant or animal

species listed under the Endangered Species Act

that is in danger or becoming extinct throughout all

or a significant portion of its range.

Endemic Species: Plants or animals that occur

naturally in a certain region and whose distribution

is relatively limited to a particular locality.

Exotic and Invading Species (Noxious Weeds): Plant

species designated by Federal or State law as

generally possessing one or more of the following

characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage;

parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insects or

disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the

United States, according to the Federal Noxious

Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that

causes disease or has adverse effects on man or his

environment and therefore is detrimental to the

agriculture and commerce of the United States and

to the public health.

Fauna: All the vertebrate and invertebrate animal

species of a determined area.

Federal Trust Resources: A trust is something

managed by one entity for another who holds the

ownership. The Service holds in trust many natural

resources for the people of the United States of

America as a result of Federal Acts and Treaties.

Examples are species listed under the Endangered

Species Act, migratory birds protected by the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other international

treaties, and native plant or wildlife species found on

the System.

Flora: All the plant species of a determined area.

FONSI or Finding of No Significant Impact: A

document prepared in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an

environmental assessment, that briefly presents

why a Federal Action will have no significant effects

on the human environment and for which an

Environmental Impact Statement, therefore, will

not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13).

Fragmentation: The process of reducing the size and

connectivity of habitat patches.

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a

purpose but does not define measurable units (Draft

Service Manual 620 FW 1.5).
62 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions

required by an organism for survival and

reproduction. The place where an organism typically

lives.

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed

to move ecosystems to desired conditions and

processes, and/or to healthy forestlands, rangelands,

and aquatic systems.

Integrated Pest Management: Methods of managing

undesirable species, such as weeds, including:

education; prevention, physical or mechanical

methods of control; biological control; responsible

chemical use; and cultural methods.

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a

management decision; i.e., a Service 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 (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to

another and back.

Mission Statement: A succinct statement of a unit’s

purpose and reason for being.

Mitigation: Measures designed to counteract

environmental impacts or to make impacts less

severe.

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to

track changes of selected parameters over time.

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge): A designated area

of land or water or an interest in land or water within

the System, including national wildlife refuges,

wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas,

waterfowl production areas, and other areas (except

coordination areas) under Service jurisdiction for the

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife. A

complete listing of all units of the Refuge System

may be found in the current “Annual Report of

Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.”

National Wildlife Refuge System, Refuge System, or

System: Various categories of areas that are

administered by the Secretary 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 or waterfowl production areas.

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a

particular ecosystem.

Neotropical Migratory Bird or Neotropicals: A bird

species that breeds north of the U.S. - Mexican

border and winters primarily south of this border.

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

No Action Alternative: An alternative under which

existing management would be continued.

Non-Priority Public Uses: Any use other than a

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use.

NWR: National Wildlife Refuge

Objective: A concise statement of what will be achieved,

how much will be achieved, when and where it will be

achieved, and who is responsible for the work.

Objectives are derived from goals and provide the

basis for determining management strategies,

monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating

the success of the strategies. Objectives should be

attainable and time-specific and should be stated

quantitatively to the extent possible. If objectives

cannot be stated quantitatively, they may be stated

qualitatively (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Opportunities: Potential solutions to issues.

Planning Team: A team or group of persons working

together to prepare a document, such as this

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Planning teams

are interdisciplinary in membership and function.

Teams generally consist of a planning team leader;

refuge manager and staff; biologists; staff specialists

or other representatives of Service programs,

ecosystems or regional offices; and other Federal

and State governmental agencies as appropriate.

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species

unique in its composition; occurs in particular

locations under particular influences; a reflection or

integration of the environmental influences on the

site – such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar

radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; denotes a

general kind of climax plant community, i.e.,

ponderosa pine or bunchgrass.

PILT: Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes

Prairie Grouse: Both sharp-tailed grouse and prairie

chickens.

Preferred Alternative: This is the alternative

determined (by the decision maker) to best achieve

the Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to

the Refuge System mission, addresses the

significant issues; and is consistent with principles of

sound fish and wildlife management. The Service’s

selected alternative at the Draft CCP stage.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 63

Prescribed Fire: The skillful application of fire to

natural fuels under conditions of weather, fuel

moisture, soil moisture, etc., that allows confinement

of the fire to a predetermined area and produces the

intensity of heat and rate of spread to accomplish

planned benefits to one or more objectives of habitat

management, wildlife management, or hazard

reduction.

Prescribed Natural Fire: A fire ignited by natural

processes (usually lightning) and allowed to burn

within specified parameters of fuels, weather, and

topography to achieve specified resource

management objectives.

Priority Public Uses: Compatible wildlife-dependent

recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation and photography, and environmental

education and interpretation) are the priority

general public uses of the System and shall receive

priority consideration in refuge planning and

management.

Proposed Action: The Service’s proposed action for

Comprehensive Conservation Plans is to prepare and

implement the CCP.

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of

Federal, State, and local government agencies;

Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may include

anyone outside the core planning team. It includes

those who may or may not have indicated an interest

in Service issues and those who do or do not realize

that Service decisions may affect them.

Public Involvement: The process by which interested

and affected individuals, organizations, agencies, and

governmental entities are offered an opportunity to

become informed about, to express their opinions

and participate in the planning and decision making

process of Service actions and policies. In this

process, these views are studied thoroughly and

thoughtful consideration of public views is given in

shaping decisions for refuge management.

Purposes of the Refuge: The purposes 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 sub-unit.

ROD or Record of Decision: A concise public record of

decision prepared by the Federal agency, pursuant to

the National Environmental Policy Act, that

contains a statement of the decision, identification of

all alternatives considered, identification of the

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement

as to whether all practical means to avoid or

minimize environmental harm from the alternative

selected have been adopted (and if not, why they

were not adopted), and a summary of monitoring and

enforcement where applicable for any mitigation (40

CFR 1505.2).

RMIS: Refuge Management Information System

database

Refuge: short for Fort Niobrara National Wildlife

Refuge

Refuge Operating Needs System or RONS: National

database containing the unfunded operational needs

of each refuge. Projects included are those required

to implement approved plans, and meet goals,

objectives, and legal mandates.

Refuge Use: Any activity on a refuge, except

administrative or law enforcement activity carried

out by or under the direction of an authorized

Service employee.

Refuge Purposes: The purposes 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, a refuge unit, or

refuge subunit (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5)

Refuge Revenue Share Program or RRSP: provides

payments to counties in lieu of taxes using revenues

derived from the sale of products from refuges (see

Appendix G: Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 715s) for more details).

Reserve Acres: Lands that were Public Domain lands

when first withdrawn to create the Refuge.

Riparian: Refers to an area or habitat that is

transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems;

including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent

plant communities and their associated soils which

have free water at or near the surface; and area

whose components are directly or indirectly

attributed to the influence of water; of or relating to

a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian”

describes the land immediately adjoining and

directly influenced by streams. For example,

riparian vegetation includes any and all plant-life

growing on the land adjoining a stream and directly

influenced by the stream.

Secretary: short for Secretary of Interior

Service or USFWS: Short for U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

Strategy: A specific action, tool, or technique or

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to

meet refuge objectives.

Step-down Management Plan: A plan that provides the

details necessary to implement management

strategies identified in the CCP (Draft Service

Manual 602 FW 1.5).
64 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Sound Professional Judgement: A finding,

determination, or decision that is consistent with

principles of sound fish and wildlife management and

administration, available science and resources, and

adherence to the requirements of the Refuge

Administration Act and other applicable laws.

Strategy: A specific action, tool, or technique or

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to

meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW

1.5).

System or Refuge System: National Wildlife Refuge

System

Threatened Species (Federal): Species listed under the

Endangered Species Act that are likely to become

endangered within the foreseeable future throughout

all or a significant portion of their range.

Trust Species: Species for which the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service has primary responsibility,

including, most federally listed threatened and

endangered species, anadromous fishes once they

enter inland U.S. waterways, migratory birds, and

certain marine mammals.

USFWS or Service: Short for U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

Vegetation Type or Habitat Type: A land classification

system based upon the concept of distinct plant

associations.

Vision Statement: A concise statement of the desired

future condition of the planning unit, based primarily

upon the System mission, specific refuge purposes,

and other relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual

602 FW 1.5).

Wetland: includes lakes, marshes, temporary wetlands,

fens, rivers, and creeks but not subirrigated

meadows.

Wilderness Area (or Designated Wilderness Area): An

area designated by the U.S. Congress to be managed

as part of the National Wilderness Preservation

System (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression

response; all fire other than prescribed fire that

occurs on wildlands (Draft Service Manual 602 FW

1.5).

Wildland: lands characterized by natural vegetation and

landscapes where man-made structures and

alterations are not evident.

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or

a prescribed fire (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Wildlife: Wild animals and vegetation, especially animals

living in a natural, undomesticated state.

Wildlife Corridor: A landscape feature that facilitates

the biologically effective transport of animals

between larger patches of habitat dedicated to

conservation functions. Such corridors may facilitate

several kinds of traffic, including frequent foraging

movement, seasonal migration, or the once in a

lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. These are

transition habitats and need not contain all the

habitat elements required for long-term survival or

reproduction of its migrants.

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation/Wildlife-Dependent

Recreational Use: A use of a refuge involving

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, or environmental education and

interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these are the

six priority general public uses of the System.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 65

Appendix B.

Bibliography

Armstrong, D.M., Choate, J.R., and Jones, J.K., Jr. 1986.

Distributional patterns of mammals in the plains

states. Occasional Papers of Museum of Texas Tech

Univ., v.105, pp 1-27.

Aughey, S. 1880. Sketches of the physical geography and

geology of Nebraska. Daily Republican Book and Job

Office, Omaha. 346 pp.

Bentall, R. 1990. Streams. Pages 93-114 in A. Bleed and

C. Flowerday, editors. An atlas of the Sand Hills.

Resource Atlas No. 5a. Conserv. and Survey Div.,

Inst. Agr. Nat. Res., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln. 265 pp.

Berger, J. 1996. Scenarios involving genetics and

population size of bison in Jackson Hole.

Unpublished report to Grand Teton National Park,

Moose, Wyoming. 21 pp.

_____, and C. Cunningham. 1994. Bison: mating and

conservation in small populations. Columbia Univ.

Press, New York. 330 pp.

Bogan, M.A. and C.A. Ramotnik. 1995. Mammals. Pages

140-186 in M.A. Bogan, editor. A Biological Survey of

Fort Niobrara and Valentine National Wildlife

Refuges. U.S. Nat. Biol. Serv., Midcont. Ecol. Sci.

Cen. 193 pp.

_____.1995. A Biological Survey of Fort Niobrara and

Valentine National Wildlife Refuges. U.S. Nat. Biol.

Serv., Midcont. Ecol. Sci. Cen. 193 pp.

Bragg, T.B. and A.A. Steuter. 1996. Prairie ecology - the

Mixed Prairie. Pages 53-65 in Samson, F.B. and F.L.

Knopf, editors. Prairie conservation: preserving

North America’s most endangered ecosystem.

Island Press, Washington, D.C. 339 pp.

Burgett, G.R. and R.K. Nickel. 1999. Archeological

Overview and Assessment for Lacreek, Fort

Niobrara and Valentine National Wildlife Refuges.

Midwest Archeological Center, National Park

Service. 41 pp.

Case, R.M. 1986. Wetlands, wildlife part of Sandhills.

I.A.N.R. Quart. 32:20-21.

Churchill, S.P., C.C. Freeman and G.E. Kantak. 1988. The

vascular flora of the Niobrara Valley Preserve and

adjacent areas in Nebraska. Trans. Nebr. Acad. Sci.,

XVI:1-15.

Corn, P.S., M.L. Jennings and R.B. Bury. 1995.

Amphibians and Reptiles. Pages 32-59 in M.A.

Bogan, editor. A biological survey of Fort Niobrara

and Valentine National Wildlife Refuges. U.S. Nat.

Biol. Serv., Midcont. Ecol. Sci. Cen. 193 pp.

Constanza, Robert, Ralph d’Arge, Rudolf de Groot,

Stephen Faber, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon,

Karin Limberg, Shahid Naeem, Robert O’Neill, Jose

Paruelo, Robert Raskin, Paul Sutton, and Marjan

van den Belt, The Value of the World’s Ecosystem

Services and Natural Capital in Nature, Vol. 387,

May 15, 1997

Dinan, J. 1998. Wildlife biologist, Nebraska Game and

Parks Commission. Personal communication.

Dobie, J.F. 1994. The longhorns. Univ. Texas Press,

Austin. 388 pp.

Farrar, J. 1983. Nebraska Rivers. NEBRASKALand

Magazine, Nebr. G&P Comm. 146 pp.

Freeman, P. 1990. Mammals. Pages 181-188 in A. Bleed

and C. Flowerday, editors. An atlas of the Sand Hills.

Resource Atlas No. 5a. Cons. and Sur. Div., Insti.

Agr. Nat. Resour., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln. 265 pp.

_____. 1990. Amphibians and Reptiles. Pages 157-160 in

A. Bleed and C. Flowerday, editors. An atlas of the

Sand Hills. Resource Atls No. 5a. Cons. and Sur.

Div., Insti. Agr. Nat. Res., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln.

265 pp.

Halloran, A. 1964. The heritage of the longhorn.

Oklahoma Cowman 7(9):18 & 38.

Higgins, K.F., A.D. Kruse and J.L. Piehl. 1986. Effects of

fire in the northern Great Plains. SDSU Ext. Circ.

EC 761. 47pp.

Hrabik, R.A. 1990. Fishes. Pages 143-154 in A. Bleed and

C. Flowerday, editors. An atlas of the Sand Hills.

Resource Atlas No. 5a, Cons. and Sur. Div., Inst. Agr.

Nat. Res., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln. 265 pp.

Jones, J.K., Jr., 1964. Distribution and taxonomy of

mammals of Nebraska. Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus.

Nat. Hist. 16:1-356.

_____., D.M. Armstrong, R.S. Hoffman, and C. Jones.

1983. Mammals of the northern Great Plains. Univ.

Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 379 pp.

Kantak, G.E. 1995. Terrestrial plant communities of the

Middle Niobrara Valley, Nebraska. Southwest. Nat.

40 (2):129-138.

Kaul, R.B. and S.B. Rolfsmeier. 1993. Native vegetation

of Nebraska. Cons. and Sur. Div., Univ. Nebraska,

Lincoln. (map 1:1,000,000).
66 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Kaul, R.B. 1990. Plants. Pages 127-142 in A. Bleed and C.

Flowerday, editors. An atlas of the Sand Hills.

Resource Atlas No. 5. Cons. and Sur. Div., Inst. Agr.

Nat. Res., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln. 265 pp.

Knopf, F.L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered

grasslands. Studies in Avian Bio. 15:247-257.

Labedz, T.E. 1990. Birds. Pages 161-180 in A. Bleed and

C. Flowerday, editors. An atlas of the Sand Hills.

Resource Atlas No. 5a. Cons. and Sur. Div., Insti.

Agr. Nat. Resour., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln. 265 pp.

Layton, M.H. 1956. Soil survey of Cherry County,

Nebraska. USDA Series 1940, No. 21. 91 pp.

Leenhouts, B. 1995. Presettlement fire and emission

production estimates: a framework for

understanding potential system change. Poster

session paper presented at the Environmental

Regulation and Prescribed Fire Conference, March

14-17, 1995, Tampa, Florida.

Miller, S.M. 1990. Land development and use. Pages

207-226 in A. Bleed and C. Flowerday, editors. An

atlas of the Sand Hills. Resource Atlas No. 5a. Cons.

and Sur. Div., Insti. Agr. Nat. Res., Univ. Nebraska,

Lincoln. 265 pp.

Mitchell, L. and C. Wolfe. 1984. Prairie grouse in

Nebraska. NEBRASKALand Magazine, Nebr. G &

P Comm. 15 pp.

NOAA National Climatic Data Center. 1996. Local

climatological data - annual summary with

comparative data for Valentine, Nebraska. 8 pp.

Osborn, A.J. 1979. Cultural resource inventory and

assessment for selected areas within the Fort

Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge, Valentine,

Nebraska: A final report. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln.

Tech. Rep. No. 79-07. 181 pp.

Peterson, A. 1986. Habitat suitability index model: Bald

eagle (breeding season). U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol.

Rep. 82 (10.126).

Prose, B.L. 1985. Habitat suitability index models:

Greater prairie chicken (multiple levels of

resolution). U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep.

82(10.102). 33pp.

_____. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: plains

sharp-tailed grouse. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep.

82(10.142). 31 pp.

Ruth, C. 1938. Fort Niobrara Game Preserve, Nebraska.

USDA Bur. Biol. Sur. Wildl. Manag. Publ. BS-109. 6

pp.

Schneider, R.E., D. Faber-Langendoen, R.C. Crawford

and A.S. Weakley. 1996. The status of biodiversity in

the Great Plains: Great Plains vegetation

classification. Supplemental Document I in W.R.

Ostlie, R.E. Schneider, J.M. Aldrich, T.M. Faust,

R.L.B. McKim and S.J. Chaplin. The status of

biodiversity in the Great Plains. The Nature

Conservancy. Arlington, VA.

Sedgwick, J.A. 1995. Occurrence, diversity, and habitat

relationships of birds. Pages 60-139 in M.A. Bogan,

editor. A biological survey of Fort Niobrara and

Valentine National Wildlife Refuges. U.S. Nat. Biol.

Serv., Midcont. Ecol. Sci. Cen. 193 pp.

Steuter, A.A. 1991. Human impacts on biodiversity in

America: Thoughts from the grassland biome. J.

Conser. Biol. 5(2):136-137.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996.

Range Inventory Summary and Suggestive Initial

Stocking Rates Based on Present Range Condition

for Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge. 8 pp.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Nebraska range

site descriptions and guide for determining range

condition and suggested initial stocking rates.

Lincoln, Nebraska.

U.S. Bureau of Census, County and City Data Book:

1994, 12th Edition, Washington, DC

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, An Ecosystem Approach

to Fish and Wildlife Conservation, March 1994

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Niobrara National

Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment, April 1999, 74 pp.

Waller, S.S., L.E. Moser, and B. Anderson. 1986. A guide

for planning and analyzing a year-round forage

program. Univ. Nebraska Coop. Ext. Serv. EC86-113.

19 pp.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 67

Appendix C.

Refuge Operating Needs

System (RONS) List
68 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 69
70 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 71
72 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 73
74 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 75
76 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 77
78 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 79

Appendix D.

Maintenance

Management System

(MMS) List
80 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 81
82 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 83
84 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 85
86 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 87
88 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 89
90 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 91
92 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 93

Appendix E.

Compatibility

Determinations

Station Name: Fort Niobrara National Wildlife

Refuge

Date Established: 1912

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Executive Order 1461 on January 11, 1912,

Executive Order 1642, on November 14, 1912

Executive Order 3256, on March 31, 1920

Executive Order 7301, on February 21, 1936

Purposes for which the Refuge was established:

The Refuge was originally established on January

11, 1912, from the public domain as a “preserve

and breeding ground for native birds,” and was

expanded by Executive Order on November 14,

1912, setting aside additional lands as the Fort

Niobrara Game Preserve for the preservation of

bison and elk herds representative of those that

once roamed the Great Plains. Executive Orders

in 1920 and 1936 were for various purposes

including roost sites for sharp-tailed grouse and

prairie chickens, migratory bird food sites, and

pronghorn antelope management.

Furthermore, the Wilderness Act of 1964 calls

for designated wilderness areas within a National

Wildlife Refuge to receive equal consideration in

management decisions and become a supplemental

purpose of the Refuge. Section 4. (a) of this Act

reads: “The purposes of this Act are hereby

declared to be within and supplemental to the

purposes for which national forests and units

of the national park and national wildlife

refuge systems are established and administered.”

Thus, the purpose of the designated wilderness

area within this Refuge is to be supplemental

and not subservient to the other purposes of the

Refuge.

Refuge Goals and Objectives

P Habitat Management Goal: Preserve, restore,

and enhance the unique diversity of upland and riparian

plant communities and associated water resources

representative of the physiographic regions described as

Sandhills Prairie, Mixed Prairie, Rocky Mountain

Coniferous Forest, Eastern Deciduous Forest, and

Northern Boreal Forest within the Northern Great Plains

to ensure their rarity, richness, and representativeness is

sustainable into the future.

Grasslands Objective: Maintain the approximate 14,264

acres of Sandhill Prairie and Mixed Prairie vegetation

communities in early through late successional

stages to meet nesting, brooding, feeding and/or

protective cover requirements of various grassland

dependent birds, fenced animals, and other wildlife.

Species composition on a minimum of 90 percent of

the grasslands will be middle-to-late successional

stage and consist of 75-85 percent grasses, 5-10

percent grass-like plants, 5-10 percent forbs, and 5

percent shrubs (dominant species as described by

Kaul and Rolfsmeier 1993, Schneider et al. 1996,

USDA Soil Conservation Service 1983). Vegetation

structure will exist in a range of heights and densities

with complete visual obstruction to an average

height of six inches in the fall on a minimum of 50

percent of the grassland acreage (Prose 1985; Prose

1987). A minimum of 50 percent of the grasslands

will not have planned burning or grazing during the

native bird breeding season (April 15 - July 15).

Ponderosa Pine Savanna/Woodland Objective: Manage

the approximate 3,022 acres of Rocky Mountain

Coniferous Forest community to provide nesting,

brooding, feeding and/or protective cover requirements

of various native birds, fenced animals, and other

wildlife. Approximately 85 percent of the acreage

will be maintained as savanna and consist of 70

percent grasses, 10 percent grass-like plants, 5

percent forbs, 5 percent shrubs, and 10 percent

trees with the remaining acreage managed as a

woodland/forest. Species composition to manage for

will be based on descriptions by Kaul and Rolfsmeier

1993, Schneider et al. 1996, USDA Soil Conservation

Service 1983. A minimum of 50 percent of this

community type will not have planned grazing or

burning during the native bird breeding season

(April 15 - July 15).
94 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Riparian Eastern Deciduous/Northern Boreal Forest

Objective: Maintain and preserve the approximate

1,296 acres of Eastern Deciduous Forest/Northern

Boreal Forest riparian community to provide

nesting, brooding, feeding and/or protective cover

requirements of various native birds and other

wildlife. Species composition to manage for will be

based on descriptions by Kaul and Rolfsmeier 1993

and Schneider et al. 1996. Habitat diversity will be

enhanced by managing for a mix of trees (size and

age classes with a minimum of 10 percent mature

trees) and well-developed shrub and herbaceous

layers. Strips of woodlands (150 acres) in habitat

units utilized by fenced animals will be protected to

the extent necessary to ensure regeneration. A

minimum of 50 percent of this community type will

not have planned grazing or burning during the

native bird breeding season (April 15 - July 15).

Niobrara River and Associated Wetlands Objectives:

Restore and maintain the approximate 375 acres of

the Niobrara River and associated wetlands with

emphasis on maintaining streambed quality, stream

bank stability, water flow, water temperature, and

quality. Use existing data on the Niobrara River

water flow, quality (sediment, nitrate, pollutants)

and water temperature as minimum baseline levels

and repeat at five year intervals. Ensure vegetation

adjacent to the River and streams are adequate to

minimize erosion, dissipate water energy, and trap

sediments.

Exotic and Invading Species Objective: Prevent

additional exotic plant species from becoming

established and reduce the occurrence, frequency,

and stand density of existing invading and exotic

vegetation. Target level of combined total of invading

and exotic plant species is less than 5 percent of

species composition. Invading and exotic plant

species to manage include leafy spurge, purple

loosestrife, Canada thistle, Kentucky bluegrass,

smooth brome, downy brome, sweet clover, reed

canary grass, eastern red cedar, Russian olive, and

phragmites.

P Wildlife Goals: Preserve, restore, and enhance the

ecological diversity and abundance of migratory and

resident wildlife with emphasis on native birds.

Maintain representative breeding herds of nationally

significant animals under reasonably natural conditions.

Prairie Grouse Objective: Maintain a five-year average

density of one prairie grouse lek/1.4 square mile with

an annual target of 100 sharp-tailed grouse and 65

prairie chicken breeding males in the grasslands

(approximately 12,271 acres) south and east of the

Niobrara River (USFWS, unpublished Refuge data).

Native Birds Objective: Maintain or increase breeding

and migration use on Fort Niobrara by Species of

Management Concern, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Region 6, including northern harrier,

ferruginous hawk, upland sandpiper, long-billed

curlew, burrowing owl, short-eared owl, red-headed

woodpecker, loggerhead shrike, dickcissel, lark

bunting, grasshopper sparrow, chestnut-collared

longspur, eastern meadowlark, and other habitat

sensitive migratory birds such as western

meadowlark, bobolink, clay-colored sparrow, belted

kingfisher, willow flycatcher, and yellow-breasted

chat. Monitor and document migration use by

peregrine falcons as it occurs. Use existing data as

minimum baseline levels and implement monitoring

procedures that provide an index to overall species

richness/diversity and document population trends

of selected species over a five- year period.

Bison and Elk Objective: Preserve and maintain

breeding populations of bison and elk with age and

sex composition approximating historic herds.

Implement management actions that maintain or

increase levels of genetic variability to assure viable,

sustainable populations according to accepted

standards of conservation biology (Berger 1996,

Berger and Cunningham 1994).

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Objective:

Reintroduce, if feasible and in accordance with the

State’s future Bighorn Sheep Management Plan,

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep to the Refuge to

restore an indigenous species into its historic range.

Prairie Dog Objective: Allow the expansion of the

existing black-tailed prairie dog town in the Refuge

to a manageable size to enhance Refuge biological

diversity.

Other Indigenous Wildlife Objective: Ensure the

diversity and abundance of other indigenous

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and

invertebrates continues. Use existing data as

minimum baseline levels and monitor periodically to

document population trends. (Bogan, 1995)
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 95

P Threatened and Endangered Species Goal:

Contribute to the preservation and restoration of

threatened and endangered flora and fauna that occur or

have historically occurred in the area of Fort Niobrara

NWR.

Blowout Penstemon Objective: Evaluate the Refuge for

blowout penstemon habitat. If suitable habitat

exists, establish plants in at least two sites

Bald Eagle Objective: Maintain a minimum of 10 percent

of the woodlands within the Niobrara River corridor

in mature or old-growth timber with an open and

discontinuous canopy to provide undisturbed

roosting habitat for wintering populations of bald

eagles. Monitor and document eagle use on the

Refuge and mortality in the area.

Whooping Crane, Piping Plover, and Least Tern

Objective: Maintain the shallow braided River

habitat above Cornell Dam for use by whooping cranes,

piping plovers, and least terns during migration.

Keep use areas free from human disturbance.

Monitor and document migration use by whooping

cranes, piping plover, and least terns as it occurs.

American Burying Beetle Objective: Determine if

American burying beetles inhabit the Refuge.

Implement appropriate management strategies if a

population exists.

P Interpretation and Recreation Goal: Provide

the public with quality opportunities to learn about and

enjoy the ecological diversity, wildlands, wildlife, and

history of the Refuge in a largely natural setting and in a

manner compatible with the purposes for which the

Refuge was established.

Interpretation, Wildlife Observation and Photography,

and Environmental Education Objectives: Provide

visitors with quality interpretation, environmental

education, wildlife observation, and photography

opportunities.

Ensure a safe, quality River-floating experience on

the Wild and Scenic Niobrara River that follows the

standards of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers

Act, National Wildlife Refuge System, and maintains

the integrity of the Fort Niobrara Wilderness Area.

Protect and interpret Refuge cultural and

paleontological sites.

Fishing Objective: Provide opportunities for warm water

fishing in the Niobrara River and Minnichaduza

Creek.

Hunting Objective: Offer ethically sound, limited and

strictly controlled hunting opportunities for elk and,

if reintroduced, bighorn sheep to facilitate removal of

herd excess.

P Ecosystem Goal: Promote partnerships to

preserve, restore, and enhance a diverse, healthy,

and productive ecosystem of which the Fort

Niobrara and Valentine NWR’s are part.

Ecosystem Objectives/Strategies for the Fort

Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex: Support the

National Park Service and Niobrara River Council to

meet desired future conditions of the Niobrara

Scenic River.

Support the Sandhills Management Plan through

Partners for Wildlife Program to enhance wildlife

habitat on private lands.

Support use of Refuges as research areas for relevant

natural resource studies. Conduct applied research

on management of threatened and endangered plant

and animal populations.

Develop an effective outreach program that results

in two wildlife habitat/public use projects completed

annually with nongovernmental organizations.

Develop greater cooperation with State and local

governments that result in completion of at least two

projects annually. Projects are to benefit area wildlife

resources or enhance public use opportunities such

as fish rearing in Refuge ponds.

Use this Plan to help in marketing Refuge needs

through grant writing and networking with other

entities.

Support the National Scenic River; coordinate and

cooperate as appropriate with River management

partners including the National Park Service,

Natural Resource Districts, etc., to meet desired

future conditions of the Niobrara Scenic River and

related resources.

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and

Policies:

Please refer to Appendix G. Compliance Requirements.
96 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Description of Proposed Use

Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography,

Interpretation and Environmental Education

Based on general observations and data collected in the

visitor center and on the River, an estimated 100,000

people visit the Refuge annually for wildlife/wildland

observation, photography, interpretation/education,

picnicking, hiking, and floating on the Niobrara River.

The majority of visits to the Refuge utilize the River or

the auto tour route and Fort Falls nature trail. The

15-stop self-guiding auto tour route is located in the

exhibition habitat unit and provides information on the

prairie dog town, bison, elk, Texas longhorns, and other

prairie inhabitants.

The Fort Falls nature trail is approximately one mile

long and educates the hiker through a brochure

describing the different vegetation communities and

associated wildlife found in this unique, biologically

diverse area.

The visitor center, with a variety of 20+-year-old

displays interpreting the history of the military fort,

area wildlife and habitat, and Refuge management, is

open Monday through Friday year-round and on

weekends Memorial Day to Labor Day with use recorded

at approximately 6,000 visits.

Other interpretive facilities include a kiosk at the canoe

launch with education panels titled “Niobrara Valley,”

“Welcome to Fort Niobrara,” “Canoeing the Niobrara

River”; the observation deck above Fort Falls includes

education panels titled “Prairie Oasis,” “Fort Falls,”

“Sand, Rock & Water”; and an interpretive panel to be

located in the exhibition habitat unit providing

information on elk and prairie dogs.

The Bur Oak Picnic area is located along the Niobrara

River at the Refuge entrance. Tables and rest rooms are

used mainly by people visiting the Refuge for wildlife

observation.

The main portion of the Fort Niobrara Wilderness Area

included in the habitat unit north of the Niobrara River

and used as winter pasture for the main bison herd is

also open to the public for wildlife observation and

photography, accessible by foot, horseback, or cross

country skiing. No accurate count of visitors has been

made; however, estimates are less than 200 per year.

Interpretation and environmental education services are

provided when staff are available and include talks or

guided tours for school groups (elementary through

college level), scouts, 4-H clubs, and special projects.

The public is invited to observe fall roundups and

auctions of bison and longhorns, participate in Migratory

Bird Day activities, and other Refuge programs.

News releases on Refuge events are written and provided

to area television, radio, and newspaper outlets. The Fort

Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex also hosts special

events including the Nebraska Federal Junior Duck

Stamp Contest, annual Kids Fishing Day, annual steel

shot clinic, and nature fest.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) proposes

continuing with the uses described and adding the following

to improve interpretation and access for visitors:

P The Service will seek funds to construct and staff a

new environmental education/visitor center to

improve environmental education and interpretation

of wildlife, cultural, and paleontological resources on

the Refuge. A Site Plan, being developed, will include

a concept design for the new center and suggestions

for improving the existing visitor center until such

time as a new center is constructed. Interim

projects to complete include updating exhibits and

broadening themes to include wildlife and their

habitats; unusual ecological diversity; cultural and

paleontological resources; and management. The

Service will also investigate the possibility of a

shared environmental education/visitor center with

the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission,

National Park Service, Forest Service, The Nature

Conservancy, Valentine Chamber of Commerce, and

others.

P Provide a wilderness access point. Use will be

limited to three groups at one time with a maximum

group size of five horses or ten people. An outfitter,

selected by lottery, would be allowed to guide a

maximum of one group per day and would be

required to pay a fee and/or percent of gross receipts

to the Refuge.

P Construct a trail to a scenic overlook of the Niobrara

Canyon and provide appropriate interpretation.

P Establish a concessionaire contract to view and

interpret the bison and elk herds during the summer

tourist season.

P Continue to improve the main auto tour route by

resurfacing with gravel and closing/revegetating the

numerous side trails.

P Expand the display habitat unit and provide a more

natural and aesthetic setting by removing and/or

relocating fence.

P Staff and expand the hours of operation of the

visitor/environmental education center.

P Update Refuge brochures to new Service standards.

P Develop a Refuge specific environmental education

curricula for teachers to use independently.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 97

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands,

Waters, or Interests:

Some disturbance to wildlife, both birds and mammals,

will occur in areas of the Refuge frequented by visitors.

In the past, visitation for these uses has been concentrated

at the Office/Visitor Center area, exhibition pasture unit

and on the River corridor. Use of the main unit in the

Wilderness Area has been limited. It is anticipated that all

uses will increase, particularly if better access and

interpretation are offered. Monitoring of activities and

their impacts, and regulation of the number and frequency

of visits will maintain use at an acceptable level.

Construction of interpretive facilities, a new headquarters,

and improved roads will result in the loss of a small

amount of habitat for wildlife. The removal of some

existing fence and improved roads may increase both the

amount of traffic and vehicle speeds and result in increased

wildlife mortality. Of particular concern is the occurrence of

accidents involving the bison and elk herds. Due to the

size of these animals, these accidents could result in

serious injury to both wildlife and visitors.

Determination: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife

Photography, Interpretation and Environmental

Education are compatible.

The following stipulations are required

to ensure compatibility:

P Monitor use, regulate access, maintain necessary

facilities to prevent erosion in high public use areas.

P Monitor levels of use and effects on wildlife and

habitat, especially in critical areas such as

Wilderness Area.

P Implement additional educational and interpretive

programs.

P Horseback and other Refuge tours will follow

designated routes, schedules, and group size

guidelines.

P Road or trail construction will focus on existing

roads and trails.

P Speed limits on roads will be restricted to 25 mph.

Justification: Based upon the biological impacts

presented above and in the Environmental Assessment,

it is determined that wildlife observation, wildlife

photography, interpretation, and environmental

education within the Fort Niobrara National Wildlife

Refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from

the purposes for which this Refuge was established.

Although wildlife observation and other human activities

have been shown to disturb wildlife, the stipulations

presented above and in the Comprehensive Conservation

Plan are sufficient to reduce impacts to a minimal level.

One of the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System

is to provide opportunities for the public to develop an

understanding and appreciation for wildlife. The four

priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 will help meet

that goal at the proposed Fort Niobrara National

Wildlife Refuge, with only minimal conflicts with the

wildlife conservation mission of the Refuge System.
98 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Description of Proposed Use:

Recreational Fishing

The Niobrara River, downstream of the Cornell Dam, and

the Minnichaduza Creek are open to public sport fishing

in accordance to Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

established rules and regulations, with the exception of

being closed to the taking of frogs, turtles, and minnows.

Angler opportunities are limited with most fishing occurring

immediately below Cornell Dam. Primary access is by

foot, via a trail from the Refuge parking area off Nebraska

Highway 12. Limited fishing also occurs throughout the

remainder of the River downstream, with access

generally by canoe. No motorboats are allowed. Fishing

is primarily for catfish and occasionally trout. Fishing

opportunities in the Niobrara River are limited and do

not attract many visitors to the Refuge for this purpose.

A Kids Fishing Day is held annually in September and

includes trout, catfish, and bluegill fishing in a NG&PC

stocked pond located on the Refuge. The day’s events include

fish identification and casting contests, as well as, the

opportunity to clean, cook, and eat fish. The event is

cosponsored by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

and is hosted with the assistance of the Fort Niobrara

Natural History Association, volunteers, and Refuge staff.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) proposes

continuing with the uses as described above.

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands,

Waters, or Interests:

A limited acreage of potential wildlife habitat (estimated at

less than two acres) would be lost to access roads, parking

lot, new trails and River bank trampling by people fishing

below Cornell Dam. Virtually all fishing downstream from the

Dam is from canoe with no impact on habitat.

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance to

wildlife, both birds and mammals.

Determination: Fishing is compatible.

The following stipulations are required

to ensure compatibility:

P Parking lot, road, trail, and related access facilities

will be maintained as necessary to prevent erosion.

P Public access for fishing immediately below Cornell

Dam will be restricted to the number of people

supported by size of the parking area.

P Taking of frogs, turtles, and minnows will not be

allowed as part of public fishing.

P No additional streams, ponds or areas of the

Niobrara River on the Refuge will be open to fishing.

P Motorboats will not be allowed.

Justification: Based upon the biological impacts

presented above, it is determined that recreational fishing

within the Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge will

not materially interfere with or detract from the

purposes for which this Refuge was established.

One of the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System

is to provide opportunities for public fishing, and it is

identified as a priority use in the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Fishing meets

part of the goal for interpretation and recreation with

only minor conflicts with the wildlife conservation

mission of the Refuge System.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 99

Description of Proposed Use: Hunting

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge has never been

open to hunting. However, the Comprehensive Conservation

Plan (CCP) proposes to, as appropriate, offer limited,

strictly controlled hunting opportunities for elk and, if

reintroduced, bighorn sheep to facilitate removal of herd

excess.

If and when hunting becomes feasible and appropriate, a

Hunting Plan will be developed and implemented to

assure a safe, ethical, quality opportunity.

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands,

Waters, or Interests:

Hunters both disturb non-target species and harvest

target species. Those species proposed to be hunted on

Fort Niobrara NWR are elk and bighorn sheep.

Hunting will take place only when and if populations

provide an identified harvestable surplus. Hunting will

be strictly limited and will involve very few hunters,

under regulated conditions, resulting in minimal

disturbance to non- target wildlife.

Determination: Hunting is compatible.

The following stipulations are required to

ensure compatibility:

P Hunting will be implemented only if determined

appropriate based on herd size and a harvestable

surplus.

P Hunting will be evaluated to provide an ethical,

quality hunt. Special attention will be given to fair

chase.

P Hunt will be coordinated with the Nebraska Game

and Parks Commission in an effort to meet objectives

of both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of

Nebraska.

P Monitor these uses to assure they do not interfere

with and are compatible with other wildlifedependent recreational activities.

Justification: Based upon the biological impacts

presented above and in the Environmental Assessment

contained in the CCP, it is determined that hunting on the

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge will not materially

interfere with or detract from the purposes for which

this Refuge was established.

The State of Nebraska has established a bighorn sheep

herd in western Nebraska and has recently implemented a

limited hunting program. Free-ranging herds of elk are

in other areas of Nebraska, now also managed under a

limited hunt. It is appropriate for the Service to

participate in planning and implementing a

complementing program for both species at Fort

Niobrara.

Description of Proposed Use:

River Recreation

Local commercial outfitters provide tubes, canoes,

shuttle services, transportation, beverages and/or food

for an estimated 95 percent of River users. A large share

of canoeing and tubing takes place during the summer on

weekends, particularly Saturdays. Canoers can take

either a day trip or an overnight trip. Tubers generally

take only half day or day trips. The Refuge portion of

trips runs from the canoe launch site to the east Refuge

boundary and takes from 1.5 to 3 hours to complete. In

1998, 18,658 people canoed and 8,658 tubed down the

River through the Refuge. This use is concentrated on

summer weekends, especially Saturdays. On a busy

summer Saturday, one vessel launches every 16 seconds.

For some, a trip down the River is a social event with a

party atmosphere. Most other days of the week and

times of year, the River is not crowded.

The Refuge provides a canoe launch area with six ramps.

Eleven launch areas are designated for outfitters, and

approximately 65 cars can park in the lot. Outfitters are

required to shuttle their customers to the launch in

buses on weekends during the summer. No camping or

alcohol consumption is allowed on the Refuge. Landing

areas for hiking are provided at Fort Falls and the

Niobrara Wilderness Area near Buffalo Bridge. Canoers

and tubers also stop on sandbars to sunbathe and rest.

The portion of the Niobrara River from the Refuge’s

west boundary to the canoe launch area is seldom used

by canoers or tubers because of the numerous sandbars

and shallow water.

Outfitters are required to purchase a Special Use Permit

for operating a commercial business on the Refuge. The

cost of the Special Use Permit is a nominal

administrative fee of $5.00. In addition, outfitters are

required to purchase a $25 annual permit for each vessel

launched on the Refuge. Individuals may purchase an

annual permit for $25 or a daily permit for $2.00 per

vessel. Permit revenues are used to defray operating

costs of the River recreation program, which include law

enforcement, maintenance, interpretation, facilities,

trash disposal, rest room/outhouse pumping,

information, administration, and supplies.

The majority of River recreation users begin their trip at

the Refuge canoe launch site and travel to take out points

and campgrounds downstream from the Refuge. Take

out points are owned and/or managed by private

individuals, outfitters, the Middle Niobrara Natural

Resources District, the Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission, and The Nature Conservancy.

The Niobrara River, including the portion on the Refuge,

is part of the Wild and Scenic River System. The

Niobrara River downstream of the launch area to the

Refuge boundary is part of the National Wilderness

Preservation System.
100 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands,

Waters, or Interests:

Presently, little disturbance to vegetation exists along

the river. Most visitors do not get out of their canoe or off

their tube except on sandbars. Two developed sites, Fort

Falls Trail and the Niobrara Wilderness Access, are only

lightly used and the only vegetation disturbed is on the

foot path.

Visitor use results in disturbance to wildlife on the

Refuge. Research on birds has shown that boat traffic,

including canoes, can cause lower productivity, reduce

use of habitat, and reduce use of refuges. Observations

by Refuge staff are that birds roosting or feeding in the

River are the most susceptible to disturbance and

include herons, ducks, and shorebirds. Only small

numbers, probably less than 10 from each group, of

these birds use the part of the River most frequented by

canoers and tubers. The portion of the River above the

Cornell Dam is used more by these groups of birds and

is an area only lightly used by visitors. Disturbance to

birds using the riparian areas adjacent to the River may

also occur.

Disturbance to soil is, at present, minor. In a few

locations, people are climbing the River bluffs and steep

banks, which hastens the erosion of these areas.

Presently, little impact on federally listed threatened

and endangered species (peregrine falcon, bald eagle,

least tern, and whooping crane) exists primarily because

the majority of recreational use is confined to June, July,

and August. With the exception of the State listed river

otter, threatened and endangered species documented on

the Refuge are present in spring, winter, and fall. If use

expands into these seasons, however, potential for

disturbance would exist.

Presently, opportunities exist for visitors to use and

enjoy the wilderness area and experience solitude.

Visitors to the Refuge during the off-season or on

weekdays in the summer do not see large numbers of

other visitors. As recreational use of the River increases,

opportunities for solitude in these off-peak periods will

decrease or be eliminated.

Determination: River recreation is compatible.

The following stipulations are required to

ensure compatibility:

P A River Recreation Plan will be prepared within the

next two years to determine the number of visitors

permitted to use the River for floating. This Plan

will determine carrying capacity based upon the

requirements of the Wilderness Act, the National

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, the Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act, and the effects of visitation on

wildlife, vegetation, soils, and visitor experience.

P Biological studies will be conducted to determine the

impact of River floaters on Refuge wildlife,

vegetation, and soils.

P During the development of the River Recreation

Plan, no additional permits for outfitting on the

Refuge will be issued and River use will be capped at

1998 levels.

P River recreation will not be developed in that part of

River above Cornell Dam.

P Permits will be required for groups such as Scouts,

church, and educational institutions and limited to

one group with a maximum of 30 people per day.

P Bans on possession of alcohol, high volume radios

(normally known as boom boxes), or any device

whatsoever capable of shooting or directing a

projectile or liquid at another person to include, but

not limited to, water balloons, high pressure water

guns (normally known as water cannons), paint ball

guns, potato guns, and sling shots will be

implemented. No more than five tubes will be

allowed to be tied together.

Justification: Based upon the impacts presented, it is

determined that River recreation within the Fort

Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge will not materially

interfere with or detract from the purposes for which

this Refuge was established.

Although wildlife observation and other human activities

have been shown to disturb wildlife and habitat, the

stipulations presented above may result in only minimal

impacts. The River Recreation Plan, to be prepared, will

measure these impacts and adjust visitation to meet the

compatibility standards of the National Wildlife Refuge

System. People using the River come to observe wildlife

and wildlands. Wildlife observation is one of the priority

uses listed in the National Wildlife Improvement Act and

is one of the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge

System.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 101

NEPA Compliance:

Categorical Exclusion ________

Environmental Assessment ________

Environmental Impact Statement ________

FONSI ________

Signatures:

Project Leader: _____________________________________ Date: ________________

Royce R. Huber

Fort Niobrara - Valentine NWR Complex

Concurrence:

_________________________________________________ Date: ________________

Refuge Supervisor

_________________________________________________ Date: ________________

Assistant Regional Director, Refuges and Wildlife
102 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 103

Appendix F.

List of Animal and

Plant Species at Fort

Niobrara NWR

Birds (* = Species known to nest on the Refuge)

Grebes

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii

Pelicans

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Cormorants

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Bitterns, Herons

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis

Green Heron Butorides virescens

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Vultures

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Geese

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens

Canada Goose* Branta canadensis

Swans

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator

Ducks

Wood Duck* Aix sponsa

Gadwall* Anas strepera

American Wigeon Anas americana

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos

Blue-winged Teal* Anas discors

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera

Northern Shoveler* Anas clypeata

Northern Pintail* Anas acuta

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Redhead* Aythya americana

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Common Merganser Mergus merganser

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Hawks, Kites, Eagles

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

Sharp-shined Hawk Accipiter striatus

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus

Swainson’s Hawk* Buteo swainsoni

Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo jamaicensis

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Falcons

American Kestrel* Falco sparverius

Merlin Falco columbarius

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus

Gallinaceous Birds

Gray Partridge Perdix perdix

Ring-necked Pheasant* Phasianus colchicus

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus

Sharp-tailed Grouse* Tympanuchus phasianellus

Greater Prairie-Chicken* Tympanuchus cupido

Wild Turkey* Meleagris gallopavo

Northern Bobwhite* Colinus virginianus

Rails

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

Sora Porzana carolina

American Coot Fulica americana

Cranes

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis

Whooping Crane Grus americana

Plovers

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus

Stilt, Avocet

American Avocet Recurvirostra american
104 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Sandpipers

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia

Upland Sandpiper* Bartramia longicauda

Long-billed Curlew* Numenius americanus

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos

Dunlin Calidris alphina

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago

Phalaropes

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Gulls

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

California Gull Larus californicus

Terns

Common Tern Sterna hirundo

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri

Black Tern Chlidonias niger

Pigeons, Doves, Parakeet

Mourning Dove* Zenaida macroura

Cuckoos

Black-billed Cuckoo* Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

Owls

Eastern Screech Owl* Otus asio

Great Horned Owl* Bubo virginianus

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca

Burrowing Owl* Athene cunicularia

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

Goatsuckers

Common Nighthawk* Chordeiles minor

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii

Swifts

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica

Hummingbirds

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris

Kingfisher

Belted Kingfisher* Ceryle alcyon

Woodpeckers

Red-headed Woodpecker* Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus

Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus

Flycatchers

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

Western Wood-Pewee* Contopus sordidulus

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Eastern Phoebe* Sayornis phoebe

Say’s Phoebe* Sayornis saya

Great Crested Flycatcher* Myiarchus crinitus

Western Kingbird* Tyrannus verticalis

Eastern Kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus

Shrikes

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

Vireo

Bell’s Vireo* Vireo bellii

Warbling Vireo* Vireo gilvus

Red-eyed Vireo* Vireo olivaceus

Jays, Magpies, Crows, Ravens

Steller’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri

Blue Jay* Cyanocitta cristata

Clark’s Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana

Black-billed Magpie* Pica pica

American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos

Lark

Horned Lark* Eremophila alpestris

Swallows

Purple Martin Progne subis

Tree Swallow* Tachycineta bicolor

Northern Rough-winged Swallow*

 Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia

Cliff Swallow* Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Barn Swallow* Hirundo rustica

Chickadees, Titmice, Verdin, Bushtit

Black-capped Chickadee* Poecile atricapillus

Nuthatches

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

White-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta carolinensis

Creeper

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

Wrens, Dipper

Rock Wren* Salpinctes obsoletus

House Wren* Troglodytes aedon

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris

Kinglets

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 105

Thrushes, Bluebirds

Eastern Bluebird* Sialia sialis

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides

Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

American Robin* Turdus migratorius

Thrashers

Gray Catbird* Dumetella carolinensis

Northern Mockingbird* Mimus polyglottos

Brown Thrasher* Toxostoma rufum

Starling

European Starling* Sturnus vulgaris

Pipits

American (Water) Pipit Anthus rubescens

Waxwings

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

Warblers

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

Yellow Warbler* Dendrocia petechia

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendrocia coronata

Blackburnian Warbler Dendrocia fusca

Palm Warbler Dendrocia palmarum

Blackpoll Warbler Dendrocia striata

Black-and-white Warbler* Mniotilta varia

American Redstart* Setophaga ruticilla

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea

Ovenbird* Seiurus aurocapillus

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis

Common Yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Yellow-breasted Chat* Icteria virens

Tanagers

Scarlet Tanager* Piranga olivacea

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Towhee, Sparrows

Eastern Towhee* Pipilo erythrophthalmus

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea

Chipping Sparrow* Spizella passerina

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida

Field Sparrow* Spizella pusilla

Vesper Sparrow* Pooecetes gramineus

Lark Sparrow* Chondestes grammacus

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys

Savannah Sparrow* Passerculus sandwichensis

Grasshopper Sparrow* Ammodramus savannarum

Baird’s Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

Harris’ Sparrow Zonotrichia querula

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

McCown’s Longspur Calcarius mccownii

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus

Grosbeaks, Buntings

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus

Black-headed Grosbeak* Pheucticus melanocephalus

Blue Grosbeak* Guiraca caerulea

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea

Dickcissel Spiza americana

Blackbirds, Orioles

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus

Eastern Meadowlark* Sturnella magna

Western Meadowlark* Sturnella neglecta

Yellow-headed Blackbird

 Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus

Brewer’s Blackbird* Euphagus cyanocephalus

Common Grackle* Quiscalus quiscula

Brown-headed Cowbird* Molothrus ater

Orchard Oriole* Icterus spurius

Baltimore Oriole* Icterus galbula

Finches

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea

Pine Siskin* Carduelis pinus

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Old World Sparrow

House Sparrow* Passer domesticus
106 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Mammals

Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus

Northern Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda

Least Shrew Cryptotis parva

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus

Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus

Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus californicus

White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii

Spotted Ground Squirrel Spermophilus spilosoma

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel

 Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus

Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger

Plains Pocket Gopher Geomys bursarius

Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Perognathus fasciatus

Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens

Hispid Pocket Mouse Chaetodipus hispidus

Ord’s Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ordii

Beaver Castor canadensis

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

Plains Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys montanus

White-footed Mouse Peromysus leucopus

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster

Eastern Woodrat Neotoma floridana

House Mouse Mus musculus

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi

Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius

Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Coyote Canis latrans

Common Raccoon Procyon lotor

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis

Mink Mustela vison

American Badger Taxidea taxus

Eastern Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Northern River Otter Lutra canadensis

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Elk Cervus elaphus

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

American Bison Bison bison

Texas Longhorn Bos indicus

Amphibians and Reptiles

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Woodhouse’s Toad Bufo woodhousii

Plains Spadefoot Spea bombifrons

Blanchard’s Cricket Frog Acris crepitans

Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens

Western Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera

Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina

Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta

Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii

Yellow Mud Turtle Kinosternon flavescens

Ornate Box Turtle Terrapene ornata

Prairie Racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus

Lesser Earless Lizard Holbrookia maculata

Northern Prairie Lizard Sceloporus undulatus

Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer Coluber constrictor

Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platyrhinos

Pale milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum

Northern Water Snake Nerodia sipedon

Bullsnake Pituophis catenifer

Plains Garter Snake Thamnophis radix

Red-sided Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis

Prairie Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 107

Plants

VASCULAR CRYPTOGRAMS (Pteridophytes)

Selaginellaceae Spikemoss Family

rock spikemoss Selaginella rupestris

Equisetaceae Horsetail Family

field horsetail Equisetum arvense

intermediate horsetail Equisetum ferrissii

common scouring rush Equisetum hyemale

smooth scouring rush Equisetum laevigatum

Ophioglossaceae Adder’s-tongue Family

grape fern Botrychium matricariifolium

rattlesnake fern Botrychium virginianum

adders tongue Ophioglossum vulgatum

 var. pseudopodum

Polypodiaceae True Fern Family

bladder/fragile fern Cystopteris fragilis

wood fern Dryopteris carthusiana

shield/spinulose wood fern Dryopteris spinulosa

sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis

marsh fern Thelypteris palustris

Oregon woodsia Woodsia oregana

Marsileaceae Pepperwort Family

western water clover Marsilea vestita

Division PINOPHYTA (Gymnosperms)

Cupressaceae Cypress Family

creeping juniper Juniperus horizontalis

eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana

Pinaceae Pine Family

blue spruce Picea pungens

ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa

Division MAGNOLIOPHYTA (Flowering Plants)

Class MAGNOLIOPSIDA (Dicots)

Aceraceae Maple Family

box elder Acer negundo var. interius

Amaranthaceae Pigweed Family

sandhills pigweed Amaranthus arenicola

prostrate pigweed Amaranthus graecizans

rough pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus

field snake cotton Froelichia floridana var. campestris

slender snake cotton Froelichia gracilis

Anacardiaceae Cashew Family

fragrant sumac Rhus aromatica var. serotina

fragrant sumac Rhus aromatica var. trilobata

smooth sumac Rhus glabra

poison ivy Toxicodendron rydbergii

Apiaceae Parsley Family

water parsnip Berula erecta var. incisum

bulbous water hemlock Cicuta bulbifera

common water hemlock Cicuta maculata

poison hemlock Conium maculatum

cow parsnip Heracleum sphondylium ssp. montanum

wild parsley Lomatium orientale

sweet cicely Osmorhiza claytonii

anise root Osmorhiza longistylis var. longistylis

black snakeroot Sanicula canadensis

water parsnip Sium suave

Apocynaceae Dogbane Family

spreading dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium

Araliaceae Ginseng Family

wild sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulus

Asclepiadaceae Milkweed Family

sand milkweed Asclepias arenaria

swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata incarnata

wooly milkweed Asclepias lanuginosa

plains milkweed Asclepias pumila

narrow-leafed milkweed Asclepias stenophylla

whorled milkweed Asclepias verticillata

green milkweed Asclepias viridiflora

Asteraceae Sunflower Family

yarrow Achillea millefolium ssp. lanulosa

false dandelion Agoseris glauca

common/short ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia

western ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya

giant ragweed Ambrosia trifida

field pussy toes Antennaria neglecta

pussy toes Antennaria parvifolia

common burdock Arctium minus

biennial wormwood Artemisia biennis

western sagewort Artemisia campestris caudata

sand sagebrush Artemisia filifolia

fringed sagewort Artemisia frigida

white sage Artemisia ludoviciana

white aster Aster ericoides

smooth blue aster Aster laevis

New England aster Aster novae-angliae

aromatic aster Aster oblongifolius

willowleaf aster Aster praealtus var. nebraskensis

swamp aster Aster puniceus

panicled aster Aster simplex

nodding beggar-ticks Bidens cernua

tickseed sunflower Bidens coronata

beggar-ticks Bidens frondosa

golden aster Chrysopsis stenophylla

tall/roadside thistle Cirsium altissimum

Platte thistle Cirsium canescens

horse-weed Conyza canadensis

spreading fleabane Conyza ramossima

hawks beard Crepis runcinata runcinata

fetid marigold Dyssodia papposa

purple coneflower Echinacea angustifolia

 var. angustifolia

annual fleabane Erigeron annuus

western fleabane Erigeron bellidiastrum

 var. bellidiastrum

Philadelphia fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus

daisy fleabane Erigeron strigosus var. strigosus
108 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

joe-pye weed Eupatorium maculatum var. bruneri

boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum

vicid euthamia Euthamia gymnospermoides

Indian blanket flower Gaillardia pulchella

curly-top gumweed Grindelia squarrosa var. squarrosa

snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae

cutleaf ironplant Haplopappus spinulosus

sneeze weed Helenium autumnale

common sunflower Helianthus annuus

sawtooth sunflower Helianthus grosseseratus

maximilian sunflower Helianthus maximilianii

Nutall’s sunflower Helianthus nuttallii nuttallii

sunflower sp. Helianthus nuttallii rydbergii

rigid sunflower Helianthus rigidus subrhomboideus

Jerusalem-artichoke Helianthus tuberosus

ox-eye/false sunflower Heliopsis helianthoides

 var. scabra

fineleaf hymenopappus Hymenopappus filifolius

woolly white hymenopappusHymenopappus tenuifolius

false boneset Kuhnia eupatorioides var. corymbulosa

wild lettuce Lactuca canadensis

blue lettuce Lactuca oblongifolia

blazing stars Liatris aspera

scaly gayfeather Liatris glabrata

dotted gayfeather Liatris punctata

gayfeather sp. Liatris squarrosa var. glabrata

skeleton weed Lygodesmia juncea

beaked skeleton plant Lygodesmia rostrata

wavyleaf agoseris Microseris cuspidata

 Pectis angustifolia

prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera

blackeyed-susan Rudbeckia hirta

ragwort Senecio integerrimus

prairie ragwort Senecio plattensis

riddell ragwort Senecio riddellii

groundsel sp. Senecio tridenticulatus

skeleton weed sp. Shinnersoseris rostrata

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis

 var. gilvocanescens

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis var. scabra

late goldenrod Solidago gigantea

late goldenrod Solidago gigantea var. serotina

grassleaf goldenrod Solidago graminifolia var. media

prairie goldenrod Solidago missouriensis

ashy goldenrod Solidago mollis

gray goldenrod Solidago nemoralis

rigid goldenrod Solidago rigida

showy-wand goldenrod Solidago speciosa

common tansy Tanacetum vulgare

common dandelion Taraxacum officinale

greenthread Thelesperma filifolium

Easter daisy Townsendia exscapa

goats beard Tragopogon dubias

ironweed Vernonia fasciculata var. fasciculata

cocklebur Xanthium strumarium

Balsaminaceae Touch-me-not Family

spotted touch-me-not Impatiens biflora

spotted touch-me-not Impatiens capensis

Betulaceae Birch Family

paper birch Betula papyrifera

hazelnut Corylus americana

hop-hornbeam/ironwood Ostrya virginiana

Boraginaceae Borage Family

borage sp. Cryptantha minima

American stickseed Hackelia deflexa

Virginia stickseed Hackelia virginiana

beggars lice/stickseed Lappula redowskii

puccoon Lithospermum carolinense

puccoon sp. Lithospermum incisum

forget-me-not Myosotis laxa

false gromwell Onosmodium molle

Brassicaceae Mustard Family

rock-cress Arabis hirsuta var. pycnocarpa

small seeded false flax Camelina microcarpa

shepard’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris

spring cress Cardamine bulbosa

blue mustard Chorispora tenella

tansy mustard Descurainia pinnata

herb-sophia Descurainia sophia

white whittlewort Draba reptans

western wallflower Erysium asperum

wormseed wallflower Erysium cheiranthoides

small flower wallflower Erysium inconspicuum

dame’s rocket Hesperis matronalis

peppergrass Lepidium densiflorum

bladder pod Lesquerella ludoviciana

water cress Nasturtium officinale

marsh cress Rorippa palustris

tumbling mustard Sisymbrium altissimum

tall hedge mustard Sisymbrium loeselii

field pennycress Thlaspi arvense

Cactacea Cactus Family

nipple cactus Mammillaria vivipara

prickly pear Opuntia compressa

little prickly pear Opuntia fragilis

Campanulacceae Bellflower Family

tall bellflower Campanula americana

marsh bellflower Campanula aparinoides

harebell Campanula rotundiflora

blue cardinal flower Lobelia siphilitica

palespike lobelia Lobelia spicata

Venus’ looking glass Triodanis perfoliata

Cannabaceae Hemp Family

hemp/marijuana Cannabis sativa

Capparaceae Caper Family

Rocky Mountain bee plant Cleome serrulata

cristatella Cristatella jamesii

clammy weed Polanisia dodecandra

Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle Family

limber/wild honeysuckle Lonicera dioica

 var. glaucescens

common elderberry Sambucus canadensis

snowberry Symphoricarpos albus

western snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 109

Caryophyllaceae Pink Family

grove sandwort Arenaria lateriflora

mouse-ear chickweed Cerastium brachypodium

white cockle Lychnis alba

sleepy catchfly Silene antirrhina

white champion catchfly Silene pratensis

chickweed/starwort Stellaria longifolia

Celastraceae Staff Tree Family

bittersweet Celastrus scandens

hornwort/coontail Ceratophyllum demersum

Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family

lamb’s quarters Chenopodium album

maple leaf goosefoot Chenopodium hybridum

Standley goosefoot Chenopodium standleyanum

hyssoleaf tickseed Corispermum hyssopifolium

bugseed Corispermum nitidum

winged pigweed Cycloloma atriplicifolium

summer-cypress Kochia scoparia

Cistaceae Rockrose Family

frostweed Helianthemum bicknelii

pinweed Lechea stricta

Clusiaceae St. John’s Wort Family

St. John’s wort Hypercum majus

Convolvulaceae Morning Glory Family

field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Nuttal’s evolvulus Evolvulus nuttallianus

bush morning glory Ipomea leptophylla

Cornaceae Dogwood Family

red osier Cornus stolonifera

Crassulaceae Stonecrop Family

ditch stone-crop Penthorum sedoides

Cucurbitaceae Cucumber Family

balsam apple/wild cucumber Echinocystis lobata

Cuscutaceae Dodder Family

dodder Cuscuta coryli

Elaeaganaceae Oleaster Family

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

buffalo-berry Shepherdia argentea

Elatinaceae Waterwort Family

waterwort Elatine triandra

Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family

three-seeded mercury Acalypha virginica

skunkweed Croton texensis

six-angled spurge Euphorbia hexagona

Missouri spurge Euphorbia missurica

leafy spurge Euphorbia pseudovirgata

round leaved spurge Euphorbia serpens

Fabaceae Bean Family

leadplant Amorpha canescens

false indigo Amorpha fruticosa

hogpeanut Amphicarpaea bracteata

groundnut Apios americana

Canada milk-vetch Astragalus canadensis

painted milk-vetch Astragalus ceramicus

ground/prairie plum Astragalus crassicarpus

lotus milk-vetch Astragalus lotiflorus

golden prairie clover Dalea aurea

white prairie clover Dalea candida var. oligophylla

nine-anther prairie clover Dalea enneandra

purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea var. purpurea

silky prairie clover Dalea villosa

Canada tickclover Desmodium canadense

tick-trefoil Desmodium glutinosum

wild licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota var. lepidota

vetching/wild peas Lathyrus polymorphus

round-head lespedeza Lespedeza capitata

prairie trefoil Lotus purshianus

black medick Medicago lupulina

alfalfa Medicago sativa sativa

white sweet clover Melilotus alba

yellow sweet clover Melilotus officinalis

purple locoweed Oxytropis lambertii var. lambertii

white prairie clover Petalostemon occidentale

silver leaf scurf pea Psoralea argophylla

tall-bread scurf pea Psoralea cuspidata

palm-leaved scurf pea Psoralea digitata

prairie turnip Psoralea esculenta

little breadroot Psoralea hypogaea var. hypogaea

lemon scurf pea Psoralea lanceolata

wild bean Strophostyles leiosperma

alsike clover Trifolium hybridum elegans

red clover Trifolium pratense

white clover Trifolium repens

vetch Vicia villosa var. villosa

Fagaceae Oak Family

bur oak Quercus macrocarpa

Fumariaceae Fumitory Family

corydalis Corydalis aurea var. occidentalis

Gentianaceae Gentian Family

closed gentian Gentiana andrewsii

Geraniaceae Geranium Family

crane’s bill Geranium carolinianum

Grossulariaceae Currant Family

wild black currant Ribes americanum

gooseberry Ribes missouriense

golden current Ribes odoratum

northern gooseberry Ribes oxycanthoides

Hydrophyllaceae Waterleaf Family

waterpod Ellisia nyctelea

Juglandaceae Walnut Family

black walnut Juglans nigra
110 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Lamiaceae Mint Family

dragonhead Dracocephalum parviflorum

ground ivy Glecoma hederacea

false penny-royal Hedeoma hispida

American bugleweed Lycopus americanus

rough bugleweed Lycopus asper

field mint Mentha arvensis

wild bergamonts Monarda fistulosa var. fistulosa

wild bergamonts Monarda fistulosa var. menthaefolia

lemon mint Monarda pectinata

catnip Nepeta cataria

selfheal Prunella vulgaris

mountain mint Pycnanthemum virginianum

sage Salvia pitcheri

Rocky Mountain sage Salvia reflexa

marsh skullcap Scutellaria galericulata

blue skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora

small skullcap Scutellaria parvula var. leonardi

wood sage Teucrium canadense var. occidentale

Lentibulariaceae Bladderwort Family

bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris

Linaceae Flax Family

flax Linum rigidum var. compactum

flax Linum rigidum var. rigidum

Loasaceae Stickleaf Family

bractless mentzelia Mentzelia nuda

sand lily/ten petal mentzelia Mentzelia decapetala

Lythraceae Loosestrife Family

toothcup Ammannia robusta

loosestrife Lythrum alatum var. alatum

winged loosestrife Lythrum dacotanum

purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Malvaceae Mallow Family

common mallow Malva neglecta

common mallow Malva rotundiflora

scarlet mallow Sphaeralcea coccinea

Mimosaceae Mimosa Family

prairie mimosa Desmanthus illinoensis

sensitive briar Schrankia nuttalii

Molluginaceae Carpetweed Family

carpet-weed Mollugo verticillata

Monotropaceae Indian Pipe Family

pine-drops Pterospora andromedea

Moraceae Mulberry Family

white mulberry Morus alba

Nyctaginaceae Four-O’Clock Family

hairy four-o’clock Mirabilis hirsuta

narrow leaf four-o’clock Mirabilis linearis

wild four-o’clock Mirabilis nyctaginea

Nymphaeaceae Waterlily Family

fragrant white waterlily Nymphaea odorata

Oleacae Olive Family

green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. pennsylvanica

common lilac Syringa vulgaris

Onagraceae Evening Primrose Family

plains yellow primrose Calylophus serrualtus

enchanter’s nightshade Circaea lutetiana

 ssp. canadensis

willow-herb sp. Epilobium adenocaulon

willow herb sp. Epilobium ciliatum

purple-leaved willow herb Epilobium coloratum

narrow-leaved willow herb Epilobium leptophyllum

scarlet gaura/butterfly weed Gaura coccinea

velvety gaura Gaura parviflora

marsh seedbox Ludwigia palustris

manyseed seedbox Ludwigia polycarpa

prairie primrose Oenothera albicaulis

evening primrose Oenothera biennis

cut-leaved evening primrose Oenothera laciniata

white stemmed evening primrose Oenothera nuttallii

four point evening primrose Oenothera rhombipetala

Orobanchaceae Broomrape Family

broomrape Orobanche fasciculata

Oxalidaceae Wood Sorrel Family

gray-green wood sorrel Oxalis dillenii

yellow wood sorrel Oxalis stricta

Papaveraceae Poppy Family

prickly poppy Argemine polyanthemos

Pedaliaceae Unicorn-Plant Family

unicorn plant Proboscidea louisianica

Plantaginaceae Plantain Family

common plantain Plantago major

buckhorn Plantago patagonica var. patagonica

Polemoniaceae Polemonium Family

collomia Collomia linearis

whiteflower gilia Ipomopsis longiflora

moss phlox Phlox andicola

Polygalaceae Milkwort Family

white milkwort Polygala alba

whorled milkwort Polygala verticillata

Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family

annual wild buckwheat Eriogonum annuum

knotweed Polygonum achoreum

water smartweedPolygonumamphibium var. stipulaceum

common knotweed Polygonum arenastrum

black bindweed Polygonum convolvulus

erect knotweed Polygonum erectum

nodding willow weed Polygonum lapathifolium

lady’s thumb Polygonum persicaria

smartweed Polygonum punctatum

false buckwheat Polygonum scandens

slender knotweed Polygonum tenue

water/pale dock Rumex altissimus

sour/curly dock Rumex crispus

golden dock Rumex maritimus var. fueginus

dock sp. Rumex stenophyllus

sour greens/wild begonia Rumex venosus
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 111

Portulacaceae Purslane Family

fameflower/rock pink Talinum calycinum

prairie fameflower Talinum parviflorum

Primulaceae Primrose Family

western rock jasmine Androsace occidentalis

chaffweed Centunculus minimus

fringed loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata

tufted loosestrife Lysimachia thyrsiflora

Ranunculaceae Buttercup Family

Carolina anemone Anemone carolinana

candle anemone Anemone cylindrica

pasque flower Anemone patens

wild columbine Aquilegia canadensis

western virgins bower/western clematis

 Clematis ligusticifolia

virgins bower Clematis virginiana

prairie larkspur Delphinium carolinianum

prairie larkspur Delphinium virescens

small flowered buttercup /early wood buttercup

 Ranunculus abortivus

seaside crowfoot/shore buttercup

 Ranunculus cymbalaria

white water crowfoot Ranunculus longirostris

cursed crowfoot Ranunculus scleratus var. scleratus

white water crowfoot Ranunculus subrigidus

meadow rue Thalictrum dasycarpum

Rhamnaceae Buckthorn Family

New Jersey tea Ceanothus herbaceus var. pubescens

lance-leaved buckthorn Rhamnus lanceolata

var. glabratus

Rosaceae Rose Family

hooked agrimony Agrimonia gryposepala

Saskatoon service-berry Amelanchier alnifolia

woodland strawberry Fragaria vesca var. americana

yellow avens Geum aleppicum

white avens Geum canadense

apple Malus sylvestris

ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius

tall cinquefoil Potentilla arguta

Norwegian cinquefoil Potentilla norvegica

cinquefoil Potentilla pensylvanica

brook cinquefoil Potentilla rivalis

wild plum Prunus americana

western sandcherry Prunus besseyi

sand/dwarf cherry Prunus pumila

chokecherry Prunus virginiana

wild prairie rose Rosa arkansana

western wild rose Rosa woodsii

black raspberry Rubus occidentalis

Rubiaceae Madder Family

cleavers Galium aparine

catchweed bedstraw Galium circaezans

sweet-scented bedstraw Galium triflorum

Rutaceae Citrus Family

prickly ash Zanthoxylum americanum

Salicaceae Willow Family

white/silver poplar Populus alba

cottonwood Populus deltoides

cottonwood Populus sargentii

quaking aspen Populus tremuloides

peach-leaved-willow Salix amygdaloides

sandbar/coyote willow Salix exigua ssp. interior

heart-leaved willow Salix rigida var. rigida

Santalaceae Sandalwood Family

bastard toadflax Comandra umbellata

Saxifragaceae Saxifrage Family

alumroot Heuchera richardsonii

Scrophulariaceae Figwort Family

gerardia sp. Agalinis aspera

gerardia sp. Agalinis tenuifolia

water hyssop Bacopa rotundifolia

downy paintbrush Castilleja sessiliflora

false pimpernel Lindernia dubia

roundleaf monkey-flower Mimulus glabratus

var. fremontii

Alleghany monkey-flower Mimulus ringens

white beardtongue Penstemon albidus

narrow beardtongue Penstemon angustifolius

 var. angustifolius

slender beardtongue Penstemon gracilis var. gracilis

large beardtongue Penstemon grandiflorus

figwort Scrophularia lanceolata

common mullein Verbascum thapsus

brooklime/speedwell Veronica americana

waterspeedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatica

purslane speedwell Veronica peregrina var. xalapenis

Solanaceae Potato or Nightshade Family

matrimony vine Lycium halimifolium

clammy ground cherry Physalis heterophylla

Virginia ground cherry Physalis virginiana

black nightshade Solanum americanum

black nightshade Solanum ptycanthum

buffalo bur; Kansas thistle Solanum rostratum

cut-leaved nightshade Solanum triflorum

Tiliaceae Linden Family

linden/basswood Tilia americana

Ulmaceae Elm Family

hackberry Celtis occidentalis

American elm Ulmus americana

red elm Ulmus rubra

Urticaceae Nettle Family

false nettle Boehmeria cylindrica

woodnettle Laportea canadensis

pellitory Parietaria pensylvanica

clearweed Pilea pumila

stinging nettle Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis

Verbenaceae Vervain Family

lopseed Phryma leptostachya

prostrate vervain Verbena bracteata

blue vervain Verbena hastata

hoary vervain Verbena stricta

white/needle leaved vervain Verbena urticifolia
112 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Violaceae Violet Family

Canada/tall white violet Viola canadensis var. rugulosa

northern bog violet Viola nephrophylla

meadow/blue prairie violet Viola pratincola

Vitaceae Grape Family

Virginia creeper Parthenocissis quinquefolia

woodbine/thicket creeper Parthenocissis vitacea

riverbank grape Vitis riparia

Zygophyllaceae Caltrop Family

puncture vine/goathead Tribulus terrestris

Class LILIOPSIDA (Monocots)

Agavaceae Agave Family

soapweed/yucca Yucca glauca

Alismataceae Water Plantain Family

water plantain Alisma subcordatum

arrowhead Sagittaria engelmannia var. brevirostrata

duck-patato/arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia

Commelinaceae Spiderwort Family

erect dayflower Commelina erecta var. augustifolia

spiderwort Tradescantia occidentalis

Cyperaceae Sedge Family

sedge Carex aurea

sedge Carex blanda

sedge Carex brevior

sedge Carex comosa

sedge Carex diandra

sedge Carex eburnea

sedge Carex eleocharis

sedge Carex filifolia

sedge Carex granularis

sedge Carex heliophila

sedge Carex hystricina

sedge Carex interior

sedge Carex lanuginosa

sedge Carex meadii

sedge Carex nebraskensis

sedge Carex peckii

sedge Carex praegracilis

sedge Carex saximontana

sedge Carex scoparia

sedge Carex sprengelli

sedge Carex stipata

sedge Carex stricta

sedge Carex tetanica

sedge Carex vulpinoidea

umbrella sedge Cyperus acuminatus

umbrella sedge Cyperus aristatus

umbrella sedge Cyperus diandrus

umbrella sedge Cyperus erythrorhizos

umbrella sedge Cyperus odoratus

umbrella sedge Cyperus rivularis

umbrella sedge Cyperus schweinitzii

umbrella sedge Cyperus strigosus

spikerush Eleocharis acicularis

spikerush Eleocharis erythropoda

spikerush Eleocharis obtusa

 Fimbristylis puberula

bulrush sp. Scirpus acutus

bulrush sp. Scirpus americanus

bulrush sp. Scirpus atrovirens

bulrush sp. Scirpus pallidus

bulrush sp. Scirpus validus

Hydrocharitaceae Frog’s-bit Family

water weed Elodea nuttallii

Iridaceae Iris Family

blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium montanum

Juncaceae Rush Family

rush Juncus alpinus

rush Juncus balticus

rush Juncus brachyphyllus

rush Juncus bufonius

rush Juncus dudleyi

rush Juncus longistylis

rush Juncus marginatus

rush Juncus nodosus

rush Juncus torreyi

Juncaginaceae Arrowgrass Family

arrowgrass Triglochin maritima

arrowgrass Triglochin palustris

Lemnaceae Duckweed Family

duckweed Lemna minor

star duckweed Lemna trisulca

greater duckweed Spirodela polyrrhiza

Liliaceae Lily Family

onion Allium perdulce

wild asparagus Asparagus officinales

stargrass Hypoxis hirsuta

solomon’s seal Polygonatum biflorum

false solomon’s seal/spikenard Smilacina stellata

Smilaceae Catbrier Family

carrion-flower Smilax herbacea var. lasioneuron

Orchidaceae Orchid Family

northern green orchis Habenaria hyperborea

twayblade Liparis loeselii

ladies-tresses Spiranthes cernua

Poaceae Grass Family

X Agrohordeum macounii

slender wheatgrass Agropyron caninum

crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum

western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii

redtop sp. Agrostis alba

ticklegrass Agrostis scabra

redtop Agrostis stolonifera

short-awn foxtail Alopecurus aequalis

big bluestem Andropogon gerardi

sand bluestem Andropogon hallii

little bluestem Andropogon scoparius

three-awn sp. Aristida basiramea

three-awn sp. Aristida longiseta

Fendler three-awn Aristida purpurea var. longiseta

sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula

blue grama Bouteloua gracilis

hairy grama Bouteloua hirsuta

earleaf brome Bromus altissimus

fringed brome Bromus ciliatus
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 113

smooth brome Bromus inermis

Japanese brome Bromus japonicus

brome sp. Bromus latiglumis

downy brome/cheatgrass Bromus tectorum

buffalo grass Buchloe dactyloides

bluejoint reedgrass Calamagrostis canadensis

reedgrass sp Calamagrostis inexpansa

northern reedgrass Calamagrostis stricta

prairie sandreed Calamovilfa longifolia

brookgrass Catabrosa aquatica

sandbur Cenchrus longispinus

woodreed Cinna arundinacea

orchard grass Dactylis glomerata

small prairie grass Dichanthelium acuminatum

Scribner dicanthelium Dichanthelium oligosanthes

wilcox dichanthelium Dichanthelium wilcoxianum

hairy crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis

smallflower barnyard grass Echinochloa muricata

 var. microstachya

Canada wild rye Elymus canadensis

hairy wild rye Elymus villosus

Virginia wild rye Elymus virginicus

stinkgrass Eragrostis cilianensis

teal lovegrass Eragrostis hypnoides

Carolina lovegrass Eragrostis pectinacea

purple lovegrass Eragrostis spectabilis

sand lovegrass Eragrostis trichodes

nodding fescue Festuca obtusa

six-weeks fescue/blue bunchgrass Festuca octoflora

American/tall manna grass Glyceria grandis

fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata

foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum

little barley Hordeum pusillum

junegrass Koeleria pyrimidata

rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides

whitegrass Leersia virginica

scratchgrass Muhlenbergia asperifolia

plains muhly Muhlenbergia cuspidata

pullup muhly Muhlenbergia filiformis

common/wirestem muhly Muhlenbergia mexicana

sand muhly Muhlenbergia pungens

marsh muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa

false buffalo grass Munroa squarrosa

little seed ricegrass Oryzopsis micrantha

common witchgrass Panicum capillare

fall panicum Panicum dichotomiflorum

switchgrass Panicum virgatum

sand paspalum Paspalum setaceum var. stramineum

timothy Phleum pratense

Canada bluegrass Poa compressa

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

woodland bluegrass Poa sylvestris

rabbitfoot grass Polypogon monspleliensis

blowout grass Redfieldia flexuosa

tumblegrass Schedonnardus paniculatus

rye Secale cereale

yellow foxtail Setaria glauca

green foxtail Setaria viridis

Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans

prairie cordgrass/slough grass Spartina pectinata

wedgegrass Sphenopholis obtusata

sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus

needle-and-thread Stipa comata

porcupine-grass Stipa spartea

green needlegrass Stipa viridula

sandgrass Triplasis purpurea

Potamogetonaceae Pondweed Family

longleaf pondweed Potamogeton nodosus

Sparganiaceae Bur-reed Family

bur-reed Sparganium eurycarpum

Typhaceae Cat-tail Family

broad-leaved cattail Typha latifolia

Zannichelliaceae Horned Pondweed Family

horned pondweed Zannichellia palustris
114 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 115

Appendix G.

Compliance

Requirements

Many procedural and substantive requirements of Federal

and applicable State and local laws and regulations affect

Refuge establishment, management, and development. This

appendix identifies the key permits, approvals, and

consultations needed to implement the strategies.

In undertaking the proposed action, the Service would

comply with the following Federal laws, Executive

orders, and legislative acts:

In undertaking the proposed action, the following Executive

Orders and legislative acts have been or will be acted upon.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978: Directs

agencies to consult with native traditional religious leaders

to determine appropriate policy changes necessary to

protect and preserve Native American religious cultural

rights and practices.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1992: Prohibits

discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Antiquities Act of 1906: Authorizes the scientific

investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides

penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or

collected without a permit.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974:

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological

data in Federal construction projects.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as

amended: Protects materials of archaeological interest

from unauthorized removal or destruction and requires

Federal managers to develop plans and schedules to

locate archaeological resources.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968: Requires federally

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be

accessible to persons with disabilities.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as

amended: Calls for the protection of these raptorial

species on and off Federal Lands.

Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended: The primary objective

of this Act is to establish Federal standards for various

pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and to

provide for the regulation of polluting emissions via state

implementation plants. In addition, and of special interest

for National Wildlife Refuges, some 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

(“non-attainment” areas). Federal facilities are required to

comply with air quality standards to the same extent as

nongovernmental entities (42 U.S.C. 7418). Part C of the 1977

amendments stipulates requirements 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).

Clean Water Act of 1977: Requires consultation with the

Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for wetland

modifications.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986: The

purpose of the Act is “To promote the conservation of

migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious

loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other

essential habitat, and for other purposes.”

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended: Requires

all Federal agencies to carry out programs for the

conservation of endangered and threatened species. An

Intra-Service Section 7 consultation was conducted prior

to implementation of this CCP (attached to this CCP as

an appendix). No significant impact is expected from the

implementation of this Plan.

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on

Public Lands

Executive Order No. 11593, Protection and

Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971). If

the Service proposes any development activities that

would affect the archaeological or historical sites, the

Service will consult with Federal and State Historic

Preservation Officers to comply with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

Executive Order No. 11988, Floodplain Management.

Each Federal agency shall provide leadership and take

action to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the

impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the natural

and beneficial values served by the floodplains. No

structures or other barriers that could either be damaged

by or significantly influenced the movement of flood waters

are planned for construction by the Service in the project

area. This Plan supports the preservation and enhancement

of the natural and beneficial values of floodplains.
116 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Executive Order No. 11990, Protection of Wetlands.

The proposal will help conserve the natural and beneficial

values of the wetland habitat. The Service will undertake

no activity that would be detrimental to the continuance

of the vital wetlands.

Executive Order No. 12372, Intergovernmental Review

of Federal Programs. The State of Nebraska and counties

encompassing the Refuge were sent copies of the Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment for distribution to State and County agencies

and departments. Coordination and consultation is

ongoing with local and State governments, Tribes,

Congressional representatives, and other Federal agencies.

Executive Order No. 12898, Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-income Populations.

This environmental justice analysis concluded that the

socioeconomic, cultural, physical, and biological effects of

the preferred alternative (the CCP) does not predict any

outcomes that would cause disproportionately high and

adverse human health impacts in any population, nor

would they result in disproportionally high or adverse

impact to low-income or minority populations, nor would

create a greater burden on low-income households.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General

Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System

(1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also

presents four principles to guide management of the

System. Through the development of this Comprehensive

Conservation Plan, the Service has completed

compatibility determinations for existing wildlifedependent recreational activities that will be allowed to

continue.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996):

Directs Federal land management agencies to

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred

sites, and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality

of sacred sites.

Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1990: Requires the use of

integrated management systems to control or contain

undesirable plant species; and an interdisciplinary

approach with the cooperation of other Federal and State

agencies.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956: Established a

comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and

broadened the authority for acquisition and development

of refuges.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958: Allows the

Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements with

private landowners for wildlife management purposes.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965: Uses

the receipts from the sale of surplus Federal land, outer

continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for

land acquisition under several authorities.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929: Establishes

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of

areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation

Commission.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act

(1934): Authorized the opening of part of a refuge to

waterfowl hunting.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918: Designates the

protection of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility.

This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other

regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or

non-Federal, to the hunting of migratory birds.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR

1500): Requires all Federal agencies to examine the

impacts upon the environment that their actions might

have, to incorporate the best available environmental

information, and the use of public participation in the

planning and implementation of all actions. All Federal

agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning

requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA

documentation to facilitate sound environmental decision

making. NEPA requires the disclosure of the

environmental impacts of any major Federal action that

affects in a significant way the quality of the human

environment. The process, from its inception, to prepare

this Plan complied with all of NEPA requirements.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as

amended: Establishes as policy that the Federal

Government is to provide leadership in the preservation

of the nation’s prehistoric and historic resources. This

Plan is in compliance with this law as the 1897 “hay barn”

National Historic Building will not be affected by the

implementation of the goals and objectives of this CCP.

National Trails System Act of 1968, as amended: Deals

with the establishment of National Recreational Trails

by the Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture on land

wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with the

consent of the involved State(s), and other land managing

agencies, if any. National Scenic and National Historic

Trails may only be designated by an Act of Congress.

The proposal contained in this Plan will not impact the 5

miles of Congressionally designated National

Recreational Trail System trails that currently exist

within the Refuge.

National Trails Act of 1982: Designated a portion of the

Niobrara River through Fort Niobrara NWR a National

Canoe Trail.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 117

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee. (Refuge Administration Act): Defines the

National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the

Secretary to permit any use of a refuge provided such

use is compatible with the major purposes for which the

refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act

clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System;

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six

priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation

and photography, or environmental education and

interpretation); establishes a formal process for

determining compatibility; established the

responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior for managing

and protecting the System; and requires the preparation

and implementation of a Comprehensive Conservation

Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended

portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. This

Plan is in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge

System Act of 1966, as amended.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation

Act of 1990: Requires Federal agencies and museums to

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate

cultural items under their control or possession. No

known Native American cultural items are known to

exist or are in possession of the Refuge.

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended: Allows the

use of refuges for recreation when such uses are

compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when

sufficient funds are available to manage the uses. This

Plan is in compliance with the Refuge Recreation Act.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended (16

U.S.C. 715s): provides for payments to counties in lieu of

taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of products

from refuges. Public Law 88-523 (1964) revised this Act

and required that all revenues received from refuge

products, such as animals, timber and minerals, or from

leases or other privileges, be deposited in a special Treasury

account and net receipts distributed to counties for public

schools and roads. Payments to counties were established

as: 1) on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated

on the basis of 75 cents per acre, three-fourths of one

percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net

receipts produced from the land; and 2) on land withdrawn

from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and

basic payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-

1607, 90 Stat. 2662), payment in lieu of taxes on public

lands. The current and proposed management of this

Refuge under this Plan is in compliance with this Act.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Requires programmatic

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for all

facilities and programs funded by the Federal government

to ensure that anybody can participate in any program.

Secretarial Order 3127 (602 DM 2) Contaminants and

Hazardous Waste Determination. No contaminants or

hazardous waste are know to exist on the Refuge and

none will be created.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C 1271-1287:

This Public Law (90-542, as amended) states that: “It is

hereby declared to be the policy of the United States

that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with

their immediate environments, possess outstandingly

remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and

wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall

be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and

their immediate environments shall be protected for the

benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.

The Congress declares that the established national

policy of dam and other construction at appropriate

sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be

complemented by a policy that would preserve other

selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing

condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and

to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes.”

A 76 mile stretch of the Niobrara River including the

River through Ft. Niobrara NWR was designated Scenic

by Public Law 102-50 in 1991.

Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577 [16 U.S. C.

1131-1136]): defines wilderness as follows: “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.”

The 4,635 acre Fort Niobrara Wilderness Area was

established by Public Law 94-557 on October 19, 1976, as

cited in Section 1.n of this Act.
118 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 119

Appendix H. NEPA Documentation

Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Notice

Four management alternatives for Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge were assessed as to their effectiveness in

achieving the stated purpose of the Refuge and their impact on the human environment. Two alternatives, maximization

of economic uses and placing the Refuge in custodial status, were briefly considered but discarded because they violate

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and do not meet the mission and goals of Fort Niobrara

and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Based on the analysis in the Environmental Assessment, I have selected the Modified Historical (Preferred)

Alternative, with slight modifications from its draft form, to be implemented on the Refuge.

The Preferred Alternative was selected because it is most responsive to the purposes for which the Refuge was

established by Congress and is preferable to other alternatives considered in light of physical, biological, economic and

social factors.

I find that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the human environment in accordance with Section

102 of the National Environmental Policy Act and in accordance with the Service’s Administrative Manual {30 AM.9B (2)

(d)} and concluded that it is not necessary nor warranted to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in order to

proceed with the implementation of this Plan.

My rationale for this finding is as follows:

P The Modified Historical Alternative would not have detrimental impacts on threatened or endangered species or

adversely modify their habitats.

P The Modified Historical Alternative would not adversely affect or cause damage, loss or destruction of any

archaeological and / or historical resources within the Refuge.

P The Modified Historical Alternative would have long-term positive effects on public use and recreation, habitat and

wildlife management, water management, fishing, and environmental education and interpretation through a

balanced approach to management of all programs with benefits to both wildlife and people.

P The Modified Historical Alternative would have no negative impact on wildlife or wildlife habitats. Modifications to

current public use and habitat programs are likely to reduce wildlife and wildlife habitat disturbance that will

ultimately have positive consequences to Federal trust resources.

P There will be no impact on minority and low-income populations or communities.

______________________________________ ________________

Regional Director, Region 6 Date

Fish and Wildlife Service

Denver, Colorado
120 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Summary of the Environmental Assessment

Purpose of and Need for Action

(Management of the Refuge)

Fort Niobrara NWR, located in north-central Nebraska

is a unique and ecologically important component of the

National Wildlife Refuge System. This Refuge was

established in 1912 to provide habitat and preserve

breeding grounds for native birds. Later that year, an

Executive Order was issued enlarging the Refuge and its

mission to encompass the preservation of bison and elk

herds representative of those that once roamed the

Great Plains.

However, some uses presently occurring in the Refuge

were recently evaluated for compatibility with the

purpose of the Refuge. It is necessary to take action to

modify or eliminate all activities on the Refuge that are

found to be incompatible with its purposes.

The Service recognized the need for strategic planning

for all the components of its System and in September

1996, Executive Order 12996 was enacted which gave the

System guidance on issues of compatibility and public

uses of its land. Later on Congress passed the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act in October

1997, which, for the first time in the System’s history,

required that Comprehensive Conservation Plans be

prepared for all refuges within 15 years.

The comprehensive conservation planning effort is

intended to help this Refuge to meet the changing needs

of wildlife species and the public. The planning effort

provided the opportunity to meet with Refuge neighbors,

and customers, and other agencies to ensure that this

Plan was relevant and truly addressed natural resource

issues and public interests.

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge

Vision Statement

Fort Niobrara NWR will strive to preserve, restore, and

enhance the exceptional diversity of native flora and

fauna and significant historic resources of the Niobrara

River Valley and Sandhills of Nebraska for the benefit of

present and future generations of Americans.

Fort Niobrara NWR habitat management goals will seek

to maintain a healthy Refuge environment that will

provide opportunities for visitors to enjoy wildlifedependent uses of the Refuge in a natural setting.

Interpreting a unique assemblage of habitats, wildlife,

and the Refuge’s historical heritage, as well as improving

facilities will enhance the visitor’s experience while

protecting the cultural integrity of the area. To meet

these challenges, the Service will seek partnerships with

other agencies, interest groups, landowners, and local

communities. These efforts will result in greater

protection of wildlife, fish, and plant resources

throughout north-central Nebraska.

Alternatives and Impacts

Four management alternatives were analyzed in the

Environmental Assessment for this Plan. Of these four,

the Modified Historical (with some modifications from its

draft form) is the preferred one because, in light of

physical, biological, economic and social factors, it is

most responsive to the purposes for which the Refuge

was established. The three other alternatives were as

follows:

Alternative A.

Current Management (No Action):

Continuing current management activities and public use

P Maintain winter population levels of 350 bison, 70 elk,

and 250 Texas longhorns to receive primary

consideration in management.

P Accomplish native bird management actions to the

extent possible.

P Continue limited flexibility in habitat management

programs with approximately 96 percent of the

Refuge grazed annually.

P Maintain approximately 50 miles of interior fence

and 50 miles of boundary fence to control timing of

grazing and access/movement of bison, elk, and

longhorn cattle.

P Manage less than 3 percent of Refuge through

prescribed burning yearly to control cedars.

P Control exotic and invading plants with beneficial

insects, grazing, and herbicides.

P Effect minimal management of Niobrara River,

numerous streams, and associated riparian habitat.

P Maintain black-tailed prairie dog colony at 20 acres,

not allowing it to expand.

P Effect limited biological monitoring of Refuge plant

communities and animal populations.

P Effect minimal protection and interpretation of

cultural and paleontological resources.

P Maintain current public use opportunities, including

fishing, wildlife/wildland observation, photography,

interpretation/education, picnicking, and hiking.

P Continue current level of 11 river-floating outfitters

and no restriction on number of launches per

outfitter.

P Continue cooperative agreements and partnerships

in place.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 121

Consequences of Implementing the Current

Management (No Action) Alternative

On Natural Resources: Continuation of current

management would result in bison, elk, and Texas

longhorn herds receiving primary consideration in

management. Maintaining the bison herd at 350 animals

would allow the genetic integrity and variability of the

herd to be maintained without introductions. Periodic

introductions to the elk herd and longhorn exchanges

between Wichita Mountains and Fort Niobrara NWRs

would continue to be accomplished for genetic and health

management purposes.

Little flexibility would continue in habitat management

with emphasis placed on maintaining various habitats in

their current condition and meeting the needs of the

fenced animals. Bison, elk, and Texas longhorns will

continue to consume and/or remove by trampling an

estimated 8,400 AUMs of forage a year which is

approximately 40 percent of total plant production,

leaving approximately 60 percent of the vegetation for

plant vigor and use by other wildlife (Waller et al. 1986,

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1996).

Texas longhorns, exhibition herds, and government

horses will be supplemented during the winter as

conditions warrant with approximately 600 tons of prairie

hay harvested from Valentine NWR.

Most of Fort Niobrara NWR’s habitat management

objectives would not be met due to numbers of bison, elk,

and longhorns maintained on the Refuge. Refuge

habitats rested one or more years would only total 4

percent of the acreage, approximately 30 percent of the

Refuge would not be disturbed (no planned grazing or

burning) during the native bird breeding season which is

less than the desired level, and prescribed burning would

have limited opportunity for use in invigorating native

plants or control of cedar invasion.

Limited management efforts would be directed toward

the Refuge’s enabling legislative purpose of native birds.

Numbers of birds (species and individuals) would

probably remain unchanged because management

actions necessary to improve habitat conditions for some

of the native bird populations would not be possible. For

example, prairie grouse populations would be present

but at below optimal levels because residual grassland

vegetation on many areas of the Refuge would not meet

minimum habitat requirements. Various wildlife species

associated with prairie dog habitat would remain at their

current minimum population levels because the prairie

dog town would be held to its current size of

approximately 20 acres. Possible impacts of current

management on the various vegetation communities,

native bird populations, and other wildlife species would

not be known because no additional biological monitoring

would be accomplished. Woodland management would be

limited and not adequately address concerns that some

of the unique forest types are not regenerating, cedars

are becoming dominant, and some woodlands are lacking

in understory.

On Cultural and Paleontological Resources: Cultural

and paleontological resources would have no additional

protection or interpretation under current management.

The historic barn, which currently houses the summer

bat colony, would continue to deteriorate. The present

level of interpretation provided by the existing visitor

center would continue. No existing funds are available to

improve interpretation of cultural and paleontological

resources.

On Public Use: River floating under the current

management alternative would continue with the number

of outfitters maintained at 11 and no restriction on the

number of launches per outfitter. This alternative,

however, does not provide adequate measures to control

growth, alleviate the crowding situation, nor does it

protect the wilderness character and experience of this

River section which ultimately could result in River

floating through the Refuge being determined

incompatible and shut down.

Other public use activities which include wildlife/wildland

observation, environmental education/interpretation, and

fishing will continue but not be improved or expanded.

On Socio-Economic Conditions: This alternative has the

least initial consequences to the local area economy.

Maintenance of bison herds and longhorn herds and their

subsequent sale of excess animals would continue to

contribute to Cherry County Revenue Sharing receipts.

The lack of controls on River use on the Refuge initially

do not curtail the current growth occurring in the

tourism industry of Cherry County. Ultimately, however,

this increased growth, if not responsibly managed, could

result in enough deterioration of wilderness quality on

the Refuge, to force a closure of this use. Should that

occur, serious economic consequences could occur for a

number of businesses in the Valentine area.

This alternative maintains the other existing public uses.

Revenues derived from out-of-town visitors to view

animal herds in the exhibition habitat unit or use other

facilities on the Refuge would remain unchanged.

Staffing and funding levels for the Refuge under this

alternative would also remain unchanged. Expansion of

staffs and increased efforts to expand the Refuge

infrastructure under other alternatives being considered

would not occur with this alternative. The multiplier

effect of these changes through the economy would

therefore also not occur.
122 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Alternative B.

Historical:

Manage Refuge habitats and wildlife to replicate presettlement conditions

P Maintain bison and elk herds at current

management levels.

P Reintroduce Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep to the

Refuge, and allow its population to grow to 50

animals.

P Texas longhorns would no longer be managed on the

Refuge.

P Expand big game fence to enclose nearly the entire

Refuge.

P Remove much of the interior fence to allow more

natural grazing patterns.

P Increase prescribed burns to simulate historic fire

intervals (Leenhouts 1995).

P Remove Cornell Dam and all tributary

impoundments returning these areas to a natural

state.

P Establish a second site for prairie dogs and allow it

to expand to approximately 380 acres.

P Continue control of exotic/invading plants with

beneficial insects, prescribed burns, and herbicides.

P Increase monitoring of the various habitats and

wildlife populations.

P Increase management of cultural and paleontological

resources.

P Continue current management opportunities for

wildlife/wildland observation, photography,

picnicking, hiking and fishing.

P Construct new visitor center to increase

environmental education/interpretation.

P Periodic, limited, and strictly controlled bison, elk,

and bighorn sheep public hunting opportunities to

assist with population management.

P Reduce River floating by continuing the current

restriction on number of outfitters and restricting

the number of launches by all users to 1993 levels.

P Continue existing cooperative agreements and

partnerships (except fish rearing in impounded

tributaries as they would no longer be impounded).

Seek additional partnerships.

Consequences of Implementing

the Historical Alternative

On Natural Resources: This alternative would attempt

to replicate historic ecological conditions to the extent

possible on the Refuge. Bison and elk herds would be

maintained at their current levels and the genetic

integrity of the herds kept intact. Bighorn sheep would

be reintroduced to the Refuge. Texas longhorns would no

longer be managed on this Refuge. Removal of interior

fence will enable bison and elk to establish more natural

and historic distribution or habitat use patterns.

Although highly mobile, bison show a strong preference

for certain areas (influenced by plant growth stage,

vegetation type and species, topography) during different

seasons and have varying impacts. It is expected that

bison will spend less time in the hills and more time on

the more level and open areas. Fire, water, and salt will

be used to distribute some of the use. Native prairie

plant composition, height and density will be affected

both positively and negatively by differing amounts and

degrees of large ungulate grazing, fire, and rest. Large

ungulate herds will consume and/or remove by

trampling an estimated 5,610 AUMs of forage a year

which is approximately 27 percent of total plant

production, leaving approximately 73 percent of the

vegetation for plant vigor and use by other wildlife

(Waller et al. 1986, USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service 1996). At this level, forage

consumption will be about 33 percent less than the

current management regime which should result in

increased standing vegetation (height and density) which

should favor prairie grouse. Prairie dog acreage will

increase providing additional habitat for various birds

(i.e., burrowing owl, a species of management concern),

mammals, reptiles, and insect species. Fire, a historic

ecological force, will be used in various prescriptions to

distribute bison grazing, invigorate grasslands, reduce

cedar presence, and encourage regeneration of native

tree species. Management efforts in the various

woodland communities may have short-term negative

effects on some species of native birds; however, the

long-term effects will be positive after the tree, shrub,

and herbaceous layers become more diverse and

sustainable. The federally listed blowout penstemon

would be established in suitable habitat which would

enhance biological diversity. The Niobrara River would

return to a more natural condition by removing Cornell

Dam and tributary impoundments within the Refuge.

This would allow increased flows into the River and

upstream fish migrations would no longer be stopped.

Braided sandy river habitat upstream of Cornell Dam

would decrease, which would negatively affect the

federally listed whooping crane, interior least tern, and

piping plover migratory use. Overall, this alternative

would result in a more natural mosaic of habitat

conditions favoring most native bird species and thus

allow the enabling purpose of the Refuge to be achieved.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 123

On Cultural and Paleontological Resources:

Management efforts towards cultural and

paleontological resources under this alternative would

increase with completion of a cultural resource survey

and development of a management plan.

This alternative seeks to protect the historic barn from

further degradation by supplying alternative bat habitat

and preventing bats from re-entering the barn.

Interpretation and education would also increase from

current management.

On Public Use: The historic alternative returns the

Niobrara River to a more natural condition by removing

Cornell Dam. This would increase the length of the River

on the Refuge that is suitable for canoeing and tubing.

This alternative would result in a reduction of River use

to 1993 levels which would be approximately 74 percent

of the current level. User fees initiated in 1998 would

continue and be adjusted as necessary to assist with

funding of law enforcement and maintenance of River

recreation.

This alternative would seek to construct a new

environmental education/visitor center which would

allow increased interpretation of Refuge cultural,

paleontological and natural resource programs. It would

improve Refuge efforts to educate both school age

groups and the general public about wildlife and the

natural resources which exist in the Nebraska Sandhills.

This alternative would initiate a limited Refuge hunting

program for large animals including bison, elk, deer, and

bighorn sheep. The hunts would be primarily used to

assist in control of excess animals, not to replace

roundups and existing strategies for surplus animal

removal.

On Socio-Economic Conditions: This alternative would

reduce the amount of revenue sharing funds distributed

to Cherry County as a result of a loss of annual longhorn

cattle sales. Using 1997 levels as an example, it is

estimated that the surplus longhorn cattle auction

generated approximately $40,000 in Refuge receipts.

Cherry County receives a percentage of these proceeds

under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act.

The use of prescribed fire may cause concern for local

residents over the consequences of a prescribed burn

that escapes containment and becomes a wildfire that

burns off the Refuge onto adjacent private land. The

Refuge fire program will continue to minimize the risk of

escapes by adhering to Service policy which requires

that a Prescribed Burn Plan be approved before any

prescribed burning takes place. The Burn Plan addresses

the potential for escape and specifies the personnel and

equipment needed, weather requirements, contingency

plans, and many other aspects of the burn to ensure it

stays within prescription. Additional personnel and

equipment that are necessary to conduct prescribed burns

will benefit the community by being available to assist

local rural fire departments in the suppression of lightning

and human caused wildfires that occur in the local area.

This alternative would reduce the number of people

allowed to use the River through the Refuge. It is

difficult to determine an actual economic impact from

this reduction, because response of the public may be

extremely varied. Some of the people that no longer use

the River because of human congestion may return.

Some of those denied use on the Refuge portion of the

River may just put in further downstream or upstream,

perhaps causing some additional costs to outfitters, but

not a significant reduction in overall profits. Other more

significant impacts would occur with those that simply

canceled their trips to go elsewhere. The Refuge

recognizes this cost and as a result is working with other

agencies to provide other facilities for River use outside

of the Refuge. This is important so that trip cancellations

and opportunities to use the Scenic Niobrara River are

present and viable for all concerned.

This alternative would increase Refuge expenditures on

infrastructure. Infrastructure investment of this type

would provide opportunity for local contractors to

complete projects and thus add to the local economy.
124 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Alternative C.

Intensive Wildlife Management:

Intensify and diversify management of Refuge habitats

and wildlife

P Native birds would receive greater management

emphasis.

P Manage approximately 225 bison, 50 elk, and 125

longhorns on the Refuge.

P Periodic use of Texas longhorns as a grazing tool on

the Refuge.

P Reintroduce bighorn sheep and allow to expand to 50

animals.

P Establish second site for prairie dogs and allow to

expand to approximately 380 acres.

P Retain boundary and interior fences in current

configuration and habitat units managed under a

deferred grazing rotation (reduced herd levels would

increase management options).

P Increase prescribed fire and use to control cedars,

invigorate native prairie, and encourage regeneration

of woodlands.

P Increase use of fenced animals and rest as

management tools.

P Maintain Cornell Dam and all functional tributary

impoundments and restore breached impoundments

based on their value to native birds and fishes.

P Increase control of exotic/invading plants with

prescribed burns, grazing, beneficial insects and

herbicides.

P Expand endangered and threatened species

management.

P Increase monitoring of various habitats and wildlife

populations.

P Increase protection and interpretation of cultural

and paleontological resources.

P Expand wildland/wildlife observation, environmental

education/interpretation, hiking, and horseback

riding opportunities.

P Construct a new environmental education/visitor

center.

P Periodic, limited, and strictly controlled elk and

bighorn sheep public hunting opportunities to assist

with population management.

P Decrease River floating through the Refuge after

the Service determines acceptable peak use levels

and management strategies that fairly distribute

reduced floating opportunities among outfitters and

the general public. During the interim, River use

would be capped at 1998 levels and current

restrictions on number of outfitters continued.

P Continue current cooperative agreements and

partnerships and seek additional ones for bison

management and possible acquisition of

nondevelopment easements around the Refuge.

Consequences of Implementing the Intensive

Wildlife Management Alternative

On Natural Resources: Management under this

alternative would be very intense but would enable native

bird needs to be considered in habitat management

decisions as well as continue to provide habitat for bison,

elk, and Texas longhorns. Fenced animal numbers would

be reduced with the bison herd maintained at 225, elk at

50, and longhorns at 125. Bighorn sheep would be

reintroduced to the Refuge. Maintaining lower herd

numbers would require periodic introductions to meet

genetic and health management needs of the fenced

animals. Longhorn management would require increased

cooperation with and management assistance from

Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. Habitat units would

be managed similar to the current management program

with herds moved under a deferred grazing rotation.

Large ungulate herds will consume and/or remove by

trampling an estimated 5,115 AUMs of forage a year

which is approximately 24 percent of total plant

production, leaving approximately 76 percent of the

vegetation for plant vigor and use by other wildlife

(Waller et al. 1986, USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service 1996). At this level, most habitat

objectives should be met because forage consumption

will be about 39 percent less than current management,

acreage rested for at least one year would increase to 10

percent, and at least 50 percent of the Refuge would be

rested during the native bird breeding season. An

estimated 250 tons of prairie hay from Valentine NWR

would be required for supplemental feeding of longhorns

during the winter.

Prescribed fire would be used on at least 500 acres a year

to reduce cedar invasion, renovate native prairie, and

encourage regeneration of native tree species. It is

expected that changes in grassland management will

result in an increase in mid- and tallgrass abundance

which will favor prairie grouse populations and other

grassland birds.

Species diversity will be enhanced by allowing the blacktailed prairie dog colony to an estimated 400-acre size

and by establishing endangered blowout penstemon.

Management efforts in the various woodland

communities may have short-term negative effects on

some species of native birds; however, the long-term

effects will be positive after the tree, shrub, and

herbaceous layers become more diverse and sustainable.

Biological monitoring efforts will increase providing

better data to document habitat condition, wildlife

populations, and evaluate management.

If the longhorns are used by the Valentine NWR habitat

program described in Intensive Wildlife Management

Alternative of the Valentine NWR CCP, habitat

management flexibility on this Refuge would increase;

however, costs (labor, equipment, facility maintenance)

would increase.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 125

On Cultural and Paleontological Resources:

Management of cultural and paleontological resources

will increase under this alternative. A Cultural and

Paleontological Resource Management Plan will be

developed and include a Refuge-wide cultural resource

survey and paleontological resource inventory

strategies. It will also include increased interpretation,

education, and protection of cultural and paleontological

resources of the Refuge.

This alternative seeks to protect the historic barn from

further degradation by supplying alternative bat habitat

and preventing bats from reentering the barn.

On Public Use: This alternative will initially stabilize

River canoeing and tubing use by allowing only the

existing 11 outfitters to launch on the Refuge and

capping use on weekends during the summer at 1998

levels. The alternative provides for a research/

monitoring period of two years to determine River

carrying capacities that will preserve wildlife use and

wilderness character and values of solitude. It is

expected that these final levels will be lower than use

today. Ultimately, this alternative will reduce this use on

the Refuge. The phased approach will allow River

outfitters and recreationists time to adjust to the

anticipated change. The Service will work with other

entities to develop other take-in and take-out locations off

Refuge to more equitably distribute use throughout the

Scenic River corridor.

This alternative would seek to construct a new

environmental education/visitor center which would

allow increased interpretation of Refuge cultural,

paleontological and natural resource programs. It would

improve Refuge efforts to educate both school age

groups and the general public about wildlife and the

natural resources which exist in the Nebraska Sandhills.

This alternative would add an access point for hiking and

horseback riding in the Wilderness Area, provide for one

concessionaire to take people to view large animal herds,

and provide a trail to a scenic Niobrara Canyon overlook

on the Refuge.

This alternative would initiate a limited Refuge hunting

program for elk, deer, and bighorn sheep. The hunts

would be primarily used to assist in control of excess

animals, not to replace roundups and existing strategies

for excess animal removal.

On Socio-Economic Conditions: This alternative would

have a small negative effect on Refuge Revenue Sharing

to Cherry County. By reducing herd sizes of bison and

longhorns, smaller numbers of excess animals would be

sold, thus reducing Refuge receipts, and eventually

County revenues. It is difficult to predict precise levels

of reduction. The longhorn herd will be primarily a

cow-calf herd with very small numbers of bulls and

steers, so potential production and eventual animal

turnover will be only slightly less than currently exists.

Bison numbers will be reduced, and fewer bison will be at

sales from this herd.

This alternative will have a phased in effect on River use

and economic activity associated with that use. Initially,

placing a ceiling on Refuge use will not cause reductions

in business or tourism activity; it will maintain current

levels. Growth of this use over 1998 levels will transfer

into other areas of the River. This will expand

opportunities for some businesses and landowners.

Eventually, Refuge use will decrease. The phased in

approach is being made because the Refuge is aware that

this will cause loss of tourism and business activity

associated with the Refuge. By delaying the reduction,

River outfitters and area businesses are given the

opportunity to adjust their businesses. Looking

long-term, the stabilization of this use on the Refuge to

acceptable levels will add security and stability to River

outfitters. Without this, the specter of River use

becoming incompatible on the Refuge is possible. If this

occurred, it could result in a complete shutdown of River

use on the Refuge.

This alternative would increase Refuge expenditures on

infrastructure. Investment of this type would provide

opportunity for local contractors to complete projects

and thus add to the local economy. This alternative does

not reduce the current work effort required by existing

Refuge activities and adds a significant number of new

work activities. To address that need, additional staff will

be needed. Salary increases for Refuge staff add to the

overall local economy.

The provision for a concessionaire to provide tours of the

main bison herd would have a slight increase on Refuge

receipts, and provide a local entrepreneur the

opportunity to start a new business.

The use of prescribed fire may cause concern for local

residents over the consequences of a prescribed burn

that escapes containment and becomes a wildfire that

burns off the Refuge onto adjacent private land. The

Refuge fire program will continue to minimize the risk of

escapes by adhering to Service policy which requires

that a Prescribed Burn Plan be approved before any

prescribed burning takes place. The Burn Plan

addresses the potential for escape and specifies the

personnel and equipment needed, weather requirements,

contingency plans, and many other aspects of the burn to

ensure it stays within prescription. Additional personnel

and equipment that is necessary to conduct prescribed

burns will benefit the community by being available to

assist local rural fire departments in the suppression of

lightning and human caused wildfires that occur in the

local area.
126 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Preferred (Modified Historical) Alternative

The selection of this alternative was based on an analysis

of its environmental consequences, the requirement to

manage for the Refuge’s enabling legislated purpose of

native birds, bison and elk, and the desire to implement a

more natural/historic management regime

P Maintain bison herd at current population size and

elk herd at 70-100.

P Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep could be

reintroduced into the Refuge and allowed to expand

to 50 animals if the Service determines that this

action complies with the State’s Bighorn Sheep

Management Plan requirements.

P Texas longhorns would no longer be managed on the

Refuge.

P Expand big game boundary fence to enclose nearly

the entire Refuge and, where possible and feasible

for habitat management goals, remove interior fence

to manage grazing patterns.

P Implement management actions to improve health

and sustainability of the various habitats and meet

needs of various native bird populations and herds of

bison, elk, and, if reintroduced, bighorn sheep.

P Increase and use prescribed fire to control cedars,

invigorate native prairie, encourage regeneration of

woodlands, and distribute bison and elk grazing.

P Maintain current condition of Niobrara River,

tributaries, and associated riparian habitats while

studying effects on these habitats by recreational

River users.

P Continue control of invading and exotic plant species

with beneficial insects, prescribed burning, and

herbicides.

P Allow the expansion of the existing prairie dog

colony to a manageable size.

P Accomplish sufficient biological monitoring to

document diversity, population trends, health, and

genetics.

P Increase protection and interpretation of cultural

and paleontological resources.

P Expand opportunities for wildland/wildlife

observation, environmental education/interpretation,

hiking, and horseback riding.

P Seek funds to construct a new environmental

education/visitor center and improve interpretive

displays during the interim period.

P Periodic, limited, and strictly controlled elk and, if

reintroduced and ethically sound, bighorn sheep

public hunting opportunities to assist with herd

management.

P Continue current fishing opportunities.

P Reduce River floating through the Refuge after the

Service determines acceptable peak use levels and

management strategies that fairly distribute

reduced floating opportunities among outfitters and

general public, and ensures compliance with statutes

of the Wild and Scenic River and Wilderness Acts. In

the interim, cap River use at 1998 levels and continue

current restrictions on number of outfitters.

P Continue current cooperative agreements and

partnerships and seek additional ones such as big

game management, new environmental education/

visitor center, and possible acquisition of

nondevelopment easements around the Refuge.

Consequences of Implementing the Modified

Historical (Preferred) Alternative

On Natural Resources: The preferred alternative is a

more natural, ecological approach to management of the

Refuge’s natural resources. Herds of bison and elk will

continue to be managed at current populations.

Bighorn sheep might be reintroduced to the Refuge if,

after deliberations with Nebraska’s Game and Parks

Commission, the Service finds this reintroduction to be

feasible and in accordance with the State’s future

Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. Management

strategies that maintain these animals as wild species to

the extent possible will be employed. Animal

introductions will be accomplished in accordance with

recommendations from geneticists and population

ecologists for genetic and health management purposes.

Texas longhorns will no longer be managed on the

Refuge. As a consequence, more rest will be allowed on

grasslands which will in turn favor development of

adequate habitats for migratory and resident bird

species.

Some interior fence will be removed enabling bison and

elk to establish more natural and historic distribution or

habitat use patterns. Although highly mobile, bison show

a strong preference for certain areas (influenced by plant

growth stage, vegetation type and species, as well as

topography) during different seasons and have varying

impacts. It is expected that bison will spend less time in

the hills and more time on the more level and open areas.

However, the Refuge will manage the movements and

grazing patterns of bison with fencing as well as

prescribed fire, salt supplementation, and water

management.

Fire, a historic ecological force, will be used in various

prescriptions to distribute bison grazing, invigorate

grasslands, reduce cedar presence, and encourage

regeneration of native tree species. Native prairie plant

composition, height, and density will be affected both

positively and negatively by differing amounts and

degrees of large ungulate grazing, fire, and rest. Large

ungulate herds will consume and/or remove by

trampling an estimated 3,400 - 5,000 AUMs of forage a

year which is approximately 16 to 28 percent of the total

plant production, leaving approximately 72 to 84 percent

of the vegetation for plant vigor and use by other wildlife

(Waller et al. 1986, Natural Resources Conservation

Service 1996). At these levels, forage consumption will be

about 40 to 58 percent less than the current management

regime which will increase management flexibility and

result in increased standing vegetation (height and

density) in the grasslands which will favor prairie grouse

and other grassland birds.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 127

Species diversity will increase with the establishment of

the endangered blowout penstemon and an increase in

prairie dog acreage. Prairie dogs and the burrow

systems they create can provide important habitat for

burrowing owls (a species of management concern),

other birds, mammals, reptiles, and insects.

Prescribed burns in the various woody habitats may have

short-term negative effects on native birds; however, the

resulting regeneration and regrowth of the understory

will be positive in the long-term.

Biological monitoring will be increased providing

additional information on various vegetation communities

and associated wildlife which will improve management

strategies. This management should result in a more

natural mosaic of sustainable habitats that meet the

needs of native and migratory birds, mammals, and other

wildlife.

On Cultural and Paleontological Resources:

Management and subsequent protection of cultural and

paleontological resources under this alternative will

increase from the current management regime.

Completion of a Refuge-wide cultural resource survey

will meet legislated requirements and provide more

comprehensive information to develop necessary

protection/preservation strategies outlined in a cultural

resource management plan. Cooperative agreements/

partnerships will be sought for completion of a

paleontological survey. Interpretation and education will

increase with the development of new interpretive

displays utilizing information and specimens collected

from previous work and new surveys. Future use of the

historic barn will be determined with appropriate

renovation measures completed after the bat colony is

relocated.

On Public Use: This alternative will initially stabilize

River canoeing and tubing use by allowing only the

existing 11 outfitters to launch on the Refuge and

capping use on weekends during the summer at 1998

levels. Two years of research/monitoring will be

completed to determine River carrying capacities that

will preserve wildlife habitat, wilderness character and

values of solitude. It is expected that these final levels

will be lower than use today. Ultimately, this alternative

will reduce River use on the Refuge. The phased-in

approach will allow River outfitters and recreationists

time to adjust to the anticipated change. The Service will

work with other entities to develop other take-in and

take-out locations off Refuge to more equitably

distribute use throughout the scenic River corridor.

Fishing opportunities will remain the same with fishing

allowed on the Niobrara River and Minnichaduza Creek.

Special youth fishing days will continue.

Hunting opportunities may be added to the public use

program. Ethically sound, limited and strictly controlled

elk and bighorn sheep (if introduced) hunts will be

conducted periodically to remove surplus animals. It is

expected that a high demand will exist for these limited

opportunities.

Wildlife/wildland observation opportunities will be

increased under this alternative with the establishment

of an access point for hiking and horseback riding in the

wilderness area and construction of a trail to a scenic

overlook of the Niobrara Canyon. Also, this alternative

enables a concessionaire to provide guided tours of the

main herd of bison during the summer months.

Efforts to educate visitors (i.e., school groups, general

public) would increase with implementation of this

alternative through construction of a new environmental

education/visitor center, and development of new

displays, leaflets, and an outdoor education curriculum.
128 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

On Socio-Economic Conditions: This alternative will

temporarily reduce Refuge revenue sharing to Cherry County.

However, BLM payments to the County will make up for

the difference and no net loss of income should occur (see

explanation under Planning Issues section of the Plan).

Under the existing formula in use, Cherry County would

receive a portion of these receipts in revenue sharing.

This alternative will have a phased in effect on River use

and economic activity associated with that use. Initially,

placing a ceiling on Refuge use will not cause reductions

in business or tourism activity; it will maintain current

levels. Growth of this use over 1998 levels will transfer into

other areas of the River. This will expand opportunities for

some businesses and landowners. Eventually, Refuge use

will decrease. The phased in approach is being made because

the Refuge is aware that this will cause loss of tourism

and business activity associated with the Refuge. By

delaying the reduction, River outfitters and area businesses are

given the opportunity to adjust their businesses. Looking

long-term, the stabilization of this use on the Refuge to

acceptable levels will add security and stability to River

outfitters. Without this, the specter of River use becoming

incompatible on the Refuge is possible. If this occurred, it could

result in a complete shutdown of River use on the Refuge.

This alternative would increase Refuge expenditures on

infrastructure. Infrastructure investment of these types

would provide opportunity for local contractors to

complete projects and thus add to the local economy.

This alternative does not reduce the current work effort

required by existing Refuge activities and adds a significant

number of new work activities. To address that need, the

Refuge Complex will have to add staff. Salary increases

for Refuge staff add to the overall local economy.

This alternative would have a positive effect through

provision for a concessionaire to provide tours to the

main herds. This will provide a local entrepreneur the

opportunity to start a new business.

The Fort Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex has long been

an important contributor to the economy, recreation, and

social atmosphere of Cherry County. Choices made by

this alternative recognize that relationship, and the

future Refuge activities and programs will continue to

contribute in a positive way to the area and its people.

The use of prescribed fire may cause concern for local residents

over the consequences of a prescribed burn that escapes

containment and becomes a wildfire that burns off the

refuge onto adjacent private land. The Refuge fire program

will continue to minimize the risk of escapes by adhering

to Service policy which requires that a Prescribed Burn

Plan be approved before any prescribed burning takes place.

The Burn Plan addresses the potential for escape and

specifies the personnel and equipment needed, weather

requirements, contingency plans, and many other aspects

of the burn to ensure it stays within prescription. Additional

personnel and equipment that is necessary to conduct

prescribed burns will benefit the community by being

available to assist local rural fire departments in the

suppression of lightning and human caused wildfires that

occur in the local area.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 129

Appendix I.

Summary of Public

Involvement/Comments

and Consultation/

Coordination

The National Environmental Policy Act requires all

Federal agencies to examine the impacts upon the

environment that their actions might have, to incorporate

the best available environmental information, and the use

of public participation in the planning and

implementation of all actions. All public participation

involved in the planning process that ultimately led to

the development of this Plan was led and complied with

the requirements of NEPA and sound stewardship of our

Nation’s natural resources.

Key steps in the development of this Plan, in its present

form included: (1) preplanning; (2) identifying issues and

developing a vision; (3) gathering information; (4)

analyzing resource relationships; (5) developing

alternatives and assessing environmental effects; (6)

identifying a preferred alternative; (7) publishing the

Draft Plan and soliciting public comments on the Draft

Plan; (8) reviewing comments and effecting necessary

and appropriate changes to the Draft CCP; and, (9)

preparing this final Plan for approval by the Region 6

Regional Director, and finally (10) implementing the

Plan.

In January, 1997 at a meeting at Fort Niobrara NWR, a

core team was formed to prepare this Plan by following

the Service’s planning process and ensuring NEPA

procedures for public involvement were followed. A

review team was set up to provide guidance and direction

to the core planning team. Public involvement began

when a working group was organized to provide

interchange of information between Service personnel,

outside agencies, and interested stakeholders of the

Refuge.

On March 20, 1997, in an effort by the Service to

disseminate information and involve the public, an open

house scoping session was held in the Cherry County

Hall meeting room, Valentine, Nebraska. The open house

provided participants an opportunity to learn about the

Refuge’s purposes, mission and goals, and issues

currently facing management. People attending were

provided the chance to speak with Service

representatives and to share their comments.

On October 28, 1997, a meeting was held with Refuge

permittees that are actively involved with canoeing and

tubing on the Niobrara River through the Fort Niobrara

NWR to discuss the issues of common interest on the

future uses of this River. The Service scheduled this and

other meetings to let people know what the Service was

doing to manage the wildlife and habitats of the Refuge

and to elicit their input on topics of interest to them.

The Draft CCP/EA was the first opportunity that these

groups and the public had to review the entire planning

effort and the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan was released

on the last week of April 1999 and distributed in the first

week of May 1999. A 60-day comment period was

provided in which the Service requested information,

comments, concerns, suggestions, and complaints from

the public regarding the Draft CCP/EA. Because of the

tremendous amount of public interest in this Plan, the

Service extended the comment period for 45 more days,

for a total of 105 days of public comment period. With

this extension, the public comment period did not close

until August 19, 1999.

The voluminous amount of comment letters and

electronic mail communications were reviewed and

summarized by category and subject. The summary of

these comments was presented to the Service’s core

team and the regional directorate to help them in the

preparation of the final Plan. Appropriate modifications

were made to the Draft CCP/EA in accordance with

scientifically based new information provided by the

public during the comment period. The present Plan

contains the changes made by the Service in accordance

to the recommendations of the directorate and Service

biologists and managers.

Public comments were received orally at meetings,

scoping sessions, open house forums, via e-mail messages

and in writing, both before and during the public

comment period phase of the comprehensive

conservation planning process. The following issues,

concerns, and comments are a compilation and summary

of the concerns expressed by the public.

For further information on Public Involvement and

Issues, please see the Plan’s section on Planning

Process.
130 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 131

Appendix J.

Mailing List

Federal Officials

P U.S. Senator Bob Kerry

Doug Durry, Jr. Leg. Ass’t, Omaha, NE

P U.S. Senator Charles Hagel

Doug Lamude, Leg. Ass’t., Omaha, NE

P U.S. Representative Bill Barrett

Mark Whitacre, Leg. Director, Grand Island, NE

Greg Beam, Bill Barrett’s Office

Federal Agencies

P USDA/APHIS, Dr. Kathleen Akin, Lincoln, NE

P USDA/Forest Service, Gregg Schenbeck

P USDA/Forest Service, Don Carpenter

P USDA/Natural Resource Conservation Service

P US EPA, Denver, CO

P USDI/Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO;

Albuquerque, NM; Portland, OR; Anchorage, AK;

Fort Snelling, MN; Atlanta, GA; Hadley, MA;

Washington, D.C.

P USDI/Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacreek NWR,

Martin, SD; National Bison Range, Moiese, MT;

Witchita Mountains NWR, Indiahoma, OK; Crescent

Lake NWR, Scottsbluff, NE; Rainwater Basin

NWR, Kearney, NE; Benton Lake NWR, Black

Eagle, MT; Ecological Services, Grand Island, NE

P USDI/ NPS, Niobrara/Missouri Natl. Scenic River,

Paul Hedren

P USGS/BRD, Rick Schroeder, Fort Collins, CO

P USGS/National Wildlife Health Center, Dr. Thomas

Raffe, Bozeman, MT

State Officials

P Governor Mike Johanns, Lincoln, NE

P Senator Jim Jones, Lincoln, NE

State Agencies

P Department of Agriculture, Chadron, NE

P Middle Niobrara NRD, Robert F. Hilske

P NE Game and Parks Commissino, Rex Amack

P NE Game and Parks Commission, Bill Vodehnal

P NE Game and Parks Commission, Joel Klammer

P NE Game and Parks, Valentine Fish Hatchery

P Smith Falls State Park, Sparks, NE

P State Historic Preservation Officer, Lincoln, NE

City/County/Local Governments

P Melvin Christensen, Cherry County

P Dean Jacobs, Valentine Chamber of Commerce

P Rick Medena, City Manager-Valentine

P Valentine City Council

P Brown County Commissioners

P Keya Paha County Commissioners

P Cherry County Commissioners

P Valentine Niobrara Council

Libraries

P Valentine Public Library

P Ainsworth Public Library

Organizations

P Audubon Society, Dave Sands

P Audubon Society, Gretchen Muller, Washington, D.C.

P Central Mountain and Plains Section of the

Wildlife Society:

Jeff Nichols, Ogallala, NE

Dr. Pat Reece, Scottsbluff, NE

Tom Rider, Lander, WY

Dr. Terry Riley, Aberdeen, SD

P Cherry County Pheasants Forever, Valentine, NE

P Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement

(CARE), Washington, D.C.

P Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.

P Fort Niobrara Natural History Association,

Valentine, NE

P Great Plains Buffalo Association

P Intertribal Bison Cooperative, Tony Willman

P Midcontinent Eco. Science Center, Fritz Knopf

P National Bison Association

P National Rifle Association, Fairfax, VA

P National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, D.C.

P National Wildlife Refuge Association, Colorado

Springs, CO

P The Nature Conservancy, Al Steuter

P Nebraska Branch for Holistic Management

P Nebraska Cattleman, Troy Bredenkamp

P Nebraska Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society, Lincoln, NE

P Nebraska Chapter TWS, Carl Wolfe

P Nebraska State Buffalo Assoc, Dave Hutchinson

P Nebraska State Buffalo Assoc, Larry Mason

P Nebraska Wildlife Federation, Lincoln, NE

P Niobrara Canoe Outfitters Assoc., Roy Breuklander

P Niobrara Council:

Nola Moosman, Recreation Rep, Valentine, NE

Dwight Sawle, Forestry Rep, Springview, NE

Brad Arrowsmith, Keya Paha, Bassett, NE

Harlin Welch, Brown County, Ainsworth, NE

Paul L. Hedren, National Park Service, O’Neill, NE

Tom Higgins, Newport, NE

Warren Arganbright, Valentine, NE

Jim Van Winkle, Cherry County Commissioner,

Valentine, NE

Bill Mulligan, Middle Niobrara NRD, Valentine, NE

Jim Harlin, Rock County, Bassett, NE

Betty Palmer, Keya Paha County Commissioner,

Springview, NE

Lloyd Alderman, Rock County Commissioner,

Newport, NE

Larry Voecks, Nebraska Game and Parks,

Norfolk, NE

Betty Hermsmeyer, Brown County Commissioner,

Ainsworth, NE

P Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pratt, KS

P Sandhills Task Force, Kearney, NE

P Southern Missouri Ascertainment, Puxico, MO

P Texas Longhorn Breeders Assoc, Tim Miller

P Texas Longhorn Trails, Carolyn Hunter

P Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

P Wilderness Watch, Missoula, MT
132 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Newspapers/Radio

P Ainsworth Star-Journal, Ainsworth, NE

P Associated Press, Omaha, NE

P The Chadron Record, Chadron, NE

P Grand Island Daily Independent, Grand Island, NE

P Journal-Star Printing, Lincoln, NE

P The Kearney Daily Hub, Kearney, NE

P KVSH Radio, Valentine, NE

P Lincoln Star, Lincoln, NE

P The Midland News, Valentine, NE

P Nebraska Public Radio, Lincoln, NE

P The Norfolk Daily News, Norfolk, NE

P North Platte Telegraph, North Platte, NE

P Omaha-World Herald, Omaha, NE

P The Outdoorsmen, Hartington, NE

P Rock County Leader, Bassett, NE

P Springview Herald, Springview, NE

P United Press International, Omaha, NE

Universities/Colleges

P Dr. Tom Bragg, Department of Biology, UNO

P Dr. James Derr, Dept. of Veterinary Pathobiology,

Texas A&M

P Ken Higgins, SD Coop Unit, SDSU, Brookings

P Mark Morgan, KSU, Dept of Horticulture, Forestry,

& Recreation, Manhattan, KS

P Dr. James Shaw, Dept. of Zoology, Oklahoma State

University

P Dr. Curtis Strobeck, Dept. of Biological Sciences,

University of Alberta

P Dr. James Stubbendieck, Dept. of Agronomy,

University of NE

P Dr. Joe Templeton, Dept. of Veterinary Pathobiology,

Texas A&M

Individuals

Adamson, Mark

Allen, Dave

Badura, Laurel

Ballard, Doug

Ballard, Richard and Jeri

Bancroft, Cal

Barnard, Dick

Barragy, T.J.

Bartling, Steve

Bennett, Dennis

Bennett, Shane

Birger, Dick

Birger, N.H.

Blome, George

Bredthauer, Marty

Breuklander, Steve

Brown, Greg

Bullock, Ronald

Burge, Mike

Burge, Russell

Carter, Wayne

Christiansen, Lou

Churchill, Dean

Cloutier, Terry

Colburn, Dean

Cole, Pat

Connor, Keith and Sally

Cook, Georgia

Cornelius, Bob

Coyle, Joseph F.

Crawford, Mary

Custard, Rick

Damrow, Roger

Davenport, John

Davis, Debbie

Davis, John

DeOrnellas, George

Ducey, Jim

Ellis, Bob

Equhoff, Richard

Fields, Robert

Fishell, Ralph

Fitch, Ken

Frick, Carl

Gallino, Orville

Gass, Bob

Geddie, John

Geib, Sandy

Geiger, Steve

Getusan, Bob

Gillespie, Jerry

Gordon, Troy

Grabher, Bob

Graff, Martin

Graham, Doug

Graham, Twyla

Penlerick, LeRoy

Perrett, Brian

Peters, Bill

Peterson, Chad

Peterson, Georgia

Peterson, Kent

Peterson, Sheila

Pierce, Roger

Price, Dave

Reimann, K.F.

Riley, Terry

Robart, Kevin

Robbins, Jr., Dick

Roberts, Jerome

Rogers, Ron

Rokita, Thomas J.

Rosfeld, Otto

Roth, Robin

Rupe, John

Rutten, Ben

Ryschon, Jerry

Salyer, Jim

Scheffler, Delbert

Schneider, Julie

Schroeder, Mr. & Mrs. Don

Searle, Charles

Segar, John

Sharp, Wayne

Sherwood, Greg

Simmons, Carl

Simmons, Jean

Smiley, Jay

Smith, Neil

Sokol, Dick

Soper, Don

Sovereign, Ron

Stack, Taylor & Linda

Sterry, Rich

Stoeger, Doug

Stokes, Alan

Streeter, Bob

Stroup, William

Stump, Dr. Bill

Suhr, Jenny

Tegtmeier, Jim

Terhaar, Dennis

Thortall, Vic

Tibbs, Raymond

Toman, Tom

Torgerson

Turner, Bill

Turner, Lawrence

VanDerPloegh, Marvin

Vineyard, Brian

Vosicky, George

Vyain, Dave

Walkling, Al

Waln, Bill

Walton, Judy

Wescott, Mike

Witthuhn, John

Young, Cork and Mary

Young, Loren

Young, Mike

Graves, Leroy

Grooms, Jerry

Gudden, Andrew

Gudgel, Duane

Gunnty, Kent

Gustafson, Bob

Hanna, Jeff

Hanson, John

Hartman, Darrel

Heathershaw, Pat

Hellmund, Paul Cawood

Henry, Dale

Hickerson, Hal

Higgins, Tom

Hoehne, Paul

Hollenbeck, Rex

Hollopeter, Willard

Hunsaker, Josh

Hunter, Carolyn

Huscher, Nora

Hutchinson, Dave

Ingle, Kay

Isom, Stephen

Jackson, Bob

Jarvi, Guy

Jeffers, Dick

Johnson, Dale

Jones, Doug

Kasselder, Charles

Keenan, Mike

Kerr, Steve

Kramer, Kaye

Kuck, Lance

Kuhre, Beryl

Kutilek, William R.

Lee, Jim

Leeper, Rick

Lintz, Tom

Long, Larry

Lord, Elver

Lorenzen, Robin

Maginnis, Berdine

Maginnis, Monty

Marlott, Kenneth

Mathey, Kevin

Mason, Larry

Mattson, Dr. Neil

May, Maynard

McPeak, Janet

Mecure, Randy

Mecure, Rich

Metschke, Corey

Millard, Scott

Miller, Randy

Muller, Gretchen

Muller, Roxann

Murphy, John

Nagorski, Rod

Nelson, Leonard

Nichols, Meachelle

Nielsen, Einar

O’Kief, Mike

Olsen, Dr. Steven

Olson, Ole

Parks, Rueben
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 133

Appendix K.

List of Preparers

This document is a compilation of efforts by several

Service people. The Core Planning Team consisted of Jon

Kauffeld (Regional Office Refuge Planner) who was later

replaced by Bernardo Garza (Regional Office Refuge

Planner), Kathy McPeak (Wildlife Biologist), Mark

Lindvall (Refuge Operations Specialist), Jim Sellers

(Refuge Operations Specialist), Jim Kelton (Fire

Management Officer), Len McDaniel (Wildlife Biologist),

and Doug Staller (Regional Public Use Specialist) and

was responsible for gathering and preparing information.

Royce Huber (Refuge Manager), Wayne King (Regional

Wildlife Biologist), Bob Nagel (Refuge Supervisor),

Larry Shanks (Refuge Supervisor), and Carol Taylor

(Regional Office Planning Supervisor) provided guidance

and assisted with review and editing.

Rhoda Lewis (Regional Archaeologist), Stephanie Jones

(Regional Nongame Bird Biologist), and Cheryl Willis

(Water Resource Specialist) provided technical

expertise. Jaymee Fojtik (GIS Coordinator) prepared the

various maps.

Barb Shupe (Regional Writer/Editor) compiled the

document and completed all desktop publishing aspects

of the document.
134 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 135

Appendix L.

Intra-Service Section 7

Consultation
136 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 137
138 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 139
140 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 141
142 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Ft. Niobrara/Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Complex

HC 14, Box 67

Valentine, NE 69201

402/376 3789

r6rw_ftn@fws.gov

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

For Refuge Information

1 800/344 WILD

September 1999

Bison, Ft. Niobrara NWR, USFWS