Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 1

U. S. F sh and W ldl fe Serv ce

Valentine

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan
2 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 3
4 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 5

Table of Contents

Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 9

Introduction/Background ............................................................................................................. 13

Refuge Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition and Management ..................................... 13

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge History ..................................................................................................... 13

Wetland Management History ........................................................................................................................... 14

Gordon Creek Diversion History ........................................................................................................................ 14

Wildlife Management History ............................................................................................................................ 15

Waterfowl........................................................................................................................................................ 15

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

Grassland Management History ........................................................................................................................ 17

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

Current Refuge Resources Management......................................................................................................... 17

Grassland Management ............................................................................................................................... 17

Wetlands Management ................................................................................................................................ 19

Threatened and Endangered Species Management .............................................................................. 19

Indigenous Wildlife Management .............................................................................................................. 19

Exotic and Invading Species Management.............................................................................................. 19

Proposed Wilderness Area.......................................................................................................................... 20

Public Use ....................................................................................................................................................... 20

Cultural and Paleontological Resources .................................................................................................. 21

Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................................... 21

Purpose of and Need for a Comprehensive Conservation Plan......................................................................... 22

Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ........................................................................................................................... 26

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Purpose ......................................................................................................... 26

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Vision Statement ......................................................................................... 26

Legal and Policy Guidance ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Existing Partnerships.................................................................................................................................................. 27

Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ 29

Description of the Planning Process ....................................................................................................................... 29

Planning Issues ........................................................................................................................................................... 30

Bison Reintroduction ........................................................................................................................................... 30

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Introduction ............................................................................................................. 32

Prescribed Burns.................................................................................................................................................. 33

Habitat, Human Structures, and Wildlife Protection ..................................................................................... 33

Hunting, Recreation, and Other Public Uses ......................................................................................................... 34

Management of the Refuge’s Fisheries Resources .............................................................................................. 34

Funding and Staffing to Manage the Refuge ......................................................................................................... 34

Public Involvement Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 35
6 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions .................................................................... 37

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ................................................................................................................................ 37

Climate ................................................................................................................................................................... 38

Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Geology .................................................................................................................................................................. 38

Soils .................................................................................................................................................................... 38

Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses ....................................................................................................... 39

Water Resources and Associated Wetlands .................................................................................................. 39

Vegetation .............................................................................................................................................................. 39

Grasslands ...................................................................................................................................................... 39

Woodlands ...................................................................................................................................................... 40

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Birds ................................................................................................................................................................. 40

Mammals ........................................................................................................................................................ 45

Fishes ............................................................................................................................................................... 45

Insects.............................................................................................................................................................. 45

Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................................................... 46

Federally Listed Animals ....................................................................................................................... 46

Federally Listed Plants ........................................................................................................................... 46

Cultural and Paleontological Resources ......................................................................................................... 47

Socio-Economic and Political Environment ................................................................................................... 47

Public Uses............................................................................................................................................................ 47

Special Management Areas ..................................................................................................................................... 48

Special Legislated Designations ....................................................................................................................... 48

Wilderness Area ............................................................................................................................................ 48

Definition of Wilderness ........................................................................................................................ 48

Research Natural Areas ............................................................................................................................... 48

National Landmark ........................................................................................................................................ 48

Management Direction ................................................................................................................ 49

Refuge Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies / Projects ............................................... 49

Refuge Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 49

Habitat Management .................................................................................................................................... 50

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................ 52

Threatened, Endangered, and Management Concern Species ........................................................... 53

Interpretation and Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 54

Ecosystem (Partner) ...................................................................................................................................... 54
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 7

Implementation and Monitoring ................................................................................................. 55

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................................................. 55

Staffing Needed to Implement This Plan ......................................................................................................... 55

Funding Needed to Implement This Plan ........................................................................................................ 55

CCP Implementation and Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................. 56

Habitat Management and Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 56

Proposed Wilderness Area ................................................................................................................................ 57

Grasslands ............................................................................................................................................................. 58

Wetlands ......................................................................................................................................................... 58

Habitat Acquisition ........................................................................................................................................ 58

Wildlife Management and Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 58

Public Use Management and Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 59

Ecosystem (Partners) Management and Monitoring ..................................................................................... 60

Management of Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................................... 60

Partnership Opportunities .......................................................................................................................................... 60

Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ 61

Plan Amendment and Revision ................................................................................................................................ 62

Wilderness Management .......................................................................................................................................... 62

Appendix A. Glossary ................................................................................................................................................ 63

Appendix B. Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................... 67

Appendix C. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) List............................................................................... 69

Appendix D. Maintenance Management System (MMS) List ........................................................................... 81

Appendix E. Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................................................ 99

Appendix F. List of Animal Species at Valentine NWR ..................................................................................... 115

Appendix G. Compliance Requirements .............................................................................................................. 119

Appendix H. NEPA Documentation ....................................................................................................................... 123

Appendix I. Summary of Public Involvement/ Comments and Consultation/ Coordination........................ 133

Appendix J. Mailing List .......................................................................................................................................... 135

Appendix K. List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................. 137

Appendix L. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation .............................................................................................. 139

Tables

Table 1. Annual Precipitation 1945-1997 ................................................................................................................. 14

Table 2. Historic Nest Cover Treatment .................................................................................................................. 15

Table 3. Grassland Treatment ................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 4. Hatching Chronology................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 5. Prairie Chickens........................................................................................................................................... 16

Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................................ 23

Figure 2. Wetland Map ............................................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 3. Vegetation Map ........................................................................................................................................... 43
8 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 9

Summary

The 71,516-acre Valentine National Wildlife Refuge is

located in the Sandhills of 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. The native grass

prairie and wetlands found here support a diversity of

wildlife. Little has changed from historic times. The

Refuge was established by Congress in 1935 “as a

breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

The Refuge is home to 270 species of birds, 59 species of

mammals, and 22 species of reptiles and amphibians.

Several threatened and endangered plants, birds, and

one insect are found here. The 180-acre Holt Creek and

480-acre Yellowthroat Wildlife Management Areas in

Keya Paha and Brown Counties are also included in this

Plan.

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Plan) was

prepared for the Refuge and its Wildlife Management

Areas to guide their management for the next 10 to 15

year period. It is an updated and revised version of a

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 Valentine

NWR 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, other compatible

public uses, and partnerships, along with

implementation strategies, and recommended staffing

and funding for these areas. This Plan also meets the

planning requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge

Improvement Act enacted by Congress in 1997.

The Draft Plan considered four alternatives for

management of Valentine NWR. Each of the

alternatives was evaluated for environmental

consequences in accordance with the National

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

present form, contains the goals, objectives, and

strategies found by the Service to best aid the Refuge

and the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) to

attain their specific goals.

For a summary of the alternatives considered during the

planning process see Appendix H. Further information

on alternatives considered can be found in the Valentine

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999).
10 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Several of the alternatives for management of Valentine National Wildlife

Refuge call for the return of bison to

Refuge grasslands; Native grasses

growing on Refuge meadows provide

excellent nesting habitat for ducks,

prairie chickens, and birds which prefer tall dense cover; The endangered

plant, blowout penstemon, grows in the

sandy dunes where wind erosion creates areas of open sand;Money from

the sale of Duck Stamps was used to

purchase most of the lands that now

make up Valentine National Wildlife

Refuge; in April prairie chicken males

display on traditional breeding

grounds throughout the Refuge.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 11
12 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 13

Introduction /

Background

Refuge Overview: History of Refuge Establishment,

Acquisition and Management

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge History

Valentine NWR was established on August 14, 1935, by

Executive Order No. 7142 “as a breeding ground for

migratory birds and other wildlife.” Lands for the

Refuge were purchased from private ranches,

recreational land, resort clubs, and corporations with

investment interests. Funding for acquisition came

from the Emergency Conservation Fund of 1933. The

dust bowl period of the 1930’s created concern among

conservationists for the survival of waterfowl species.

Many refuges were set-aside during this period to help

in meeting the goals of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

of 1918. Since the 1940’s, additional lands have been

purchased and traded to straighten Refuge boundaries

and improve Refuge administration. In 1992, the Fort

Niobrara-Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Complex

acquired the Yellowthroat Wildlife Management Area,

a 920-acre fee title/easement area in Brown County,

and in 1995, the 180-acre fee title Holt Creek Wildlife

Management Area in Keya Paha County through the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farmers

Home Administration, under provisions of the 1990

Farm Bill.

A Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Camp of 200

enrollees was established on Valentine NWR in 1935

and was operational until 1939. The CCC enrollees

constructed fences, roads, buildings, fire towers,

planted trees and shrubs, developed ponds and water

control structures, and built a diversion ditch from

Gordon Creek. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

(NG&PC) acquired a water right for the Gordon Creek

Diversion. In the early 1980’s, this water right was

relinquished for lack of use and also because it was not

in the best interest of the Refuge. Surface water

management has been facilitated by subsequent

construction of seven water control structures and

records of lake elevations are available since the

1950’s.

The Refuge was opened to fishing when water

returned to the lakes following the drought of the

1930’s. The Refuge was opened for the following

hunting seasons: deer in 1964, pheasant and grouse in

1965, waterfowl in 1977, dove in 1983, and coyotes in

1986.

From 1935 through 1972, Valentine NWR was

managed by an on-site refuge manager in charge of

only Valentine NWR. In 1973, the Refuge was joined

with Fort Niobrara NWR to form a Complex with one

manager in charge.

The Refuge has two Research Natural Areas closed to

public entry, a 15,809-acre proposed wilderness area

designated in 1973 and located in the southwest part of

the Refuge, and was recognized as a Registered

National Landmark in 1979.
14 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Wetland Management History

Thirty-seven major wetland areas exist on Valentine

NWR comprised of approximately 13,000 acres of

semipermanent and permanent wetlands which

historically have operated as a closed system except

for periods of high precipitation. Historic data

regarding surface and groundwater elevations are

available for the Refuge; however, the most consistent

data records available are since 1985.

Since establishment of the Refuge, various attempts

have been made to manage the water elevations of six

lakes by water control structures. However, water

elevations are dependent upon precipitation. Since

1981, above average annual precipitation has

complicated attempts of managing lake elevations

beyond diminishing the adverse effects of the

extremely high wetland levels experienced since the

mid-1980’s (See Table 1).

Table 1

Approximately 40 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

wells have been established on and adjacent to the

Refuge in which groundwater elevations have been

monitored by Refuge staff since the 1950’s. This

information is part of the monitoring program carried

out by USGS Water Resources Division. Groundwater

elevations are presently 4-7 feet above the elevations

recorded during the period 1950 to 1985.

Gordon Creek Diversion History

In the 1930’s, the CCC’s constructed a diversion on

Gordon Creek to divert water through the Refuge.

Considerable resources were allocated to the

construction of the diversion dam and ditch to

Hackberry Lake. However, the project was

“piecemealed” beyond Hackberry Lake through the

remainder of the Refuge (Dewey, Clear, and Willow

Lakes) and north through Trout and Big Alkali Lakes

via Slagel Creek and east through Ballard Marsh and

Red Deer Lake via East Plum Creek.

In 1952, a District Count Decree (Young, Harse and

Harms vs State of Nebraska) successfully challenged

the construction of a larger water control structure on

Willow Lake by Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission (Commission); set a maximum elevation

that water could be held in Willow Lake; and the

defendants were “permanently restrained and

enjoined from causing or permitting any interference

... and from by any act or in any manner causing or

contributing to causing the water in the natural water

course below and to the north of the outlet of Willow

Lake to flow in any different manner or at any

different time or season of the year than in the

manner and at times and seasons in which they are

wont to flow.” In 1997, the Willow Lake water control

structure washed out and the Commission has elected

not to replace the structure and to allow water levels in

Willow Lake to fluctuate naturally.

The water right for the Gordon Creek diversion was

acquired by the Commission, but the water right was

relinquished in the early 1980’s because it was not of

benefit to the management of the Refuge. This

diversion was the original source of carp infestation for

the Refuge. Wetland management subsequent to the

construction of the diversion has focused on controlling

carp populations and the adverse effects of carp on

habitat and food resources of waterfowl and sport fish.

Over the years, water control structures were

constructed and reconstructed in an attempt to

prevent the movement of carp. However, by the 1940’s,

carp had spread throughout the wetlands in the

northwest area of the Refuge as well as the

downstream wetlands under the management of the

Commission and private landowners. Various attempts

to control carp with chemical treatment were carried

out in the 1950’s and 1960’s to control carp populations

on the Refuge. The most effective control technique

was initiated in 1975 and, during the period 1975-82,

seven lakes were mechanically pumped and chemically

treated with rotenone to reduce the carp populations.

To date, only two of the renovated lakes have remained

carp-free. However, in the remaining five lakes, carp

populations have remained at moderate levels with the

implementation of biological control. Biological control

was accomplished by modifying northern pike size

limits to enhance the populations of larger northern

pike and subsequently reduce carp recruitment.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 15

Wildlife Management History

Wildlife populations have been affected by both the

management of wetland and grassland resources on

Valentine NWR. Grazing practices increased as a

result of increased demand for beef during World War

II and remained in excess of 50,000 AUMs until the

mid-1960’s. Indigenous wildlife species with specific

habitat requirements (which are not achieved under

the widespread grazing/mowing regimes of that time)

did not fare very well. By the mid-1950’s, considerable

criticism was leveled against the management of the

Refuge both from within and outside the Service. In

the early 1970’s, a grassland management team was

formed to develop recommendations regarding the

management of Refuge grasslands. Wildlife populations,

for which monitoring data are available, have

responded positively to the spirit and intent of these

recommendations; specifically, the enhancement of

native Sandhill Prairie through the termination of

widespread, season-long grazing, annual mowing

practices, and the implementation of planned

grassland management treatments (See Table 2).

These provide optimum acreage of vegetative

composition, structure, and undisturbed nesting cover

for wildlife.

Table 2.

Waterfowl

The annual acreage of undisturbed cover for upland

nesting birds increased from less than 5 percent in

1969 to greater than 50 percent by 1985 (See Table 3).

The increase in undisturbed nesting cover acreage has

resulted in greater productivity and population levels

particularly for upland nesting waterfowl. Specifically,

a significant improvement has occurred in the hatching

chronology of blue-winged teal and mallards with the

increased acreage of undisturbed cover. The earlier

hatching peaks since 1978 have ultimately resulted in

greater recruitment rates (See Table 4) and

subsequently greater breeding populations and

composition of dabbling ducks. In particular, mallard

breeding pairs have increased dramatically with the

increased acreage of cover that received rest

treatment for two or more growing seasons, and this

increase occurred during a period of extremely low

continental duck breeding populations.

Table 3.

Table 4.
16 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

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 greater 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 sharp-tailed

grouse and prairie chicken populations survived in the

Sandhills of Nebraska due to lack of intensive

agriculture- altered habitat (Mitchell et al. 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.

Researchers believe that habitat conditions (structure,

species composition) which are correlated to use

(grazing, haying) has determined the average

population size, but other factors (i.e., weather)

operated equally in good and poor habitat to cause

similar rates of annual gallinaceous birds population

changes. Annual counts of displaying sharp-tailed

grouse and prairie chicken males support that

relationship or effect. Prairie grouse numbers have

cycled with higher average population levels occurring

on the Refuge when forage availability was higher.

Statistical analysis indicates that a significant inverse

relationship exists between the level of AUM

utilization and the breeding population of prairie

chickens on Valentine NWR (See Table 5).

Additionally, Hughes and McDaniel (unpublished 1998)

developed linear regression models for the Refuge to

determine relationships between cover treatment and

the number of male prairie chickens surveyed during

the period 1969-1996. The best fit model indicated an

inverse significant relationship between the

percentage of disturbed cover throughout the year

prior to the breeding population survey period;

indicating the importance of undisturbed cover for

prairie chickens throughout the year for nesting, brood

rearing, and winter survival.

Table 5.

The greater prairie chicken is an “indicator species” of

the health and vigor of native grasslands and is a

reflection of the management of native grasslands. In

the 1930’s, 21 refuges existed with breeding populations

of greater prairie chickens and, by 1963, the only

remaining breeding populations existed on Ft.

Niobrara-Valentine NWRs. Since the 1980’s, a

considerable effort has been put forth within the Ft.

Niobrara-Valentine NWR Complex to increase the

health, vigor, and residual cover amounts of native

grasslands for upland nesting birds by controlling the

timing of grazing and rest treatments.

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. The Service has never attempted to

reintroduce pronghorn antelope to this Refuge. Coyote

predation is the primary factor influencing the survival

of pronghorn on the Refuge.

Other wildlife have undoubtedly benefitted from the

enhancement of Sandhill Prairie; however, specific

surveys have not been carried out to document

changes in the numerous species present on Valentine

NWR.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 17

Grassland Management History

Livestock grazing has occurred on Valentine NWR

since establishment. However, the level of grazing

dramatically increased during the early 1950’s, and by

the early 1960’s, annual grazing use exceeded 50,000

animal unit months (AUM). Virtually the entire Refuge

grassland acreage was grazed or hayed. The two

Natural Research Areas, totaling 1,381 acres, were not

grazed. This level of grazing had a negative impact on

wildlife and vegetation on the Refuge.

In 1971, a grassland management study team was

formed to look into the situation and recommend

appropriate corrective actions. The major management

recommendations of the team were:

P Zone all meadows based on their value for nesting

waterfowl.

P Stop annual mowing of meadows.

P Improve native plant vigor and composition by

prescribed burning, mowing, and grazing with

alternating periods of rest.

P Maintain nesting cover by providing 40- to 100-acre

undisturbed blocks for three to eight years.

P Hold units in reserve through normal attrition of

permittees to allow for flexible and intensive

manipulation.

P Initiate restoration of native vegetation on priority

meadows beginning in 1972.

P Develop small food plots (i.e., weed patches) to

promote greater diversity and abundance of

wildlife species.

P Stop season-long grazing and promote restoration

and maintenance of range condition by use of rest,

fall-deferment, deferred-rotation, and rest-rotation

systems.

P Establish wilderness area; remove grazing

facilities and possibly employ summer grazing.

P Initiate adequate monitoring techniques to

evaluate qualitative and quantitative changes in

vegetation and response by wildlife.

Recommendations of the team have generally been

implemented except that the Wilderness proposal has

not received Congressional approval; mowing has been

reduced by approximately 85 percent; and maintaining

cover in undisturbed condition, for periods of three to

eight years, has annually involved less than 20 percent

of the total grassland acreage of Valentine NWR.

In 1986, rotational grazing was phased out and

short-duration grazing initiated. Use allowed by

permittees was retained, but as permittees dropped

out of the program, they were not replaced. Between

1986 and 1997, permittees went from 13 to 9 and use

from approximately 9,000 to 6,000 AUMs.

Public Use History

Since the Refuge’s establishment, public use has been

mostly limited to recreational opportunities centered

around wildlife/wildlands observation and education,

as well as hunting and fishing.

Current Refuge Resources Management

Grassland Management

Cattle grazing, rest, and prescribed fire are used to

manage grasslands on the Refuge. The 61,861 acres of

grassland on the Refuge are divided into 327 habitat

units by barbed wire and electric fences. Of this

acreage, 48,755 is in hills and 13,106 in meadows. Plans

are made each year to either graze, rest, or prescribe

burn grasslands on the Refuge.

In 1997, 34,789 acres (56 percent) of Refuge grasslands

were rested. Rested grasslands are those that are not

grazed by cattle or burned by prescribed fire. Refuge

studies have documented that rested grasslands are

preferred nesting cover for waterfowl and grouse.

Grassland management is designed to maximize

undisturbed cover. Undisturbed cover is grassland that

is not grazed, burned by either wild or prescribed fire,

or effected by hail for the preceding year’s growing

season and the current year’s nesting season. In 1997,

56 percent of the Refuge grasslands were in

undisturbed cover through June 30.

In 1997, a total of 388 acres (less than 1 percent) of

grassland in seven habitat units were burned using

prescribed fire. Prescribed fire is used to invigorate

native grasses, reduce cedar trees in grasslands, and

control invader grasses such as brome and Kentucky

bluegrass. Prescribed fires are planned and conducted

by a fire crew from the Fort Niobrara/Valentine NWR

Complex. Wildfires on the Refuge are aggressively

suppressed by the same fire crew and local fire

departments under cooperative agreements.

Nine permittees held annual permits to graze

approximately 6,600 animal use months (AUMs) over

the period April 1, 1997, through March 30, 1998. The

permittees have held permits for many years and all

own land either adjacent to or near the Refuge. Refuge

staff plans a grazing program for each permittee to

maintain and improve the condition of Refuge

grassland for wildlife. Grazing permittees are charged

at market rate for use. Improvements and repairs to

wells, fences, tanks, and other facilities needed for the

program are paid for by the permittees, and the cost

deducted from their final bill. In 1997, $26,759 was

spent on improvements and deducted from final

billings. Deductions are also made from billings for

frequent moves of cattle and grazing treatments that

differ from normal ranching practices. In 1997, $46,203

was collected and deposited in the Refuge Revenue

Sharing Account.
18 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

The methods and expected results for the different

grazing strategies used are explained below.

Spring grazing treatment is done before the end of

May on sub-irrigated meadow sites. The cattle are in

the unit for more than two weeks. Cattle eat or

trample most of the residual cover. They also over

graze and thus reduce undesirable cool season exotic

grasses (Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome).

Meadows hayed are also sometimes given this

treatment to add fertilizer. Dramatic results occur with

this treatment. Exotic cool season grasses are

suppressed and native warm seasons (switchgrass and

others) increase in vigor and density. The disadvantage

is the loss of the unit for nesting in the year of treatment

and a lower waterfowl nesting density in the following

year. Often the unit can, however, be rested for up to

five years following treatment. In 1997, 30 habitat

units totaling 6,099 acres (9 percent of grassland)

received a spring grazing treatment and included some

areas that were later hayed.

Spring short-duration grazing is grazing a unit for less

than two weeks during May. Generally the cattle are in

the unit for only 3 to 5 days. This type of grazing is

limited to hill units to stimulate growth of grasses,

especially cool seasons. The short exposure times

eliminate overgrazing. In 1997, ten habitat units

totaling 3,280 acres (5 percent of grassland) had spring

short-duration grazing treatments. Where possible,

units grazed later in summer the previous year are

grazed using this treatment. This both varies

treatment and reduces disturbance to nesting cover.

Most units grazed with spring short-duration grazing

show excellent growth of native vegetation by fall.

Short-duration summer grazing is done from June 1

through September 1. Cattle are in a unit for less than

two weeks. Most units are grazed only 3 to 5 days and

the cattle moved onto the next unit. Electric fences are

used to break up larger units and increase stock

density. Most short-duration summer grazing is

completed by mid-July. In 1997, 79 habitat units

totaling 19,723 acres (32 percent of grassland) were

short-duration summer grazed. Units grazed by this

method show good growth by fall if adequate moisture

is received. If little or no late summer rainfall is

received, regrowth is less, especially in those units

grazed in late July or August.

Summer grazing is done from June 1 through

September 1, and cattle are in the unit for two weeks

or longer. In 1997, no acres were summer grazed. If

done, this is in larger units that have not been cross

fenced.

Fall grazing is done from September through

November. Fall grazing can reduce mulch

accumulations and add fertilization. If done at the

proper time, cattle will also graze out small wetlands

dominated by prairie cordgrass and leave the

surrounding upland vegetation alone. Generally the

wetlands have green vegetation in them while the

uplands have only cured grasses. Grazing in the

wetlands recycles nutrients and provides pair habitat

for ducks in the spring. Most units that are fall grazed

are then given a spring grazing treatment the

following year. In 1997, six habitat units totaling 1,446

acres (2 percent of grassland) were fall grazed.

Winter grazing is done from November through April.

In winter grazing, cattle are fed hay on a feed ground

in a unit. The hay comes from the Refuge. Winter

feeding creates dense weed patches for several years

following the treatment. These weed patches provide

winter food for deer, pheasants, and other resident

wildlife. Units with a history of winter grazing

combined with feeding also have excellent growth of

vegetation. Resident wildlife also use waste grain from

the feeding operation. In 1997, three habitat units

totaling 1,167 acres (2 percent of grassland) were

winter grazed.

Haying was done on 714 acres (1 percent of grassland)

of sand, sub-irrigated, and wetland range sites and

yielded 1,520 tons of hay in 1997. Haying is done on a

share-basis with three permittees receiving 60 percent

and the Refuge receiving 40 percent of the hay

harvested. Some hay is also put up on a contract with

the cost deducted from permittees grazing bills. Most

of the meadows hayed are also grazed either in the fall

or spring. This adds fertilization to the meadows and

improves the quality and quantity of hay produced.

Haying is used to provide browse areas for Canada

geese, prairie grouse, and deer, and for winter feed for

the Texas Longhorn herd at Fort Niobrara NWR. In

some years, part of the Refuge share of hay is used for

road repair and maintenance. This was not done in

1997.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 19

Wetlands Management

Most of the lakes, marshes, and wetlands on the

Refuge are natural and have no structures for water

level management. Drainage ditches put in before the

area was a Refuge can still be found in several

locations. These ditches are only active in high-water

periods and are generally not effective in draining the

Refuge wetlands.

Several of the nine lakes open to sport fishing have

dikes and structures that offer limited water

management capabilities. On four lakes, water levels

are generally held at a level higher than the natural

level to reduce the possibility of a winter-kill of sport

fish. In normal water years, the Refuge staff releases

water from these lakes at such a time as to not impact

downstream landowners’ haying operations. In recent

high-water years, water has run continuously from

these lakes. These lakes also have fish barriers to keep

the carp from migrating between lakes and infesting

new waters. The lakes open to sport fishing were

pumped and treated with rotenone to kill the carp

between 1975 and 1982. Following treatment, they

were restocked with sport fish and have been managed

as sport fisheries. Sport fish are stocked frequently,

and on occasion, moved between lakes.

Threatened and Endangered Species Management

Threatened and endangered species recorded on the

Refuge are blowout penstemon, western prairie

fringed orchid, American burying beetle, bald eagle,

whooping crane, and least tern. Managing and

maintaining prairie habitat by using rest, fire, and

grazing will benefit these species.

Surveys for blowout penstemon have been conducted

on the Refuge and only several naturally occurring

plants found each year. Nine areas of blowout

penstemon have been transplanted onto the Refuge

during the past three years under a University of

Nebraska cooperative program. About 2,000 seedlings

per year were raised and transplanted in suitable

habitat during 1996 to 1998.

Western prairie fringed orchids are surveyed in July

when in bloom. They grow in some areas mowed for

hay. In these areas, the plants are marked with stakes

so they are not cut. Areas where the orchids grow are

not grazed during the flowering season. The Service

assists the Task Force for Population Habitat Viability

Analysis for the orchid.

American burying beetles have been documented on

the Refuge.

Bald eagles are common winter residents on the

Refuge. Whooping cranes, and least terns are only

rarely seen. No special management is conducted.

Occasionally, in the past, areas of the Refuge were

closed to the public when whooping cranes were

present on Refuge meadows. This closure is repeated

when whooping cranes use the Refuge during

migration.

Indigenous Wildlife Management

Wildlife diversity, with the exception of large ungulates

and their predators, is relatively unchanged in the

Nebraska Sandhills as compared to most areas of the

United States. Moreover, since the 1980’s, the

ecological integrity of Sandhill Prairie on Valentine

NWR has been enhanced by planned treatments of

grazing, prescribed fire, and rest. These planned

treatments have resulted in a tremendous

improvement in the vigor and composition of native

vegetation, natural aesthetics, and simultaneously

provided greater amounts of residual vegetation for

indigenous grassland wildlife than is available

throughout the remainder of the 19,000 square miles of

the Nebraska Sandhills.

Long-term monitoring of key indicator species has

documented that waterfowl (particularly mallard) and

prairie grouse (particularly prairie chicken)

populations have benefitted from the greater amounts

of residual and/or undisturbed vegetative cover. In

fact, the Fort Niobrara and Valentine NWR’s are the

only Refuges that have retained historic populations of

greater prairie chickens in the System; and in both

cases, these populations have increased since the

mid-1980’s.

Positive effects on other indigenous wildlife species

that require greater amounts of vegetative cover

undoubtedly exist; however, specific documentation is

not available for Valentine NWR.

The Service conducts very limited trapping of

mammalian predators and snakes on a nesting island

in the Marsh Lakes to benefit nesting waterfowl. The

Refuge has a trapping plan targeted to predator

control and muskrat disease outbreaks. No trapping by

the public took place on the Refuge in 1997.

Exotic and Invading Species Management

Exotic and invading plant species are controlled

through an integrated pest management approach.

Prescribed fire, rest, and grazing are the main tools

used for controlling exotic and invading plants to

maintain healthy prairies. Spring grazing treatments

are especially effective in reducing Kentucky

bluegrass, the most widespread invader on the Refuge.

Spring grazing treatments and fire are also being used

to reduce smooth brome grass. Fire is also used to

remove cedar trees invading native prairies. The

acreage for these treatments are listed under the

grassland section.

Leafy spurge is present in several locations covering

less than ten acres. Insect releases for biological

control have been made in some patches of spurge and

several patches have been sprayed with herbicide.

Canada thistle is also present in small amounts in

meadows and along the edges of wetlands. High water

has reduced the range of this plant on the Refuge.

Insect releases for its control have also been made.

Reed canary grass and Russian olive are present in

small areas but have not been treated.
20 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Proposed Wilderness Area

Habitat management in the proposed wilderness area is

accomplished with grazing as described previously in the

Grassland Management section. Improvements include

windmills and tanks, barbed and electric wire fences.

These improvements are maintained by permittees,

Refuge staff, and a contractor with the use of the current

tools of less habitat impact (motorized vehicles -

primarily pickup trucks and small ATVs). Permittees

use horses, pick-up trucks, and ATVs to move livestock

within the area being proposed as wilderness. No roads

or trails are maintained. Old trail roads are becoming

less obvious or disappearing altogether as use,

especially by pickup trucks is declining. Some haying

operations, with the use of mechanized equipment,

take place in the proposed wilderness area.

Wildfires occurring in the proposed wilderness area

are extinguished using fire engines. No prescribed

fires have been effectuated in the area. Refuge staff

use pickup and small ATVs on occasion to access the

area for biological surveys, search and rescue, and

maintenance. Currently, no known infestations of

noxious weeds occur in the proposed wilderness area;

thus, no control activities have been conducted.

Current public use of the proposed wilderness area is

mainly for hunting and by a small number of hikers.

Access is by foot or horseback. No use of motor

vehicles is permitted for hunting or game retrieval

activities. Hunters use wheeled carts to transport deer

out of the area. None of the lakes in the proposed

wilderness area are open to fishing.

Public Use

Valentine NWR has no accurate counts of the Refuge’s

visitors; thus, the quality of information on public use

on the Refuge is poor. For calendar year 1997, visitations

to Valentine NWR were estimated at 9,500 visits with

approximately 90 percent made up of anglers. Fishing

visits were lower in 1997 due to poor ice conditions

during the winter fishing season. The remaining 10

percent of visitors were mostly hunters. Increasing

numbers of people are visiting Valentine NWR for the

purpose of bird and other wildlife observation.

News releases on Refuge events are written and

distributed to area television and radio stations, as well

as to newspaper outlets. The Fort Niobrara/Valentine

NWR Complex also hosts special events including the

Nebraska Federal Junior Duck Stamp Contest, a kids

fishing day, a steel shot clinic, and a nature fest.

Currently, some requests for tours and educational

programs are denied due to staffing shortages.

Valentine NWR is outfitted with three information

kiosks at major entry points to the Refuge. The kiosks

have general information on the Refuge, a map,

information on management of grasslands for wildlife,

and leaflet dispensers.

Blinds for observing prairie grouse displays are set up

in the spring and receive plenty of use. People come to

the Refuge to birdwatch and enjoy the prairie. No

counts are made for this type of visitation, but Refuge

staff believe that it may be increasing.

Hunting: Waterfowl hunting is permitted only in the

Watts, Rice, and Duck Lakes areas of the Refuge

according to the State’s seasons and limits. No counts

were made, but it is estimated that about 75 visits were

made by duck hunters.

The Refuge is open to hunting of sharp-tailed grouse

and prairie chickens during the State set season that

runs from mid-September through December. The

Refuge is a popular place for out-of-state, as well as

Nebraska, hunters to pursue prairie grouse. Grouse

hunters are surveyed via wing collection boxes placed

around the Refuge. In 1997, 258 hunter days were

recorded through the collection boxes. However, not all

hunters participate in the voluntary collection program.

The Refuge is also open to pheasant hunting during

the State set season that runs from the first weekend

of November through the end of January. Pheasant

hunters made an estimated 100 visits to the Refuge in

1997. This is a large number of hunters considering

that bird numbers remain very low.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 21

The Refuge is open to deer hunting during the

Nebraska rifle deer season in November. Most of the

deer hunting takes place on opening weekend. In 1997,

a total of 88 deer were harvested including both

white-tailed and mule deer. These figures come from

deer checked by Refuge law enforcement officers and

records obtained at Nebraska Game and Parks check

stations. The Refuge probably receives the heaviest

hunting pressure of any location within the State

hunting units. A higher quality hunt is possible if

opening day is avoided.

The Refuge is also open for muzzle loader deer

hunting. The season runs for two weeks in December.

Hunting pressure is light and only seven muzzle loader

hunters were known to hunt on Valentine NWR in

1997. This form of hunting is, however, becoming more

popular. Permits are unlimited and statewide; either

sex.

The Refuge is also open to archery deer hunting which

runs from mid-September through the end of

December. Only a few hunters were known to have

visited the Refuge to archery hunt in 1997.

Coyotes can be hunted on the Refuge from December

1 through March 15. A free permit is required and can

be obtained in person or by mail. The permit is a

postcard that the hunter returns at the end of the

season and includes harvest information. For the

1996-1997 season, 37 permits were issued.

Fishing: Nine Refuge lakes (Watts, Rice, Duck, West

Long, Pelican, Hackberry, Dewey, Clear, and Willow)

are open to fishing year round. Fishing, especially ice

fishing, accounts for most visits to Valentine NWR. An

estimated 7,900 visits were made for fishing in 1997.

This figure is based on very limited counts of anglers

throughout the year. In 1997, ice was on the lakes for

fewer days than average resulting in lower visits for

ice fishing. In some heavy use years, up to 17,000

anglers have been counted.

Bass, perch, bluegill, muskie, saugeye, and northern

pike are present in the fishing lakes. Size limits are in

effect to protect larger pike needed for carp control,

and minnows are prohibited on Refuge lakes to

prevent introduction of exotic fish. Gas powered boats

are not allowed. Catch-and-release for bass and muskie

is in effect on Watts Lake. The Refuge lakes are most

noted for large bass, catch-and-release northern pike

fishing, and large bluegills. Many Master Angler

(trophy) fish are caught each year.

The Fort Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex has one

seasonal and four collateral duty law enforcement

officers.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Limited cultural resource studies have been conducted

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

other groups to locate and describe and evaluate

cultural and paleontological resources (Burgett and

Nickel 1999). Current protection and interpretation of

cultural and paleontological resources is minimal as

well.

Monitoring

The Refuge has one full-time biologist who conducts

biological monitoring on the Refuge with occasional

assistance from other staff. The main emphasis is on

grassland monitoring. Grassland transects are run

each year to evaluate cover, composition, and grassland

health. More than 100 photo points are taken to

document long-term changes to the grassland.

Techniques and information are shared with the Forest

Service.

Refuge staff completes segments of statewide surveys

in cooperation with the Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission including sandhill crane, goose, waterfowl,

turkey, deer, wintering eagle, pheasant brood, grouse

brood, and prairie grouse breeding and productivity.

The Refuge staff maintains a weather station in

cooperation with the National Weather Service at

Hackberry Lake. Refuge staff read and report on U.S.

Geological Survey groundwater wells at more than 30

locations on the Refuge. Both these efforts have been

conducted for 60 years and yields long-term trend

information. Surface water levels are also recorded for

some Refuge lakes.

Surveys for sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chicken

are performed and used as an indicator of grassland

health. In the spring, lek counts are conducted; in the

fall, wing collection boxes are maintained. Part of the

lek count is a State count block and this information is

passed on to the Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission. Wing collection from hunters is done in

cooperation with the Forest Service and the Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission.

Pair and brood counts for waterfowl are done on the

Marsh Lakes to assess waterfowl production. Nesting

success of ducks is monitored on an island in the

Marsh Lakes as part of a long-term study. Colonial and

marsh nesting birds are also counted in some areas of

the Refuge. Monitoring for avian botulism is conducted

in late summer on Refuge lakes and wetlands. An

annual count of muskrat houses is done.

Fishery surveys using electrofiishing, gill, and trap

nets are done on Refuge lakes open to fishing on a

regular basis by USFWS Fisheries Assistance Office

biologists.

Surveys of the threatened western prairie fringed

orchid and endangered blowout penstemon are

conducted. When orchids are found they are marked to

prevent mowing them during haying operations.
22 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Purpose of and Need for a

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. Valentine NWR,

located in north-central Nebraska (see Figure 1), 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) 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. It is the Service’s 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.

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, over 500

national wildlife refuges located in the 50 States and a

number of U.S. Territories exist. Today, the System

encompasses more than 93 million acres.

This System provides important habitat for many

native mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes,

invertebrates, and plants; “trust resources” for which

the Federal government is ultimately responsible. 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. Chapter IV 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.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 23

Figure 1. Vicinity Map
24 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 25

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. Many refuges within the

System provide breeding, migration, or wintering

habitats for federally listed 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

habitats to support populations of waterfowl as

required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the

North American Waterfowl Management Plan.

Valentine NWR also supports breeding populations as

well as providing migration habitat during spring and

fall periods. 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.

(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.
26 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

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.

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Purpose

Valentine NWR was established by Executive Order

No. 7142, August 14, 1935, “. . . reserved and set apart

. . . as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory

birds and other wildlife.”

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge

Vision Statement

Valentine NWR will strive to preserve, restore, and

enhance the ecological integrity of Nebraska Sandhill

uplands and associated wetlands as habitat for

migratory birds and other indigenous wildlife for the

benefit of present and future generations of

Americans.

Valentine 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 habitat, 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 and 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,

environmental education and interpretation. As

priority public uses of the System, they 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.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 27

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

multiple-use mandate (e.g., 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 wildlife-dependent

recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general

public use of the System.

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.

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 Valentine 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 and thus will continue to be allowed and

encouraged in this Refuge, with the exception of

certain designated areas.

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.

Existing Partnerships

The Refuge works with organizations and individuals

in a variety of areas but mostly in monitoring.

Cooperative efforts in monitoring are listed in the next

section. Fort Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex staff

works with the following groups: with private

landowners through the Partners in Wildlife Program;

with the Natural Resource Conservation Service in the

Wetland Reserve Program; with Farmers Service

Agency in the easement program; with Cherry County

Extension in educational programs; with local law

enforcement; with the Niobrara Council on wild and

scenic river management; State, Federal, and local

agricultural agencies in weed control; U.S. Forest

Service; and U.S. Geological Survey.

The Refuge has formal agreements with rural fire

protection districts to suppress wildfires both on and

off the Refuge. Biologists from four universities

regularly study reptile physiology at the Refuge. The

Refuge plans grazing for, maintains the fence on, and

patrols the Willow Lake Game Management Area

adjacent to the Refuge. The Service works with

Nebraska Game and Parks in fish stocking, fish egg

collection and law enforcement. The Refuge staff

works with the eight Refuge grazing permittees to

manage grasslands on the Refuge using cattle.
28 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 29

Planning Process

Description of the 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 their 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 for 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.

Valentine NWR is located 20 miles south of Valentine,

Nebraska, along Highway 83 (see Figure 1). The

Refuge is administered as part of the Fort

Niobrara-Valentine NWR Complex with the main

office located five miles east of the city of Valentine.

The Hackberry Headquarters on Valentine NWR is

located along State Spur 16B.

Comprehensive conservation planning efforts for

Valentine 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 Draft 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 opportunity to speak with Service representatives

and to share their comments, issues, and concerns.

The working group and the Service’s management and

planning staff participated in a two-day tour of the

Fort Niobrara NWR and Valentine NWR Complex in

April 1997. The tour gave participants an opportunity

to view the habitats, the fenced animal management

and the prominent wildlife species of these Refuges,

discuss management aspects of these Refuges, and

give planning staff ideas for consideration in the

planning process.

During the planning process, the review and working

groups had access to information on objectives and

alternatives that were considered. Since then and

throughout the planning process, written comments

have been exchanged and verbal conversations have

been held among members of these groups and other

stakeholders of this Refuge. The Draft CCP/EA was

the first opportunity that these groups and the public

have had to review the entire planning effort and the

Plan.

The Draft Plan (and Environmental Assessment) 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. After reading

and compiling all the comments received, the review

team prepared a meeting to brief 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 Valentine 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.
30 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Planning Issues

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified

through discussions with planning team members and

key contacts and through the public scoping process,

which began with an open house scoping session 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 the 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

Valentine NWR. This section also contains information

developed by the Service throughout the planning

process on the same issues.

The Draft CCP/EA for Valentine NWR had proposed

to reintroduce into the Refuge an important ecological

factor currently missing from the Sandhills habitats.

The Service believes that the historical grassland

management setting and species that contributed to

that setting were important. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service is focused on preserving wildlife

species and wildlands and strongly believes in

maintaining ecological relationships. A major

herbivore, the bison, is missing from Valentine NWR.

Although bison have been as close as the Fort

Niobrara NWR, the Service has substituted domestic

cattle throughout the years in an attempt to achieve

the overall habitat objective of the Refuge. It is

believed that this was an appropriate time to begin to

phase into this change and return the species and, with

that, put a major species back into the ecological

setting of the proposed Wilderness Area of the Refuge.

Another ecological force, fire, is also believed to be

important. Obviously, concerns with the safety of this

tool exist. Recent increases in the Service’s funding for

prescribed fire and increased ability to use the tool

safely, make it an appropriate time to expand the use of

this tool and expand the benefit it provides to

grassland ecology.

The Service will use an adaptive management strategy

to implement this Plan. The primary focus will be to

achieve the habitat objectives defined for migratory

birds and other wildlife with domestic cattle and

prescribed fires being the most significant habitat

management tools.

Other aspects of the Plan are similar to the current

management regime of the Refuge. These programs

are largely successful, well received by the public, and

no reasons exist to change them significantly. Some

additional discussion on this issue is found in the

Environmental Assessment in Appendix H.

Bison Reintroduction

The Refuge’s Draft CCP/EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1999) had proposed the introduction of bison

into sections of the area of the Refuge being

considered for designation as wilderness. The purposes

of this introduction would have been: a) to return the

most important large ungulate of the western plains to

part of its former range and b) to utilize bison as a

grazing “tool” to manage grassland habitats on this

sector of the Refuge. The bison would come preferably

from excess stock at Fort Niobrara NWR. The habitat

is currently manipulated by domestic cattle from

neighboring landowners who have a Special Use

Permit from the Service.

Many people were concerned, for various reasons,

about the Service’s proposal to reintroduce this

historic and important herbivore, that once roamed

freely through the western plains, to a portion of the

area under consideration for designation as a

wilderness area. Many other commentators, however,

met this proposal with approval and encouraged the

Service to pursue this introduction.

After considering the many comments received on this

issue, the Service has decided to modify how and

where the bison will roam on Valentine NWR. The

Service will reintroduce bison, preferably surplus

bison from Fort Niobrara NWR, only to that area of

Valentine NWR that is proposed as a Wilderness Area

and only as funding becomes available (i.e.,

partnerships, grants, cooperative agreements,

appropriations, etc.) to support the infrastructure

costs and management of this reintroduction. Bison is

one option, along with permittee grazing, that the

Service could use to manage habitat in the proposed

Wilderness Area. The Service will monitor and

evaluate the affects of bison on this area to ensure that

bison contribute to the goals and objectives of the

Refuge.

Loss of Permittees’ Privileges and Possible Adverse

Impact to the Sandhills Habitat: Many of the

comments opposing the reintroduction of bison into

Valentine NWR came from neighboring landowners

holding permits to graze the area where bison could

have been reintroduced. Reintroduction of this large

ungulate would have resulted in the loss of these

special permits for these ranchers and, consequently, a

modification of their ranching practices and the income

they derive from it. This was also a source of concern

for the local city and county governments as they could

have also seen their revenue decrease accordingly.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 31

Other concerns expressed by commentators regarding

the Service’s proposed bison reintroduction hinged on

the possibility that free-roaming bison could not be

handled as readily as domestic cattle to care for

Sandhills habitats to attain the stated goals of this

Plan (both for habitat and, consequently, species

dependent on it such as the federally listed western

prairie fringed orchid and blowout penstemon, and

bird species, such as prairie chickens). Free-roaming

ungulates would change the current grazing pattern of

high-impact, short-duration to year-long grazing.

As a result of public comment and additional

consideration of the various alternatives, the Service

will continue to use domestic cattle as an effective tool

to maintain and improve habitat for wildlife. The

Service has developed and maintained a very effective

habitat program for wildlife with the cooperation and

participation of the current permittees. This will

remain. The Service will continue to use the services of

the current permittees subject to Service policy. The

Service will not discontinue the Special Use Permits of

the current permittees after ten years. Rather, Special

Use Permits with current permittees to achieve certain

grazing prescriptions will continue. Domestic cattle

will be utilized as the major grazing tool to achieve the

overall habitat objectives for wildlife on Refuge

grasslands.

Economic Considerations of the Proposed

Reintroduction of Bison: Some commentators

expressed reservations about the proposed reintroduction of

bison due to negative economic implications. Many

commentators found the cost of reintroduction and

management of bison in Valentine to be unjustified

given the fact that habitat management using domestic

cattle is already in place, has demonstrated to be

practical and successful, and continuation of this

practice would not incur further expenses for the

Refuge, and ultimately, for the taxpayer. As stated in

the Planning Issues Section of this document, the

Service believed that the historic grassland

management setting and species that contributed to

that setting were important. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service is focused on preserving wildlife

species and wildlands and strongly believes in

maintaining interrelationship of organisms and their

environment. A major herbivore, the bison, is missing

from Valentine NWR. Bison and permittee cattle can

be used to manage the health and vigor of the Refuge

grasslands.

Finally, other economic concerns expressed by some

commentators (mostly from landowners neighboring

the Refuge) was the possibility of bison roaming

outside of the Refuge and damaging private property

and the possible infection of their cattle with brucellosis

from bison reintroduced to adjacent Valentine NWR

lands. This concern with brucellosis infecting domestic

cattle is unfounded given the fact that the bison for the

proposed reintroduction would have come from excess

animals at Fort Niobrara NWR, or another Service

owned herd, which are constantly monitored and

vaccinated, and are certified to be free of brucellosis.

Genetic Diversity and Pool Preservation: Some

commentators expressed their belief that it was totally

unnecessary to reintroduce bison into Valentine NWR

for the sake of having more bison present and

protected within Federal lands given the fact that

many herds of bison already exist not only under

Federal jurisdiction but on private property as well.

Nevertheless, it is important for the Service to point

out that, according to several researchers and

geneticists (some of which provided the Service with

written comments and scientific information in support

for bison reintroduction into Valentine NWR) it would

be good to expand the Fort Niobrara NWR bison herd,

possibly into Valentine NWR or other Federal lands

because of the unique and genetically pure bison herd

at Fort Niobrara NWR. Genetically pure bison is of

tremendous importance to the continued existence and

survival of this species, one of symbols of our Nation.

Some geneticists that have performed research on

bison herds would like to see the Fort Niobrara NWR

bison herd extend into other sites to prevent a possible

catastrophic epizootic event. Thus, the proposed

reintroduction into Valentine NWR will serve the

purpose of enlarging the nationwide population of true

bison, with all the characteristics that have allowed

this wild ungulate to survive in the wild in the harsh

environment of the American West.

Human Safety: A few other commentators expressed

concern over the proposed reintroduction of bison from

the standpoint of safety for hikers, hunters, anglers,

bird watchers, and other visitors to the proposed

wilderness area of the Refuge where the bison had

been proposed for reintroduction. The problem,

according to these commentators, would have been

that some areas would not have been readily available

to outdoor recreation as once were if the bison were

introduced into the Refuge. However, visitors to the

Refuge can enjoy a safe wildlife-dependent recreation

experience on the Refuge. The proposed Wilderness

Area on the Refuge will be the only area inhabited by

bison, which leave approximately 56,000 acres of the

Refuge without bison. Bison will provide an important

wilderness experience for those that choose to recreate

in this portion of the Refuge. Appropriate safety

messages, educational efforts and perhaps at times,

temporary closure of certain areas of the Wilderness

Area will be part of the bison management program.
32 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Introduction

Prairie Dogs and The Sandhills Habitat: Many

commentators, most of which appeared to be adjacent

landowners to the Refuge and cattlemen expressed

vigorous opposition to the Service’s proposal to

introduce this species into the habitats of the Refuge

classifying this animal as a pest that damages the

habitat, whose burrows represent a hazard to domestic

cattle and horses, and who are potential threats to

human health. Some also pointed out that the Sandhills

are not adequate habitat for this species, otherwise the

animal would already be present there.

However, 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

(i.e., 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. Valentine NWR, which was setaside by Congress as a reservation for migratory birds

and other wildlife, is located well within the historical

range of this species even though considerable

controversy exists as to whether this species ever

inhabited the Sandhills region and whether it could

survive in this area. Given the purpose for establishing

this Refuge, prairie dog colonies would enhance the

diversity of habitats used by local and migratory

avifauna, which would in turn be in compliance with the

stated purpose of the Refuge, and aid in the

preservation efforts of federally listed species dependent

on prairie dogs and the habitats they help shape.

The Service is interested in creating a diverse mosaic

of habitats in the System that are conducive to a wide

range of indigenous and migratory wildlife, especially

bird species. An important component of the western

plains that is currently missing from this Refuge are

black-tailed prairie dogs. As noted earlier in this Plan,

this species is responsible for the creation of a unique

habitat that is not only conducive but essential to

certain migratory birds, but to a variety of mammals

and reptiles as well. The Service had proposed to allow

this species gather and grow into a colony

encompassing approximately 400 acres within suitable

habitat in the Refuge. However, the Service decided to

postpone the implementation of this habitat

management strategy until sufficient research and

studies have performed and the data studied to

determine if any of the Refuge’s habitats are conducive

to a successful introduction of this species. Should

adequate and suitable habitats for prairie dog

introduction be found in the Refuge, the Service would

prepare a step-down management plan to deal with all

aspects of this introduction and management of this

species, including the exclusion of this species where

their presence represents a safety hazard to Refuge

staff, neighbors and visitors.

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Populations and Private

Lands: Basically, the same commentators that

expressed opposition to the introduction of prairie dogs

into Refuge habitats shared views that black-tailed

prairie dogs are very common and widespread, and

seemed to also share the notion that prairie dogs are a

pest to be rid off rather than a species to protect; an

enemy of the cattle industry and farming some added.

The Service will conduct research in the interior of the

Refuge to determine if suitable black-tailed prairie dog

habitat exists. If suitable habitat is found in the

interior of this 71,516 acre Refuge, the Service will

release this species, allow them to expand to a

manageable population size, and control them within

the boundaries of the Refuge.

This proposed expansion is in line with the Service’s

efforts to protect the ever decreasing numbers and size

of black-tailed 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 western United States.

As a matter of fact, one subspecies, the Utah prairie

dog, is already a federally listed and protected species

under the Endangered Species Act, and lately, the

Service has been petitioned to list the black-tailed

prairie dog as well, given the precipitous decline in the

species populations. Most researchers attribute this

alarming population decline to human activities, specially

past and ongoing prairie dog eradication efforts. The

same highly effective eradication efforts that led to the

precipitous decline in prairie dog populations are believed

to have caused the disastrous decline in population and

near extinction of the federally listed black-footed

ferret. The Service is currently reviewing the petition

to list the black-tailed prairie dog and is concerned with

populations of other species that depend on prairie dogs,

such as the ferruginous hawk and other raptors.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 33

Prescribed Burns

Some commentators expressed concern and scepticism

to the Service’s proposal to utilize prescribed burns as

habitat management tools on the Refuge. Some

commentators wrote that prescribed burns are not a

viable grassland management tool in the Sandhills

habitats of Nebraska and that this practice could ruin

the fragile Sandhills ecosystem. But the Service

believes that, properly done (as proposed), this tool is

not only viable but of tremendous value to reinvigorate

and maintain the health of the Sandhills habitats. The

Service bases this assertion on the voluminous body of

evidence that research and data analysis has yielded

for many years not only on Service lands, but on

Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land

Management, and some private lands as well. Fire

ecology is an established and well grounded science.

The Service personnel that participate in prescribed

burns must always prepare a “burn plan” that has to

be reviewed and approved by the Service’s regional

fire ecologists prior to any prescribed burn taking

place. Furthermore, these plans must take into

consideration the possibility of a escaped fire (wildfire)

and have safety features to deal with eventualities such

as this.

Habitat, Human Structures, and Wildlife Protection

Many people, agencies, and environmental groups felt

that protecting and enhancing bird habitats should be

a priority over other management issues, followed by

protection and enhancement of other trust species and

trust resources. Some commented that inconspicuous

wildlife species, including reptiles (such as turtles),

butterflies and other insects, should also be considered

in the management objectives and goals of this Refuge

especially in relation to the Service’s proposal to

improve the Refuge’s road network. Some

commentators believe that improved Refuge road

conditions would automatically translate into higher

driving speeds by Refuge visitors; thus, higher risk of

cars and trucks running over some wildlife species,

specially slow-moving species such as turtles,

amphibians, and insects. Blanding’s and yellow mud

turtles are considered species of management concern

that the Refuge will take into consideration in the

management of Refuge resources.

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 Valentine 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 any other national

wildlife refuge will be to preserve, restore, and enhance

threatened and endangered species and migratory

birds, as well as species of management concern. To

carry out this responsibility, the Refuge’s flora and

fauna must be protected from human adverse impacts

(i.e., overgrazing, overburning, pollution, and disruptive

or incompatible activities). Public use of the Refuge’s

proposed Wilderness Area, and the rest of the Refuge

lands must be managed to prevent disturbance of

nesting birds. 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 wildlife protection, is an issue to be resolved

through effective adaptive management.

The Refuge will consider and implement safeguards for

wildlife species in conjunction with road rehabilitation

and enhancement, which might include: road design

that slows vehicular speeds, signaling (i.e., speed

signals, wildlife crossing signals, etc.), speed bumps, etc.

The Service received a few comments comparing the

wildlife diversity and rangeland health of private lands

adjoining Service lands to that of the Refuge, and

arguing that the range management techniques and

the history of domestic cattle grazing on their

properties had led to better wildlife habitats than those

present at the Refuge.

Those comments came mostly from landowners

adjacent to or in the general vicinity of the Refuge.

However, none of these commentators provided data

and thus, the Service believes these comments were

based solely on anecdotal observation or are a matter

of opinion. Wildlife biologists on Valentine NWR have

gathered data and information for many years

indicating substantial improvement in wildlife habitat

since 1972. This fact also has been acknowledged by

the State’s wildlife management agency, the Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission.
34 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Hunting, Recreation, and Other Public Uses

Some commentators expressed desire to see an

expansion of hunting opportunities at the Refuge,

opposition to the proposed closing of hunting

opportunities in the area of the Fire Tower, and

opposition to maintaining the hunting closure of the

Hackberry area of the Refuge. Some of the same

commentators also expressed opposition to any

introduction of elk to the Refuge, primarily due to the

possibility of transmission of chronic wasting disease

that these large ungulates can carry.

The Refuge is currently open to waterfowl, pheasant,

dove, prairie grouse, deer, and coyote hunting

throughout most of the Refuge. The Service considered

introducing elk to the Refuge, as a logical extension of

the proposed bison reintroduction to the Refuge.

However, the Service will not introduce elk at this

time.

The Hackberry CCC area and the Fire Tower area will

be closed to hunting due to safety concerns. The

Hackberry CCC area was and will continue to be

closed to hunting because State hunting regulations

ban this activity in close proximity to housing or

residential areas and buildings. The Fire Tower area

will be the site of a nature trail and visitor observation

deck. In order to ensure safety, quality of the

experience, and to avoid conflicts between hunters and

other visitors to the Refuge, the Service has decided to

close the Fire Tower area to any hunting activities.

Management of the Refuge’s Fisheries Resources

Some commentators expressed desire to see the

Service expand the sport fishing opportunities at the

Refuge and opposition towards the Service’s proposal

to continue with the current level of angling

opportunities. Some other commentators, who

apparently must have lacked, or misinterpreting the

information provided in the Draft CCP/EA, expressed

concern over the purported proposal by the Service to

decrease the level of fishing opportunities at the

Refuge. We are not sure why some commentators

believed this. The Refuge’s Draft CCP/EA preferred

alternative did not mention nor imply any decreased

sport fishing opportunities.

The Service intends to maintain the current level of

sport fishing opportunities at the Refuge. The nine

lakes on the Refuge open to fishing provide ample

opportunity for sport fishing. The lakes are seldom

crowded and produce many master angler bluegill,

northern pike, and bass. The Refuge staff will strive to

improve access to the fishing lakes by upgrading roads

and boat ramps. Fisheries surveys will be conducted

and stocking used to both improve and maintain sport

fishing in all Refuge lakes open to fishing. Other lakes

on the Refuge will be managed for migratory birds and

remain closed to sport fishing.

Funding and Staffing to Manage the Refuge

Managing this Refuge requires adequate funding and

staffing to effectively carry out habitat and wildlife

population management activities, as well as to ensure

public uses that are compatible with the System

mission, environmental interpretation, and education.

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.

As with all activities of the Service, the implementation

of the proposals of this Plan are subject to availability

of adequate funding and personnel. Congress has

instructed the Service to assess current management

conditions of the National Wildlife Refuge System and

to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan to

guide the activities of each refuge in the Nation for the

next 15 years. The Service intends to fulfill the goals

and objectives of each refuge as funding and personnel

become available to each refuge, and appropriation of

the funding must come from Congress in order for

these plans to come to fruition. If adequate funding

and personnel do not materialize, perhaps some of the

proposed activities will not take place and,

consequently, some of the goals and objectives stated

in the draft plans will not be attained. 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.

Some of the same commentators expressed reservations

or outright opposition to the need for the Service’s

proposal to construct and relocate an interpretive

center and office to a location near U.S. Highway 83

citing concerns for the total cost of such an enterprise

and questioning its real need. The Service believes

that an environmental education facility that is more

visible and accessible to the public will yield far more

benefits than the cost attached with building, staffing,

and maintaining it. Thus the Service’s intention to

increase its emphasis on environmental education by

creating a place where this important wildlifedependent use of the Refuge can better be attained.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 35

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, and collect all

possible relevant data and comments for the

preparation of these 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.
36 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 37

Summary of Refuge and

Resource Descriptions

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Valentine NWR is 71,516 acres in size and lies in the

heart of the Nebraska Sandhills, the largest sand dune

area in he Western Hemisphere and one of the largest

grass-stabilized regions in the world (Bleed and

Flowerday, 1989). The Sandhills are characterized by

rolling, vegetated sand dunes and interdunal valleys

which spread over the landscape from a northwest to

southeasterly direction. Native grasses predominate.

Many shallow lakes and wetlands are interspersed in

the lower valleys. Wildlife diversity, except large

ungulates and their predators, is relatively unchanged

since early settlement in the Sandhills.

Grassland comprises 90 percent of the 19,300 square

mile region with nearly 97 percent of the total acreage

being in private ownership (Bleed and Flowerday

1989). The predominant land-use of the Sandhills is

beef cattle production which can have significant

impact upon the biological diversity of native flora and

fauna. Management of lands adjacent to the Refuge

and throughout the Sandhills employ a combination of

grazing and haying to support the ranching economy.

A variety of grazing treatments and rotations are used.

Most meadows are mowed or hayed annually. Prescribed

fire is used very rarely. Grasslands seldom receive a

prolonged rest treatment.

In the Sandhills, habitat is not a limiting factor for

those species of wildlife that rely on, or are tolerant of,

disturbed cover (i.e., mowed and/or grazed grasslands).

Valentine NWR is one of the few areas in the Sandhills

where management can be dedicated to enhancing

those species of flora and fauna that do not thrive

under management strategies emphasizing economic

return.

An estimated 177,000 acres of open water and marsh

and 1,130,000 acres of wet meadows remain in the

Sandhills. These are mostly freshwater wetlands and

include wet meadows, shallow marshes, fens, alkaline

wetlands, and range in size from 1 to 2,300 acres with

80 percent of them less than 10 acres in size

(LaGrange 1997). Many Sandhills wetlands have been

drained in attempts to increase hay production.

Estimates of the amount drained range from 15

percent (McMurtry et al. 1972) to 46 percent (USFWS

1986). Wetland drainage continues to this day. On

Valentine NWR, drainage ditches were dug before the

area became a Refuge. Most do not carry water except

in very high water years.

An Atlas of the Sandhills, 1989, by Bleed and

Flowerday, is an excellent reference for those wanting

more in-depth information on the Sandhills of

Nebraska.

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. Valentine NWR, according to early

Service watershed-based ecosystem maps, lies within

the Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem.

The Service’s Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem team

has identified the five main areas of concern that need

to be addressed for this ecosystem, and they 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.
38 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Climate

The climatic patterns of the Nebraska Sandhills are

characteristic of the Central Great Plains: highly

variable climate characterized by cold winters and hot

summers, with frequent thunderstorms occurring from

the spring to late summer. Annual precipitation

averages 17 to 23 inches from the western to the

eastern portion of the Sandhills (Wilhite and Hubbard

1989) with approximately 65 percent occurring during

the May-to-September growing season (National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National

Climatic Data Center 1996) which, coupled with high

evapotranspiration rates, has significant ecological

effect on the region. Valentine NWR has been an

official weather station since 1935. Annual precipitation

since 1945 has averaged 21.6 inches. Temperature

extremes range from -38oF in the winter to 111oF

during the summer 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. Climatological

conditions have generally been favorable since the

mid-1970’s and relatively high annual precipitation

levels have resulted in positive net moisture balances

(annual precipitation minus open pan evaporation)

during most years since 1976.

Air Quality

Air quality is good thanks to the absence of significant

air pollution sources due to the distance to any urban

or industrial areas from the Refuge. The proposed

Valentine Wilderness is a Class 2 Status Area under

the Clean Air Act.

Geology

The geologic framework of the Refuge consists of

formations related to the Valentine Formation which is

a sandy, stream-deposited unit unconformably

overlying Rosebud formations and forming gentle

slopes; Sandhills are stabilized dune sand of the late

Pleistocene and Holocene age.

Soils

Soil groups and series found on the Refuge are mapped

and described in detail in the 1956 Soil Survey of

Cherry County. In 1997 and 1998, the soils of the

Refuge were surveyed for mapping by the Natural

Resource Conservation Service.

Most of the soils are wind-laid sand that has not been

held in place long by vegetation. They are light colored

and have little organic matter. The soils in basins,

valleys, and wet meadows have thicker and darker

surface layers and more organic matter than soils

found in the hills. Rainfall is quickly absorbed by the

sandy soils and causes little erosion and low evaporation

rates. Native grasses grow well in these conditions.

Soil exposed by overgrazing or plowing is subject to

wind erosion (Layton et al 1956). The main soil types

are the Valentine-Els-Tryon, Valentine-Thurman

Associations (Kuzila 1989), Valentine (fine sand,

undulating), Valentine-Rosebud (loamy fine sands,

undulating) and Dune Sand (stabilized, rolling).
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 39

Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses

Water Resources and Associated Wetlands

The Nebraska Sandhills overlay the High Plains

Aquifer - commonly referred to as the Ogallala

Aquifer. This groundwater resource creates an

interspersion of shallow lakes, semipermanent, and

temporary wetlands in the lower elevations and valleys

where the groundwater level is exposed. Water

resources are the driving force supporting the

ecological diversity and integrity of the Nebraska

Sandhills.

Thirty-seven major wetland complexes are on

Valentine NWR totaling approximately 13,000 acres.

These wetlands are a mix of shallow lakes, marshes,

seasonal wetlands, wet meadows, fens, and small

streams that run during high water periods. Wetlands

are well dispersed throughout the Refuge grasslands.

Submergent and emergent vegetation in lakes and

marshes range from very sparse to dense depending

on soils and alkalinity. Emergents include cattail,

bulrush, wild rice, and phragmites. Vegetation

bordering wetlands is primarily grasses. Some lakes

are bordered by trees on the south shores.

Water control structures have been installed on six

lakes, however, only four can increase water elevations

significantly above the maximum, naturally functioning

level. Several Refuge lakes have water level gauges

where records of lake levels are recorded. Refuge staff

also record water levels in U.S. Geological Survey

groundwater survey wells. Some old drainage ditches

dug before the Refuge was established remain. These

ditches are only partially functional due to siltation

and perhaps poor design. In several areas, wetlands

have been dug out in wet meadows and fens to produce

open water areas.

Most of the wetlands on the Refuge rise and fall

depending on precipitation and groundwater levels.

Precipitation for the past 17 years has been high

resulting in record levels for lakes. The Marsh Lakes,

historically a very large cattail marsh with three areas

of open water and a closed basin, is now one large lake

with water flowing out of the basin. Refuge wetlands

normally function as a closed system and only during

high precipitation periods does excess surface water exit

the Refuge. Refuge wetlands are shown in Figure 2.

Vegetation

Grasslands

Sandhill Prairie is within the wide transitional zone of

the Mixed Grass Prairie between Tallgrass Prairie and

the Short Grass Plains. Annual precipitation is typical

of the semiarid Mixed Grass Prairie; however, the

Nebraska Sandhills is characterized by a predominance

of post climax tallgrass species typical of a greater

moisture regime (Oosting 1948, Keeler et al. 1980).

This mixture and general dominance by Tallgrass

Prairie species is locally influenced by topography (i.e.,

the soil moisture holding capacities and soil moisture

penetration in different textures of the sand soil range

sites and the root structures and the photosynthetic

strategies of cool and warm season plants) (Tolstead

1942, Barnes 1984). Refuge vegetation is shown on

Figure 3. Four basic range sites are located within the

Sandhills.

Wetland range sites are the low meadow sites

dominated by grass species that thrive in a moisture

saturated soil profile (i.e., prairie cordgrass, blue-joint

reedgrass, sedge species, and non-grass species such

as golden rods, saw-toothed sunflower and willows). A

federally threatened species, western prairie fringed

orchid, is found within the wetland range site.

Sub-irrigated range sites are meadows that are very

close to the groundwater level. Sub-irrigated range

sites are dominated by Tallgrass Prairie species such

as big bluestem and Indian grass. Soil moisture in the

sub-irrigated range site is adequate to support the

deep rooted warm season native grasses even during

periods of drought. Sub-irrigated range sites are

commonly invaded by exotic species such as Kentucky

bluegrass, smooth brome, and red top.

Sand range sites comprise the dry meadows (low sand

sites) and the gently undulating Sandhills. Native

vegetative species common to the sand range sites are

cool season grasses: needle-and-thread, porcupine

grass, prairie June grass and western wheat grass; and

warm season grasses typical of the Tallgrass Prairie:

prairie sandreed, sand bluestem, sand love grass, little

bluestem, and switchgrass. Typical non-grass species

of the sand range site include stiff sunflower, yucca,

lead plant, and prairie rose. Exotic smooth brome and

Kentucky bluegrass tend also to invade the lower

elevations of the sand range sites.
40 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Choppy sand range sites are the characteristic sand

dunes for which the Nebraska Sandhills is named.

Many vegetational characteristics are common to the

sand range sites, but there is a greater proportion of

unvegetated sand soil surface that is subject to wind

and water erosion. Typical perennial grasses include:

blue grama, sand bluestem, prairie sandreed, blowout

grass, sand love grass, little bluestem, spiny muhly;

and non-grass species include yucca, prairie rose and

sunflowers. The federally endangered species, blowout

penstemon, is endemic to the Nebraska Sandhills and

its characteristic habitat includes the blowouts and

open sand areas of the choppy sand range sites.

Native perennial and annual flowering forbs adorn the

various range sites on Valentine NWR; some of which

are only found on native grasslands that have not been

degraded by the impact of modern man (i.e., conversion

of grassland to farm land, use of herbicides, and chronic

overgrazing of livestock) (Weaver 1961, Farrar 1990).

Woodlands

Approximately 45 species of native and introduced

trees and shrubs exist in the Sandhills. Native willows

are found around wetlands as are occasional cottonwoods.

Hackberry, choke cherry and American plum are

found on the north slopes usually adjacent to the south

sides of lakes. The abundance of woody cover has

drastically changed since Valentine NWR was

established. Many shrub and tree species, including

nonnatives, were planted by the Civil Conservation

Corps during the 1930’s. Since then cedar and Russian

olive trees have been expanding and invading

grassland and are beginning to jeopardize the floral

and faunal integrity of native Sandhills Prairie.

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.

Wildlife

The Sandhills of Nebraska is one of the few prairie

areas in the United States that has not been converted

to farmland. This, plus the abundance of a variety of

wetlands, has resulted in most of the native plants and

animals historically found in the area still being

present today. A list of bird, mammal, amphibian and

reptile species present at Valentine NWR can be found

in Appendix F.

Birds

The avifauna of the Nebraska Sandhills is extremely

diverse with 270 species making up the Valentine

NWR bird list. There are four endangered species that

are migrants or winter residents only and three

species on the species of management concern. Of the

latter three, the ferruginous hawk is a migrant and the

black tern and loggerhead shrike are abundant and

common breeding species on Valentine NWR.

Many herons, egrets, shorebirds, and marsh and

waterbirds use the Sandhills wetlands for nesting and

migration. The North American Waterfowl Management

Plan lists the Sandhills as a habitat of major concern in

North America (USFWS and CWS 1986). Bellrose

(1980) lists the Sandhills as the most important

waterfowl production area outside the Prairie Pothole

Region. The most common waterfowl nesting on the

Refuge are mallard, blue-winged teal, northern

shoveler, gadwall, Canada geese, and pintails.

Trumpeter swans are a resident species.

Prairie grouse habitat and populations are being

reduced significantly in North America (Proceedings

Prairie Grouse Technical Conference 1998, Cornely

and Braun 1997, Proceedings Minnesota Prairie

Chicken Society 1998, Boydeck 1997, Boyce 1997,

Hoffman and Beauprez 1997). Prairie chickens are of

special concern. The Sandhills and Valentine NWR are

important for conservation of both prairie chickens

and sharp-tailed grouse and one of only a few places

where significant populations of both species in the

same area exist.

The riparian shorelines on Valentine NWR are

primarily native willows which provide habitat for

many neotropical migrants (Sedgewick 1993). The high

water levels of the past 10-15 years have discouraged

significant use by migrating shorebirds.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 41

Figure 2. Wetland Map
42 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 43

Figure 3. Vegetation Map
44 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 45

Mammals

The Nebraska Sandhills provide two distinct land

types, Sandhills and wet meadows, that support an

abundant diversity of native mammals. The original

native mammalian fauna probably comprised 59

species. Ten carnivores and ungulates were probably

extirpated by the turn of the century. The remaining

49 native mammal species have been augmented by ten

additional species introduced or whose ranges have

been extended (Jones 1964, McDaniel 1967, Freeman

1990, and Bogan and Ramotnik 1993). One native

species, the swift fox, is on the Federal Candidate

Species List as well as the State Endangered Species

List. The present range of occurrence of this species is

within the region of Valentine NWR, but no recent

sightings have been made.

Amphibians and Reptiles

The Nebraska Sandhills are within the range of 26 to

27 species of amphibians and reptiles (Freeman 1990).

Twenty-two species are relatively common on Valentine

NWR, including 6 amphibians, 5 turtles, 4 lizards, and

7 snake species. The turtle fauna on Valentine NWR is

rich in species with abundant populations (Corn et al.

1993) - especially the Blanding’s turtle and the yellow

mud turtle which are species of management concern.

Of the seven snake species on Valentine NWR, only the

milk snake and prairie rattlesnake do not occur in any

significant numbers.

Fishes

More than 75 species of fishes have been recorded in

the Sandhills (Hrabik 1989) including a mix of native

and introduced species. Most are fishes of rivers and

stream and thus not found on Valentine NWR. Native

fishes known to occur on the Refuge include grass

pickerel, fathead minnow, brook stickleback, green

sunfish, and bullhead. No complete survey of native

fishes has been made.

Nonnative fishes including northern pike, largemouth

bass, bluegill, saugeye, yellow perch, and muskellunge

are stocked and managed for sport fisheries in nine

Refuge lakes open to fishing. In the past, black crappie,

channel catfish, flathead catfish, Sacramento perch,

and trout were introduced. The Refuge lakes are noted

in Nebraska for fine bluegill and pike fishing and are a

popular destination for anglers from Nebraska and

other states. Under cooperative agreement, the

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission collects brood

stock and eggs from the Refuge lakes for their

hatchery operations. They also stock fishes in Refuge

fishing lakes.

Carp entered the Refuge via the Gordon Creek

diversion and have been a continual problem in Refuge

lakes and wetlands. In recent years, high water levels

have connected additional lakes, and carp are now

found throughout the Refuge. In recent years, carp

entered the Marsh Lakes, the best waterfowl and

other water bird habitat on the Refuge. In the late

1970’s and early 1980’s, lakes open to fishing were

treated with rotenone to reduce carp populations and

improve sport fishing, water quality, and habitat for

waterbirds. Restrictive size limits have been placed on

northern pike to protect them as a predator of the

carp. This measure has been partially successful in

keeping carp populations in control.

Insects

Three insect species are on the list of species of

management concern -- the regal fritillary butterfly,

the Belfragi’s chlorochroan bug, and the noctuid moth.

However, systematic monitoring of the diverse insect

life on and adjacent to Valentine NWR has not been

done. In 1983, personnel from the Smithsonian

Institute’s Museum of Natural History, Washington,

D.C., collected small moths on Valentine NWR and

reported that a minimum of 25 species had not been

previously described. The occurrence of the

endangered American burying beetle is another case

in point that insect life and range of occurrence of

insects are not well documented throughout the

Nebraska Sandhills.
46 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Threatened and Endangered Species

Some species listed under provisions of the Endangered

Species Act have been documented on the Refuge and/

or in the surrounding area.

Federally Listed Animals

The following rare and endangered species have been

documented on Valentine NWR during spring and/or

fall migrations: bald eagles, interior least tern, piping

plover, and whooping crane. Most are only recorded at

intervals of several years. Bald eagles are annual

winter residents. Generally a maximum of six bald

eagles are recorded during the winter survey. In late

winter, up to 100 bald eagles have concentrated at fish

kills both on and adjacent to the Refuge.

The American burying beetle was listed under the

provisions of the Endangered Species Act in 1989.

Before 1992, Valentine NWR was considered outside

the previously known range of the American burying

beetle. Six records of the species were documented in

1992, and in 1993, one specimen was photographed on

Valentine NWR, and a second specimen was recovered

from private land adjacent to Valentine NWR. A

limited survey conducted in 1998 recorded eight

beetles. However, grassland management on Valentine

NWR that encourages the production of waterfowl and

prairie grouse, (i.e., a potential carrion food source of

appropriate size) (USFWS 1991), should enhance the

survival of this species.

Federally Listed Plants

Blowout Penstemon

Hayden’s, or blowout penstemon, is perhaps

Nebraska’s rarest plant and is listed as endangered

under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act

(Farrar 1990). Listing was accomplished in 1987. This

species is endemic to the Nebraska Sandhills and is

dependent upon disturbance, to promote the blowouts

or open sand habitat, for its existence (Fritz et al.

1992). The plant grows in and around blowouts, areas

of open sand maintained by wind erosion. A small

number of naturally occurring blowout penstemon

plants have been found in three locations on the

Refuge. In recent years, seedlings have been

transplanted into nine blowouts in an attempt to

increase the population.

Blowout penstemon has also been documented at two

locations immediately adjacent to Valentine NWR.

Since 1979, annual inventories have been conducted by

personnel from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln,

Chadron State College, and Valentine NWR.

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid

The western prairie fringed orchid is one of

Nebraska’s rarest wildflowers (Farrar 1990) and, in

1989, was listed as threatened under the provisions of

the Endangered Species Act. Prairie fringed orchid

site locations are characterized by a high soil moisture

profile common to the wetland range sites on Valentine

NWR (Fritz 1993). Since 1985, inventories have been

performed by Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

and Valentine NWR personnel. Prairie fringed orchids

have been documented at eight sites on Valentine

NWR and at three sites on private land immediately

adjacent to Valentine NWR.

Grassland management treatments that pose a threat

to prairie fringed orchids are continuous and/or

inopportune timing of grazing and mowing; the

indiscriminate use of herbicides; and application of

insecticides that may affect populations of the insect

pollinators (Fritz 1993). Prairie fringed orchids have

been reported to respond to spring grassland burns

(Sather et al. 1992) and fall burns (Hull-Seig and King

1995). Management on Valentine NWR involves

excluding prairie fringed orchids from mowing and

grazing manipulative treatments during the critical

period of plant growth through the maturation of seeds

(June - September).
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 47

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Limited cultural resource inventory has been conducted

on the Refuge. No sites of Native American occupation

are known. Before becoming a Refuge, the land was

used for cattle ranching. The ranch headquarters area

has little remaining. One house at Pelican Lake was

part of a ranch and is now used for Refuge housing.

Some remains of old waterfowl hunting camps can be

seen around the Marsh Lakes. The Civilian Conservation

Corps had a camp at Valentine NWR and most of the

buildings at Hackberry Lake were built at this time.

The house at Pelican Lake and the CCC construction at

Hackberry Lake Headquarters have been determined

eligible for nomination to the National Register of

Historic Places. Two fire observation towers built by

the CCCs are on the Refuge. The CCCs had a resort at

Dads Lake of which the foundations and chimney are

still present. They also planted most of the tree belts

found on the Refuge.

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

near the Refuge. 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

25 miles south of the city of Valentine, which is also the

seat and biggest city of 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 with an economy

based primarily on ranching and tourism. The

Yellowthroat WMA is located in Brown County while

the Holt Creek WMA is located in Keya Paha County.

The Refuge contributes to the economies of these

counties primarily by attracting tourists, bird-watchers,

hunters, and anglers. The rural population in these

counties is very sparse due to large ranch sizes.

Predominate land-use in Cherry 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 these

counties, although income generated from tourism is

increasing. The permitting of some grazing and haying

on Service lands benefits the local economy, as do the

in-lieu-of-tax payments made to Cherry County for

Service lands. Presently, eight ranchers have permits

to graze and/or hay on the Refuge. The grazing permitted is

an important part of their ranching operations.

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).

Nebraska State Highway 83 cuts through the center of

the Refuge and State Spur 16B goes to the west end of

the Refuge. The nearest airport with scheduled

passenger service is in North Platte, 136 miles south of

Valentine. Most of the land adjacent to the Refuge is in

private ownership. The Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission owns two Wildlife Management Areas,

Rat and Beaver Lake WMA and Willow Lake WMA,

adjacent to the Refuge. The State also owns four

parcels of school land managed by Educational Lands

and Funds which border the Refuge. Some School

lands are scheduled to be sold in the future. Other

public lands in the Sandhills include Merrit Reservoir

State Recreation Area, Bowring Ranch, and the

Cowboy Trail, and several additional WMAs managed

by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission; the

McKelvie and Halsey National Forests managed by

the U.S. Forest Service; and several small tracts

managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The

Nature Conservancy manages the large Niobrara

Valley Preserve at the northern edge of the Sandhills.

Public Uses

Valentine NWR is presently open to wildlife observation

and photography, fishing, hunting, and environmental

education and interpretation activities. Public use of

the Refuge occurs year-round with the greatest

amount of visitation documented from mid-May to

mid-October. 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.

Facilities for visitors are limited. Most interior Refuge

roads are two track trails which are often only passable

in 4-wheel drive and often closed when water is high or

snow is deep. Mowed parking areas are near primitive

boat launches. One handicapped accessible fishing

dock and surfaced boat ramp are at Watts Lake. Rest

rooms are available in the summer at Hackberry Lake.

Three information kiosks with leaflet dispensers are at

Refuge entrances. Refuge entrances and boundaries

are marked with signs, and limited directional and

regulation signs are on the Refuge.
48 Valentine 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 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.”

Principles Governing the Management of Wilderness Areas

Manage wilderness as a distinct resource with

inseparable parts.

1. Manage the use if 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.

In 1973, the entire Refuge was studied to ascertain the

suitability or lack thereof of the Refuge or any portion

of the Refuge for inclusion in the National Wilderness

Preservation System. Following the study, a 16,317-

acre portion of the Refuge was recommended for

inclusion. The boundaries of the proposed wilderness

are shown in Figure 2, Wetland Map. Congress must

approve the change from a proposed to a designated

wilderness but has taken no action. In 1999, the

proposed wilderness area was included, along with

several other refuge wilderness study areas, in a

proposal to Congress to complete designation. In 1998,

the proposed wilderness area was reduced in size when

508 acres in the designated area were traded for

private lands which were added in another area of the

Refuge. Proposed wilderness areas are to be managed

as wilderness areas until the designation is completed

or withdrawn. Present management of the proposed

wilderness area is described in various sections

throughout this Plan.

The proposed wilderness is located in the southwest

portion of the Refuge. The proposal includes two large

lakes, Dad’s and Mule, and several smaller ones. The

smaller lakes are bordered by marshes while Dad’s

Lake, one of the largest natural lakes in the Sandhills,

is bordered on the south by a narrow strip of trees and

brush and high sandy hills. Vegetation and wildlife is

similar to that found in other areas of the Refuge. The

area is very scenic with the native grasses,

undeveloped lakes, high choppy sand hills, and feeling

of isolation and the expanse of the prairie. Man-made

structures in the wilderness consist of a few windmills

and tanks, electric and barbed wire fences. Visible

from within the wilderness area are Highway 83 to the

east, a power line to the west, a radio tower to the

south, and a few isolated ranch buildings.

The area of the Refuge proposed for designation as

Wilderness is to be managed according to the

Wilderness Act of 1964 which requires wilderness areas

to be managed in a natural condition for solitude or a

primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Until such

a time as Congress either officially designates the area

as Wilderness or drops it from further consideration

for designation.

Research Natural Areas

Two research natural areas are located on Valentine

NWR. They are called the George Wiseman Natural

Area and Natural Area 2. They are south of Hackberry

and Dewey Lakes, and have a combined total size of

1,381 acres. These areas are currently closed to access

and have not been subjected to cattle grazing.

National Landmark

In 1979, the special qualities of the Sandhills were

recognized when Valentine NWR was designated a

Registered Natural Landmark by the Heritage

Conservation and Recreation Service.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 49

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 an area being studied

for designation as wilderness 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.

Valentine NWR goals and objectives are listed below.

These goals and objectives were established 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 vision

statement to concrete management decisions.

Interrelationships of Goals and Objectives

The subsequent Refuge goals and objectives are being

presented separately for ease of understanding and

reference. They are, however, not 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 towards accomplishing

this Plan. Goals and objectives for habitat, wildlife,

threatened and endangered species, interpretation and

recreation, and ecosystem provide 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 vision of the Refuge in

full, these objectives need to be understood holistically

and applied in combination, each being a critical part

of the Refuge vision.
50 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

P Habitat Management

Goal: -Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological

diversity of indigenous flora of the physiographic

region described as Sandhills Prairie within the

Northern Great Plains.

Grassland Management

Grasslands will be maintained through grazing so that

a minimum of 60 percent of the meadow areas and 55

percent of the hills are in undisturbed cover.

The use of prescribed fire will be increased to

invigorate grasslands, and provide cedar control. From

1,000 to 8,000 acres could conceivably be treated

annually.

Grasslands Habitat (Composition) Objective:Preserve,

restore, and enhance the diverse native floral communities

so that greater than 75 percent is composed of climax

species (good to excellent range condition). The

following are the indicator species and composition of

the desired floral community by range site (USDA

Range Handbook and Potential Natural Vegetation of

Nebraska - Kaul and Rolfsmeier, 1993).

Wetland Range: Eighty percent grasses (bluejoint

and northern reedgrass, inland saltgrass, prairie

cordgrass and foxtail barley); 15 percent grasslike

plants (sedges and rushes); 5 percent forbs

(saw-toothed sunflower, marsh hedge-nettle, Indian

hemp dogbane, swamp milkweed, arrowhead and

smartweeds).

Sub-irrigated Range: Seventy-five to 85 percent

grasses (switchgrass, big bluestem, Indian grass,

Scribner’s panicum, prairie cord grass, inland

saltgrass and purple lovegrass); 5-10 percent grasslike

plants (sedges and rushes); 5-10 percent forbs

(American licorice, blue verbena, purple prairie clover,

stiff sunflower, nodding lady’s-tresses, western

ironweed, milkweeds, goldenrods, closed and downy

gentians, blue lobelia, and the threatened western

prairie fringed orchid); 5 percent shrubs (leadplant,

willow, poison ivy, western snowberry, Arkansas and

Wood’s wild rose).

Sand Range: Eighty to 95 percent grasses (switchgrass,

sand bluestem, little bluestem, big bluestem, Indian

grass, prairie sandreed, needle-and-thread, porcupine

grass, sand love grass, Canada wildrye, Scribner’s

panicum, western wheatgrass, prairie June grass); less

than 5 percent grasslike plants (sedges); 10 percent

forbs (blue verbena, bush morning glory, cudweed

sagewort, blazing star, penstemons (shell-leaf, narrow

beardtongue), western ragweed, bracket spiderwort,

Rocky Mountain bee plant, evening primrose, prairie

coneflower, silky and purple prairie clovers, gilia,

ten-petal mentzelia, sunflowers, goldenrods, vetches,

scurfpeas, yucca and pricklypear cactus); less than 5

percent shrubs (Arkansas and wild rose, leadplant,

green sage, poison ivy, sand cherry, wild plum,

chokecherry and western snowberry).

Choppy Sands Range: Eighty-five percent grasses

(prairie sandreed, little bluestem, sand bluestem,

blowout grass, needle-and-thread, prairie June grass,

sand dropseed, sand love grass, spiny muhly,

switchgrass, and blue grama); less than 5 percent

grasslike plants (thread-leaf sedge); less than 10

percent forbs (bush morning glory, painted milkvetch,

bracted spiderwort, western ragweed, cudweed

sagewort, sunflowers, scurfpeas, yucca, pricklypear

cactus and the endangered blowout penstemon); less

than 5 percent shrubs (Arkansas and wild rose, green

sage, poison ivy, sand cherry, wild plum, chokecherry

and western snowberry).

Grassland Cover (Structure) Objective:Annually

provide diverse vegetation composition and structure

with greater than 50 percent (30,930 acres) of the total

grassland (61,861 acres) remaining in undisturbed

cover (i.e., vegetative cover that has not been

disturbed by grazing, mowing or fire during the

preceding growing season through July 10 of the

current year) to meet nesting, brooding, feeding and

protective cover requirements of various grassland

dependent wildlife species. The following combinations

of cover treatment and vegetative structure are

recommended for meadow and hill acreage:

Cover Treatment Acreage (%) VOR Ave.

(Range)*

Meadow (13,106 Acres)

Disturbed cover ~5,200 (~40%) ~ 3.0" (1-10")

1 Year Rest ~2,600 (~20%) ~10.0" (2-20")

2 Years+ Rest ~5,200 (~40%) ~12.0" (4-24")

Hills (48,755 Acres)

Disturbed cover ~21,900 (~45%) <3.0" (1-10")

1 Year Rest ~12,200 (~25%) =>6.0" (1-16")

2 Years+ Rest ~14,600 (~30%) =>6.0" (1-18")

* - Visual Obstruction Readings averages are residual

cover readings taken in the Fall (before the upcoming

nesting season).
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 51

Wetland Management

The Service will continue to maintain water control

structures and depths appropriate for sport fisheries

at designated fishing lakes. Ditch plugs will be placed

on ditches unnecessary for water management. The

Refuge staff will conduct drawdowns and renovations

of wetlands and lakes when possible to rejuvenate

wetland plant productivity and diversity, and provide

carp control. Sport fishing lakes may periodically be

drawn down and renovated. Renovations in these cases

would include restocking with appropriate mixes of

sport fish species.

Wetland Habitat Objectives: Groundwater Resources:

Maintain a database on Refuge groundwater resources

to ensure long-term protection of Refuge groundwater

quantity and quality.

Surface Water Resources: Maintain a database on

Refuge surface water resources by documenting

wetland elevations for long-term protection of Refuge

water supplies.

Maximize production of invertebrate (protein) and

plant (carbohydrate) resources on 11,181 wetland acres

to provide an appropriate food base for indigenous

wildlife (migratory birds, mammals, reptiles,

amphibians, fish) and enhance production on 2,650

acres of lakes for sport fishing.

Maximize food production for migratory birds by

providing an unexploited food base on the following

acreage of wetlands that are not designated for sport

fishing:

Wetland Class Acreage

Temporary 735

Seasonal 1,094

Semipermanent 4,636

Lakes 4,716

Total Acreage 11,181

Enhance food production by periodic drawdowns/

renovations on the following Lakes designated for

sport fishing:

Wetland Acreage

Clear 532

Dewey 494

Duck and Rice 118

Hackberry 528

Pelican 617

Watts 173

West Long 76

Willow (Refuge) 112

Total 2,650

Maintain Dewey Marsh Fen and identify and maintain

other fen sites which have unique vegetation and

hydrology.

Indigenous Trees, Brush, and Planted Tree Habitat

Objective: Enhance the Sandhill Prairie landscape by

reducing invading cedar trees while still maintaining a

representative interspersion of indigenous woody

vegetation per the following specific objectives.

Site specific indigenous woody vegetation

recommended targets: Maintain indigenous woody

vegetation of the north facing slopes next to the south

shorelines of Clear, Dewey, Hackberry, Pelican,

Whitewater, Dad’s and South Marsh Lakes.

Maintain indigenous willow tree and brush on the

northwest-west ends of Dewey, Hackberry and Pelican

Lakes and around Duck Lake.

Maintain indigenous trees in and adjacent to the

Headquarters and Sub-headquarters areas.

Recommended maximum target level of

composition by habitat unit: Willow occurrence and

invasion on meadows and around lakes (less than 10

percent).

Cedar occurrence and invasion on meadows (less than

5 percent) and in the Sandhills (less than 5 percent).

Reduce cottonwood invasion in the northern King Flat

area.

Maintain the two relic stands of quaking aspen at the

west end of Watts Lake Habitat Unit (H.U. 1A) and

the north side of Dewey Marsh (H.U. 3B)

Exotic and Invading Species

The Service will continue its integrated pest management

program. Mechanical and some chemical control to

reduce Canada thistle, invasive cool season grasses,

and leafy spurge will continue. Increased efforts to

reduce cedar and exotic cool-season grasses through

prescribed fire will be conducted.

Exotic and Invading Species Objective:Prevent

additional exotic plant species from becoming

established and reduce the occurrence, frequency and

stand density of existing exotic species to less than 5

percent of composition within five years. The invading

and exotic species targeted by this objective include,

but are not limited to:

Russian olive Black and honey locust

Siberian elm Mulberry

Smooth brome Quack grass

Reed canary grass Leafy spurge

Canada thistle Kentucky bluegrass
52 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

P Wildlife

Goals: Preserve, restore and enhance the ecological

diversity and abundance of migratory birds and other

indigenous wildlife with emphasis on waterfowl, prairie

grouse, and other grassland dependent birds.

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.

The following wildlife objectives are based upon

unpublished Refuge data, and represent average

population levels that can normally be expected to

occur given the above habitat objectives. Periodic

severe weather events, continental changes in

migratory bird populations, and other factors can, and

do, cause fluctuations in Refuge populations.

Migratory Waterfowl Objectives:Achieve an average

annual breeding pair density of equal to or greater

than 4,000 dabbling and 700 diving ducks with a brood/

pair ratio expressed as a percent of equal to or greater

than 20 percent over a five year period (unpublished

Refuge data 1978-91). A brood/pair ratio is the percent

of pairs that produce a brood to flight stage.

Maintain an annual breeding population of approximately

100 Canada goose pairs.

Provide approximately 11,000 acres of wetland for

spring and fall migrating waterfowl.

Trumpeter swans: Cooperate with Lacreek NWR by

reporting all trumpeter swan production and winter

activity observed on and adjacent to Valentine NWR.

Generally one and periodically two breeding pairs of

swans are present on Valentine NWR.

Other Migratory Birds Objectives:Maintain and

increase breeding populations of indigenous,

neotropical migrants that are water-based including

American bittern, white-faced ibis, black tern, marbled

godwit, northern harrier and other shorebirds and

wading birds that inhabit the Refuge. Establish

average densities of appropriate species and an overall

species richness/diversity index to document baseline

levels and to determine subsequent population trends.

Maintain and increase breeding populations of

land-based species of management concern such as

upland sandpiper, long-billed curlew, short-eared owl,

barn owl, grasshopper sparrow, dickcissel, eastern

phoebe, eastern kingbird, loggerhead shrike, and

eastern meadowlark (Bogan, 1995). Establish average

densities of selected species and an overall species

richness/diversity index to document baseline levels

and to determine subsequent population trends.

Maintain and increase breeding populations of colonial

nesting species (western and eared grebes, Forster’s

and black terns, cormorants and black-crowned night

herons).

Evaluate reintroduction of breeding populations of

sandhill cranes to the Nebraska Sandhills and

specifically Valentine NWR.

Prairie Grouse Objectives: Maintain a five-year average

density of equal to or greater than one prairie grouse

lek per 1.6 sq. mi. (28 total leks including 15 prairie

chicken and 13 sharp-tailed grouse) within the area

designated as the State Survey Block. The Refuge

surveyed each year is one part of a statewide survey of

prairie chicken and sharp-tailed grouse.

Maintain annually a minimum of 35 prairie chicken

leks (2.8 sq. mi. / lek) throughout Valentine NWR.

Annually achieve a minimum target sample of 350 prairie

grouse wings from the Volunteer Prairie Grouse

Hunter Harvest Survey. Achieve a harvest ratio of

equal to or greater than 2.5 juveniles per adult. The

harvest ratio measures current year nesting success

and health of the population by comparing the number

of young in the fall population to the number of adults.

Ratios greater than or equal to 2.5 indicate a healthy

population.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 53

Other Indigenous Wildlife Species Objective:Ensure

the diversity and abundance of indigenous mammals,

reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates remain

intact. Establish average densities of key indicator

species to document baseline levels and to determine

subsequent population trends.

Evaluate the suitability of habitat on the Refuge for

introduction of the black-tailed prairie dog and, if

suitable habitat is present, prepare a step-down

management plan for introduction and management of

this species.

The Service will maintain the existing furbearer

harvest program, which uses trapping as a

management tool to achieve Refuge wildlife objectives.

Exotic and Invading Species Objectives:Prevent the

establishment of additional introduced species and

refrain from carrying out management activities

specifically to encourage population expansion of

existing introductions (i.e., pheasants).

Reduce carp population densities in Refuge lakes.

Sport Fishery Objective: Maintain sustainable and

harvestable populations of sport fish in the nine

designated sport fishing lakes.

Threatened, Endangered, and Management

Concern Species

Goal: Contribute to the preservation and restoration of

endangered and threatened flora and fauna that occur

or have historically occurred around Valentine NWR.

The Refuge staff will continue to maintain existing

habitat and document endangered bird use and will

conduct surveys for American burying beetles. The

Refuge staff will intensify efforts to reintroduce

blowout penstemon and will conduct Refuge wide

surveys for it and western prairie fringed orchids. In

consultation with the Service’s Ecological Services

staff, the Refuge staff will conduct applied research

efforts to determine management practices promoting

these species. The Service will maintain existing

woodland, and promote regeneration of woodland

habitat along lake borders that are important as bald

eagle roosting sites.

Threatened and Endangered Plant Objectives:

Maintain approximately 72 acres of blowouts, with

potential for the endangered blowout penstemon, on

the Refuge. In a minimum of five blowouts, establish

and maintain populations of 100 penstemon plants per

blowout. Currently the Refuge has an estimated 72

acres of blowouts in at least a dozen locations. Three

habitat units exist with very small natural populations

of penstemon and three additional habitat units with

nine blowouts that have had plants transplanted into

them. The blowout penstemon recovery plan has an

objective of maintaining ten population groups with

300 plants in each group. The Refuge, if successful in

increasing its populations to the objective, would

satisfy approximately 16 percent of the endangered

penstemon recovery goal.

Maintain and manage a meadow habitat with potential

for western prairie fringed orchids (2,000 acres)

insuring an average annual population of 300

individuals in at least four locations. Currently the

Refuge has an estimated population of approximately

300 plants in five known locations. Western prairie

fringed orchids have been observed on private land at

four other sites adjacent to the Refuge. The Refuge

currently manages meadows with orchids so that

plants can flower and set seed.

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife

Species Objectives: Monitor and document migration

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

Record habitats used, areas used, and durations of

stay. Keep use areas free from human disturbance

while individuals are present. Use by these species is

so seldom that no habitat management objective or

population objectives can be stated. Monitoring,

documenting use, and keeping them undisturbed may

at some time provide insights into ways to help these

populations.

Monitor and document use by American burying

beetles.

Maintain large hackberry, cottonwood, and willow

trees around Refuge lakes as roost sites for migrating

and wintering bald eagles. Monitor and document

eagles use of habitat, roost trees, and eagle mortality.

Monitoring will help in describing key locations and

trees, and in documenting eagle mortality, a problem in

past years. Some of these wintering locations could

become nesting areas as eagle populations expand.

Species of Management Concern Objective:Maintain

self sustaining populations of Blanding’s and yellow

mud turtles. Develop and implement strategies to

reduce mortality from vehicles.
54 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Interpretation and Recreation

Goal: Provide the public with quality opportunities to

learn about and enjoy Sandhill Prairie, fish, 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.

The Service will seek funds to construct a visitor

contact station along Highway 83 to improve

environmental education and interpretation of wildlife,

cultural, and historic resources on the Refuge. A site

plan that is being developed will include a concept

design. The site plan will also contain suggestions for

improving and upgrading existing facilities for visitors.

Current facilities, wildlife observation, and photography

uses will remain open.

Fishing Objective:Provide year-round fishing

opportunities for warm water fish in designated lakes

in a largely natural setting. Watts Lake has handicap

accessibility.

The Service will continue its current sport-fishing

program on nine designated fishing lakes. No

additional lakes will have sport fish stocked in them.

Hunting Objective: Provide quality hunting

opportunities for waterfowl, deer, prairie grouse,

pheasants, dove, and coyote on portions of the Refuge.

The current Refuge hunting program will continue

with the exception of 160 acres adjacent to the

Hackberry Civilian Conservation Corps fire tower

which will be closed to hunting. This no-hunting area

will be from the west side of the George Wiseman

Research Natural Area west to the county road. This

Fire Tower, which is adjacent to the Wiseman Natural

Area, will be enhanced to support the addition of a

self-guided nature trail and interpretive observation

deck on the tower.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Objective:

Conduct a cultural resource inventory and provide

protection for and interpretation of Refuge cultural

and paleontological resources and sites.

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.

Ecosystem (Partner)

Goal: Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and

enhance a diverse, healthy, and productive ecosystem

of which Valentine is part.

Ecosystem Objectives/Strategies for Ft. NiobraraValentine NWR Complex: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 wildlife

resources or to enhance public use opportunities such

as fishing.

Use this Plan to help in marketing Refuge needs

through grant writing and networking with other

entities.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 55

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 Fort

Niobrara 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

Biological Technician Y U

Biological Technicians/Seasonal(2) Y U

Heavy Equipment Operator* U U

Maintenance Worker U U

Maintenance Worker (2) Y U

Maintenance Laborer/Seasonal (2) Y U

Assistant Fire Management Officer* U U

Range Technician (Fire) U U

Firefighters/Seasonal (3) U U

Funding Needed to Implement This Plan

The Refuge currently has a large backlog of maintenance

needs. The needs are recorded in a national Maintenance

Management System (MMS). In 1997, under current

management plans, the backlog for Valentine NWR

was $3,633,000. Most of these maintenance needs

would also need to be met under the preferred or other

alternatives. A synopsis of these needs is listed below:

Vehicles and Equipment $794,000

Fences, Windmills, Tanks $230,000

Water Control Structures and Dikes $258,000

Roads and Gates $790,000

Public Use Facilities $131,000

Buildings and Maintenance Facilities $672,000

Residences $282,000

Administrative Buildings/Facilities $476,000

TOTAL $3,633,000

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.

In 1999, the total for projects in the RONS is

$5,543,000 with annual recurring costs (including

salary costs) of $475,000. Most of this cost is associated

with the need to upgrade substandard roads. A

synopsis of these needs is listed below:

 Annual

 Construction First Year Recurring

Roads, parking areas/related facilities

$4,650,000 $358,000 $205,000

Biological Monitoring and Studies

 -- $283,000 $149,000

Habitat Restoration

$115,000 $27,000 $ 9,000

Habitat Management

 -- $118,000 $ 80,000

Partners for Wildlife Program

 -- $ 27,000 $ 2,000

Resource Protection

$ 320,000 $275,000 $ 30,000

Public Education and Recreation

$ 458,000 $358,000 $205,000

TOTAL $5,543,000 $1,446,000 $680,000

The preferred alternative also proposes projects that

have costs that are not included in the MMS or RONS.

The total of these costs is $1,356,000. A summary of

these costs follows:

Fences $300,000

Carp and water control structures $160,000

Move headquarters to site along Highway 83 $640,000

Wildlife projects $38,000

Public use projects $18,000

Cultural resource inventory $200,000

TOTAL $1,356,000
56 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

CCP Implementation and

Step-down Management Plans

This section is intended to provide additional

information 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

Valentine NWR CCP. While many potential topics exist

for step-down plans, the most critical ones include

Habitat Management, Wildlife Inventory, Use and

Public Use Plans. The objectives and implementation

strategies in each step-down 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.

Habitat Management and Monitoring

A step-down Habitat Management Plan for the Refuge

may 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.

Habitat prescriptions will focus on lands already

owned by the Refuge, but will also include areas

approved for acquisition. Consequently, when a tract is

acquired, its habitat value and management requirements

will be easily integrated into the program.

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,

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.

Under this Plan, Valentine NWR will revise its current

monitoring plan. An overall Habitat Management Plan

will be developed to guide all aspects of habitat

management including but not limited to: annual

grazing, the use of prescribed fire, prairie dog colony

growth and management (should the species be

introduced into the Refuge), other wildlife, and rest

required by habitat for native birds.

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.

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.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 57

Proposed Wilderness Area

The proposed wilderness will be managed until such

time as Congress may designate the area as wilderness

or remove it from areas for consideration. If this area

of the Refuge is designated as Wilderness by

Congress, the Service will develop a step-down

Wilderness Management Plan which will ensure

continued compliance with the intent and statutes of

the Wilderness Act and the purposes of the Refuge.

Furthermore, should the area being studied for

inclusion into the Wilderness network of lands be

designated by Congress as Wilderness Area, the

Service will need further funding in order to comply, in

full, with all the statutes of the Wilderness Act. The

use of some mechanized equipment will continue in

order for the Service to be able to adequately manage

the habitats and resources on the wilderness area.

Mechanized equipment is currently in use in this area

of the Refuge to maintain fences and windmills and to

move stock. While the preferred method of

transportation of personnel and equipment in the

proposed wilderness area is by foot or on horseback, in

order for the Refuge staff, contractors, and permittees

to perform their management duties, they need, and

probably will continue to rely on, small ATVs and

trucks as well as the tools of less impact. On the other

hand, man-made structures, such as fences and

windmills, will be reduced overtime but not to the

extent that grassland management capabilities are

reduced. Haying in the proposed wilderness will be

eliminated as the need for winter feed for Texas

longhorn cattle at Fort Niobrara NWR is phased out.

Due to the fast rate of spread and the likelihood that

wildfires could not be contained within the proposed

wilderness area, motorized equipment will continue to

be used to suppress wildfires. This Plan calls for

increased use of prescribed fire as a grassland

management technique. Where possible, prescribed

fires will be performed without the use of mechanized

equipment but with fire engines standing-by outside of

the proposed wilderness area in case they are needed.

In most cases, the use of some mechanized equipment

will be needed to complete prescribed fires. Whenever

possible, small ATVs will be used instead of large fire

engines. Furthermore, fire lines will be set outside of

the proposed wilderness area when this is feasible.

Hunting will be allowed on the proposed wilderness

area with access by foot or horseback. No use of

motorized equipment by hunters will be permitted.

Non-motorized, wheeled carts will continue to be

allowed for transport of deer. No public fishing is

proposed for the area. Search and rescue will be

conducted by horseback, small ATV, or pickup truck.

Refuge staff need to access the proposed wilderness

for biological monitoring and maintenance activities.

Access for Refuge staff, in order of preference, will be

by foot, horseback, small ATV, with occasional use of

trucks. Refuge staff may need to access the proposed

wilderness for noxious weed control if infestations are

discovered. Preferred method of treatment will be

using biological control and hand spraying with chemical.

If infestations are large, mechanized equipment may

be used with first preference given to small ATVs and

then the use of a tractor or pickup truck.

Yellowthroat Wildlife Management Area: The

Refuge will continue managing and conserving trust

resources at the Yellowthroat Wildlife Management

Area formerly known as the Tower WMA. This area is

located in Sections 25 and 26, T28N, R22W, Brown

County, Nebraska. The area is composed of a 480-acre

parcel owned in fee title by the Service and an

adjacent 440 acres protected by a Farmers Home

Administration Conservation Easement. Together, the

920 acres protect 153 acres of wetland and 767 acres of

Sandhill Prairie, much of it restored after being

cropped in the 1980’s. The area is physically located 13

miles south of Ainsworth, Nebraska on Highway 7 and

is accessible by prairie trail.

Grassland and wetland habitats will be managed with

fire, rest, and permittee grazing under the same

objectives as discussed previously for Valentine NWR.

Some restoration of sandhill prairies is still needed on

previously cropped areas. The major habitat goals will

be to have a high quality prairie and wetland

environment present for use by migratory waterfowl

and other wildlife.

Portions of the tract will be open to fishing, hunting,

wildlife observation, and photography in the same

manner and under the same authority as Valentine

NWR.

Holt Creek Wildlife Management Area: This Plan

will implement the proposed exchange of the Holt

Creek Wildlife Management Area for the Willow Lake

property presently owned and managed by the Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission. This Nebraska Game

and Parks Commission land is located adjacent to

Valentine NWR. The Holt Creek Wildlife Management

Area is located about nine miles north of Springview,

NE in section 32, T35N, R20W in Keya Paha County,

Nebraska. Holt Creek flows through the 180-acre

property which has a mix of woodlands and grasslands.

Prior to the proposed exchange, the tract will be open

to hunting, wildlife observation, and photography in

the same manner, and under the same authority, as

Valentine NWR. Habitat management of Holt Creek

will include permittee grazing, prescribed fire and rest

as long as it is managed by the Service.
58 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Grasslands

Grazing, as a management tool, will continue on the

Refuge through permittee grazing and bison when

reintroduced. Present grazing permittees will retain

grazing privileges as in the past. As present permittees

drop from the grazing program, a bid system will be

used to replace any grazing needed for grassland

management.

Some windmills will continue to be retained as a water

source for wildland wildfire suppression efforts.

Monitoring of fire effects on grasslands and animal

distribution will be conducted by fire staff.

Additional equipment for prescribed fire work will be

needed.

Fences around existing tree plantings will be removed;

no new tree belts will be planted. Tree rows planted by

the Civilian Conservation Corps will not be removed,

replaced, or fenced.

Wetlands

Old ditches draining Refuge wetlands will be plugged.

Continue use of northern pike as a predator to control

the carp.

Carp barriers will be constructed where needed and

renovations conducted where possible. Restocking of

Refuge wetlands and lakes will be done with native

fishes. Drought and winter-kill may present

opportunities for renovation and exclusion of the carp.

Maintain water control structures on six lakes and

build carp barriers on Marsh Lakes.

The Calf Camp water control structures will be

replaced and the dike repaired so water levels in this

wetland can be managed for migratory birds.

A Crissafulli pump is needed to increase water

management capabilities.

Habitat Acquisition

A trade of land in fee title will be sought for the

exchange of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Holt

Creek Wildlife Management Area for the Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission’s Willow Lake Wildlife

Management Area.

Trades or purchase of lands with willing landowners

will be sought to reduce inholdings and straighten

boundaries, and reduce boundary fencing costs.

Wildlife Management and Monitoring

Perform necessary studies and research to determine

if the Refuge contains habitats that are suitable and

conducive to the successful establishment of a blacktailed prairie dog colonies. If adequate habitats are

found, prairie dogs will not be established in areas

adjacent to Refuge boundaries. The Refuge staff will

allow the growth of the prairie dog colony(ies) to a

manageable size, and will use appropriate methods to

control spread.

Conduct an education program to reduce turtle

mortality from visitors driving Refuge trail roads and/

or modify trails to ensure reduced turtle mortality.

Continue monitoring prairie grouse populations using

lek counts and the hunter harvest survey.

Annually conduct the Breeding Bird Survey route at

Valentine NWR.

Use point count or line transects to sample grassland,

wetland, and woodland songbirds; annually conduct a

colonial bird survey.

Limited trapping by Refuge staff and a public trapping

program for management purposes will continue.

Conduct a sandhill crane feasibility study, and if

feasible, reintroduce sandhill cranes as a nesting bird.

Waterfowl pair and brood counts will be conducted on

certain Refuge lakes.

Monitor reptile, amphibian, and small mammal

populations at five year intervals.

Conduct a survey to determine native fish species presence

and abundance.

Maintain a sport fishery in the nine lakes presently

open to fishing in cooperation with Nebraska Game

and Parks Commission by using fish stocking, transfer

of fish between lakes, surveys, drawdowns,

renovations, brood stock, and egg harvest.

Fishery surveys using electrofishing, gill and trap nets

will be done on an annual basis by the USFWS

Fisheries Assistance Office.

Conduct an annual winter count of muskrat houses.

Refuge lakes and wetlands will be monitored for

botulism and other diseases, dead birds picked up, and

disposed of according to USFWS regulations.

Conduct American burying beetle surveys.

Continue to maintain a general observation log of bird

sightings to document presence/absence, relative

abundance, and use areas.

Completing the above monitoring and survey

requirements will require the addition of two seasonal

biological technicians.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 59

Public Use Management and Monitoring

Prepare a site plan under contract. This site plan will

include information on visitor access, interpretive

themes, and locations for future developments.

The rest rooms and information area at Hackberry will

be closed when alternate facilities are completed. The

boat ramp at Hackberry headquarters will be closed

immediately due to safety concerns.

Construct an observation platform on the Hackberry

CCC fire tower, and provide a self-guiding nature trail

leading from the parking area to the Hackberry CCC

fire tower. Close 160 acres adjacent to this area to

hunting.

Provide a self-guiding auto tour route passable in a

passenger car. Cost is variable depending upon

location and distance.

Maintain information kiosks/leaflet dispensers at the

main Refuge entrances.

Provide one information and regulation sign at

entrances and remove most of the regulation and

information signs in the interior of the Refuge.

Update Refuge brochures to the new USFWS

standard.

When bison are reintroduced, provide access for

viewing the main bison herds in roadless areas of the

Refuge through a concessionaire.

Provide blinds for viewing prairie grouse on leks.

Designate a prairie hiking trail for visitors to get to

remote areas of the Refuge on foot.

Move headquarters to a location along Highway 83 and

provide staffing during the week to provide

information to visitors.

Fishing

Provide one improved boat ramp at all fishing lakes

except Rice which will remain walk-in fishing only.

Develop one additional handicapped accessible fishing

dock and parking area on the Refuge. Other accessible

sites will be provided in future years.

Use of live minnows will be prohibited.

Electric motors, row, and paddle power will be allowed;

gas powered motors will be prohibited.

Guiding will be allowed under a permit; a maximum of

five guides will be allowed. Guides will be selected by

lottery if demand exceeds supply. Guides will pay a fee

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

Refuge.

Catch-and-release fishing tournaments by nonprofit

groups will be permitted.

Taking of frogs, turtles, and minnows will not be

authorized.

Size limits and catch-and-release may be used to

manage northern pike for carp control and provide a

trophy fishery.

The Refuge fishing leaflet will be updated to USFWS

standards.

Hunting

Waterfowl, deer, prairie grouse, pheasants, dove, and

coyote hunting will be allowed in designated areas of

the Refuge.

Guiding will be allowed by permit with a maximum of

five guides allowed. Guides will be selected by lottery

if demand exceeds supply. Guides will pay a fee of a

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

Refuge.

No new roads will be constructed for hunter access;

some existing hunting access roads will be improved to

all-weather roads as funding permits.

Hunting tournaments will not be allowed on Valentine

NWR.

Dog training will not be allowed outside regular

hunting seasons.

If crowding occurs or develops during hunting seasons,

a permit system with drawings for permits will be

instituted.

Persons charging a fee for the use of their horses to

haul big game from the Refuge will be required to

obtain a permit and pay a fee.
60 Valentine 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 mission of Valentine NWR. Generally, the Fort

Niobrara NWR and Valentine NWR Complex will

strive to combine resources with appropriate entities

to expedite and carry out planning projects.

Fort Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex staff works

with the following groups: private landowners through

the Partners in Wildlife Program; the Natural

Resource Conservation Service in the Wetland

Reserve Program; Farmers Service Agency in the

easement program; Cherry County Extension in

educational programs; local law enforcement; the

Niobrara Council on wild and scenic river

management; state, Federal, and local agricultural

agencies in weed control; U.S. Forest Service; and U.S.

Geological Survey.

Ecosystem (Partners) Management and

Monitoring

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

Audubon Society, 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.

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 and fish surveys.

Write a minimum of three grant proposals a year to

seek outside funding.

Management of Cultural and

Paleontological Resources

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

(under contract) and develop a management plan

based on results. The history of the Civilian

Conservation Corps will be interpreted at the fire

tower observation platform.

Conduct a Refuge-wide paleontological inventory.

Display and interpret cultural and paleontological

specimens.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 61

The Refuge has formal agreements with rural fire

protection districts to suppress wildfires both on and

off the Refuge. Biologists from four universities

regularly study reptile physiology at the Refuge. The

Refuge plans grazing for, maintains the fence on, and

patrols the Willow Lake Game Management Area

adjacent to the Refuge. The Service works with

Nebraska Game and Parks in fish stocking, fish egg

collection and law enforcement. The Refuge staff

works with the eight Refuge grazing permittees to

manage grasslands on the Refuge using cattle.

The Service will continue its current cooperation with

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission for sport fish

management. Agreements in place for wildland wildfire

suppression efforts and other common coordination

efforts with other agencies and landowners will continue.

The Refuge staff will seek to increase partnerships

with other entities.

The Service will seek to develop outside funding sources

and support for implementing some aspects of this

Plan. Examples would be moving the subheadquarters,

big game fence, and possible acquisition of several

inholdings from willing sellers. Trading Holt Creek

Wildlife Management Area for Willow Lake State WMA

will be pursued with Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission. A partnering effort in bison management

will be pursued.

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 longterm 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.

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.
62 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

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 Refuge has one full-time biologist who conducts

biological monitoring on the Refuge with occasional

assistance from other staff. The main emphasis is on

grassland monitoring. Grassland transects are run

each year to evaluate cover, composition, and grassland

health. More than 100 photo points are taken to

document long-term changes to the grassland.

Techniques and information are shared with the Forest

Service.

Refuge staff completes segments of statewide surveys

in cooperation with the Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission including sandhill crane, goose, waterfowl,

turkey, deer, wintering eagle, pheasant brood, grouse

brood, and prairie grouse breeding and productivity.

The Refuge maintains a weather station in cooperation

with the National Weather Service at Hackberry Lake.

Refuge staff read and report on U.S. Geological

Survey groundwater wells at more than 30 locations on

the Refuge. Both these efforts have been conducted for

60 years and yields long-term trend information.

Surface water levels are also recorded for some Refuge

lakes. Surveys for sharp-tailed grouse and prairie

chicken are performed and used as an indicator of

grassland health. In the spring, lek counts are

conducted; in the fall, wing collection boxes are

maintained. Part of the lek count is a State count block

and this information is passed on to the Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission. Wing collection from

hunters is done in cooperation with the Forest Service

and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

Pair and brood counts for waterfowl are done on the

Marsh Lakes to assess waterfowl production. Nesting

success of ducks is monitored on an island in the

Marsh Lakes as part of a long-term study. Colonial and

marsh nesting birds are also counted in some areas of

the Refuge. Monitoring for avian botulism is conducted

in late summer on Refuge lakes and wetlands. An

annual count of muskrat houses is done.

Fishery surveys using electrofishing, gill, and trap

nets are done on Refuge lakes open to fishing on an

annual basis by USFWS Fisheries Assistance Office

biologists.

Surveys of the threatened western prairie fringed

orchid and endangered blowout penstemon are

conducted. When orchids are found, they are marked

to prevent mowing them during haying operations.

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 Valentine NWR.

This Plan will be informally reviewed by Refuge staff

while preparing annual work plans and updating the

Refuge Information Management 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.

Wilderness Management

Should the proposed wilderness area be officially

designated wilderness, the Refuge will develop and

implement a Wilderness Management Plan, taking into

consideration wilderness values (in compliance with

the Wilderness Act), Service policy, adjoining land

uses, and comments and concerns expressed during

public meetings.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 63

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).

ATV: All Terrain Vehicle (either 3 or 4-wheeled

vehicles)

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.
64 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

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).

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; e.g., 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.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 65

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).

Refuge: short for Fort Niobrara National Wildlife

Refuge

Refuge Management Information System or RMIS:

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).
66 Valentine 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.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 67

Appendix B.

Bibliography

Barnes, P.W. 1984. Vegetation Patterns in relation to

topography and edaphis variation in Nebraska

Sandhills Prairie. Prairie Nat. 16(4):145-158.

Bellrose, F.S. 1980. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North

America. Stockpole Books, Harrisburg, PA, 540 pp.

Bleed, A. and C. Flowerday, Ed. 1989. An Atlas of the

Sand Hills, Sec. Edition. Cons. and Sur. Div., Insti.

of Agr. and Nat. Resource., Uni. of Nebr.-Lincoln.

265 pp.

Bogan, M.A. 1995. A Biological Survey of Fort Niobrara

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

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

_____, M.A., and C.A. Ramotnik. 1993. Pages 178-239

In M.A. Bogan, Ed., A biological survey of Fort

Niobrara and Valentine National Wildlife Refuges.

FWS-Nat. Ecol. Res. Cen. 251 pp.

Boyce, M. 1997. Importance of grouse research in

ecology and conservation biology. Wildlife Biology,

Vol 3/4.

Boydeck, R.K. 1997. Habitat management for sharptailed grouse on private lands in Manitoba,

Canada. Wildlife Biology, Vol. 3/4.

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.

Cornely, J.W. and C.E. Braun. 1997. Long-term

changes in sage grouse Ceutrocercuserephasians

populations in eastern North America. Wildlife

Biology Vol 3/4.

Corn, P.S., M.L. Jennings, and R.B. Bury. 1993.

Amphibians and reptiles. Pages 47-81 In M.A.

Bogan, Ed., A biological survey of Fort Niobrara

and Valentine National Wildlife Refuges. FWSNat. Ecol. Res. Cen. 251 pp.

Costanza, 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

Farrar, J. 1990. Wildflowers of Nebraska and the Great

Plains. NEBRASKALand Magazine, Nebr. G&P

Comm. 216 pp.

Freeman, P. 1990. Amphibians and reptiles. Pages 157-

160. In Bleed, A., and C. Flowerday, Ed., Sec.

Edition. An atlas of the Sandhills. Cons. and Sur.

Div., Insti. Agr. and Nat. Resource. Uni. Nebr.-

Lincoln. 265 pp.

Fritz, M., J.S. Stubbendieck, and W. Jobman. 1992.

Recovery Plan - Blowout penstemon. 40 pp.

Fritz, M. 1993. Western prairie fringed orchid.

Nebraska’s threatened and endangered species

brochure, NEBRASKALand Magazine. 6 pp.

Hoffman, R.W. and G.M. Beauprez. 1997.

Reintroduction of greater prairie chickens in

northcentral Colorado. Wildlife Biology Vol. 3/4.

Hrabik, R.A. 1989,. Fishes. in An Atlas of the

Sandhills. Resource Atls No. 5. Conservation and

Survey Division. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

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

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

Nat. Hist., 16:1-356.

Hull-Seig, C. and R.M. King. 1995. Influence of

environmental factors and preliminary

demographic analysis of a threatened orchid,

Plantanthera praeclara. American Midland

Naturalist: 134:307-323.

Keeler, K.H., A.T. Harrison, and L.S. Vescio. 1980. The

flora and sandhills prairie communities of Arapaho

Prairie, Arthur County, Nebraska. Prairie Nat.

12:65-78.

Kuzila, M. 1989. Soil associations and series. in An

Atlas of the Sandhill. Resource Publication 5.

Conservation and Survey Division. University of

Nebraska-Lincoln.

LaGrange, Ted. 1997. Guide to Nebraska’s wetlands

and their conservation needs: Nebraska Game and

Parks Commission, Lincoln, Nebraska. 34pp.

Layton, M.H., C.R. Buzzard, and H.E. Hoy. 1956. A

soil survey of Cherry County, Nebraska. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service. 91pp.

McDaniel, L.L. 1967. Merriam’s shrew in Nebraska. J.

Mamm. 48:493.

McMurtry, M.D., R. Craig, and G. Schildman. 1972.

Nebraska wetland survey. Habitat work plan K-71,

March 1971 through February 1972. PittmanRobertson project W-15-R-28. Nebraska Game and

Parks Commission, Lincoln, Nebraska 78pp.
68 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

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.

Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society Symposium. “ A

National Outlook.” 1998.

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.

Oosting, H.J. 1948. The study of plant communities.

W.H. Freeman and Company. 440 pp.

Prairie Grouse Technical Conference. 1998.

unpublished proceedings. Crookston, MN.

Sather, N., A. Duxbury, C. Freeman, L. Manske, J.

Milton, L. Potts, D. Roosa, and C. Hull Sieg.

1992. Draft recovery plan for western prairie

fringed orchid. 64 pp.

Sedgwick, J.A. 1993. Occurrence, diversity, and habitat

relationships of birds. Pages 82-177. In M.A.

Bogan, Ed., A Biological Survey of Fort Niobrara

and Valentine National Wildlife Refuges. FWSNat. Ecol. Res. Cen. 251 pp.

Tolstead, W.L. 1942. Vegetation in the northern part of

Cherry County, Nebraska. Ecol. Monogr. 12:255-

292.

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

1994, 12th Edition, Washington, DC

USDA Range Handbook and Potential Natural

Vegetation of Nebraska - Kaul and Rolfsmeier,

1993

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife

Service. 1986. North American Waterfowl

Management Plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Sandhills

wetlands - a special investigation. unpublished

document. 20 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. American

Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus)

Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 80

pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, An Ecosystem

Approach to Fish and Wildlife Conservation,

March 1994

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Valentine National

Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and Environmental

Assessment, April 1999, 74 pp.

Weaver, J.E. 1961. The living network in prairie soils.

The Botanical Gazette 123(1):16-28.

Wilhite, D.A., and K.G. Hubbard. 1989. Climate. Pages

17-28 In Bleed, A., and C. Flowerday, Ed., Sec.

Edition. An atlas of the Sandhills. Cons. and Sur.

Div., Insti. Agr. and Nat. Resource. Uni. Nebr.-

Lincoln. 265 pp.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 69

Appendix C.

Refuge Operating Needs

System (RONS) List
70 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 71
72 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 73
74 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 75
76 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 77
78 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 79
80 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 81

Appendix D.

Maintenance

Management System

(MMS) List
82 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 83
84 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 85
86 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 87
88 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 89
90 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 91
92 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 93
94 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 95
96 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 97
98 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 99

Appendix E.

Compatibility

Determinations

Station Name: Valentine National Wildlife Refuge

Date Established: 1935

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Executive Order No. 7172 of August 14, 1935

Purposes for which Refuge was established:

established “ ...reserved and set apart ....as a

refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds

and other wildlife.”

Refuge Goals and Objectives

P Habitat Management: The Service will, based

on funding, reintroduce bison to the Refuge using a

phased-in approach. Bison, preferably surplus bison

from Fort Niobrara NWR, would be placed in the

southwest portion of the Refuge and numbers matched

to the fenced area located there. As much interior

fence as possible would be removed. Prescribed fire,

water, and salt placement would be used to influence

bison use. The program will be evaluated for at least

five years for the effects on habitat and wildlife. If the

evaluation determines that bison are effective in

meeting the goals of the Refuge, the herd would be

expanded to other areas of the Refuge Wilderness

Area. Permittee grazing of cattle would be used to

manage the health and vigor of the remaining Refuge

grasslands. Three strategies are presented for

managing bison on the Refuge. In two, the Refuge

would own and manage the herd, and in the third, a

private bison manager would be in charge of fence

maintenance, roundup and sale, and day-to-day

management of the herd according to Refuge specifications.

Another ecological force, fire, is also believed to be

important. Obviously, concerns with the safety of this

tool exist. Recent increases in the Service’s funding for

prescribed fire and increased ability to use the tool safely,

make it an appropriate time to expand the use of this tool

and expand the benefit it provides to grassland ecology.

The Service will use an adaptive management strategy to

implement this Plan. The primary focus will be to achieve

the habitat objectives defined for migratory birds and

other wildlife with domestic cattle and prescribed fires

being the most significant habitat management tools.

Other aspects of the Plan are similar to the current

management regime of the Refuge. These programs

are largely successful, well received by the public, and

no reasons exist to change them significantly. Some

additional discussion on this issue is found in the

Environmental Assessment in Appendix H.

Yellowthroat Wildlife Management Area:The

Refuge will continue managing and conserving trust

resources at the Yellowthroat Wildlife Management

Area formerly known as the Tower WMA. This area is

located in Sections 25 and 26, T28N, R22W, Brown

County, Nebraska. The area is composed of a 480-acre

parcel owned in fee title by the Service and an

adjacent 440 acres protected by a Farmers Home

Administration Conservation Easement. Together, the

920 acres protect 153 acres of wetland and 767 acres of

Sandhill Prairie, much of it restored after being

cropped in the 1980’s. The area is physically located 13

miles south of Ainsworth, Nebraska on Highway 7 and

is accessible by prairie trail.

Grassland and wetland habitats will be managed with

fire, rest, and permittee grazing under the same

objectives as discussed previously for Valentine NWR.

Some restoration of sandhill prairies is still needed on

previously cropped areas. The major habitat goals will

be to have a high quality prairie and wetland

environment present for use by migratory waterfowl

and other wildlife.

Portions of the tract will be open to fishing, hunting,

wildlife observation, and photography in the same

manner and under the same authority as Valentine

NWR.

Holt Creek Wildlife Management Area:This

Plan will implement the proposed exchange of the Holt

Creek Wildlife Management Area for the Willow Lake

property presently owned and managed by the

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. This Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission land is located adjacent to

Valentine NWR. The Holt Creek Wildlife Management

Area is located about nine miles north of Springview,

NE in section 32, T35N, R20W in Keya Paha County,

Nebraska. Holt Creek flows through the 180-acre

property which has a mix of woodlands and grasslands.

Prior to the proposed exchange the tract will be open

to hunting, wildlife observation, and photography in

the same manner, and under the same authority, as

Valentine NWR. Habitat management of Holt Creek

will include permittee grazing, prescribed fire, and rest

as long as it is managed by the Service.

Goal: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological

diversity of indigenous flora of the physiographic

region described as Sandhills Prairie within the

Northern Great Plains.
100 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Grassland Management

Current levels of grassland use will be maintained

through grazing so that a minimum of 60 percent of the

meadow areas and 55 percent of the hills are in

undisturbed cover.

The use of prescribed fire will be increased to

invigorate grasslands, and provide cedar control. From

1,000 to 8,000 acres could conceivably be treated

annually.

Grasslands Habitat (Composition) Objective:

Preserve, restore, and enhance the diverse native

floral communities so that greater than 75 percent

is composed of climax species (good to excellent

range condition). The following are the indicator

species and composition of the desired floral

community by range site (USDA Range Handbook

and Potential Natural Vegetation of Nebraska -

Kaul and Rolfsmeier, 1993).

Wetland Range: Eighty percent grasses (bluejoint

and northern reedgrass, inland saltgrass, prairie

cordgrass and foxtail barley); 15 percent grasslike

plants (sedges and rushes); 5 percent forbs

(saw-toothed sunflower, marsh hedge-nettle,

Indian hemp dogbane, swamp milkweed,

arrowhead and smartweeds).

Sub-irrigated Range: Seventy-five to 85 percent

grasses (switchgrass, big bluestem, Indian grass,

Scribner’s panicum, prairie cord grass, inland

saltgrass and purple lovegrass); 5-10 percent

grasslike plants (sedges and rushes); 5-10 percent

forbs (American licorice, blue verbena, purple

prairie clover, stiff sunflower, nodding lady’s-tresses,

western ironweed, milkweeds, goldenrods, closed

and downy gentians, blue lobelia, and the

threatened western prairie fringed orchid); 5

percent shrubs (leadplant, willow, poison ivy,

western snowberry, Arkansas and Wood’s wild

rose).

Sand Range: Eighty to 95 percent grasses

(switchgrass, sand bluestem, little bluestem, big

bluestem, Indian grass, prairie sandreed,

needle-and-thread, porcupine grass, sand love

grass, Canada wildrye, Scribner’s panicum,

western wheatgrass, prairie June grass); less than

5 percent grasslike plants (sedges); 10 percent

forbs (blue verbena, bush morning glory, cudweed

sagewort, blazing star, penstemons (shell-leaf,

narrow beardtongue), western ragweed, bracket

spiderwort, Rocky Mountain bee plant, evening

primrose, prairie coneflower, silky and purple

prairie clovers, gilia, ten-petal mentzelia,

sunflowers, goldenrods, vetches, scurfpeas, yucca

and pricklypear cactus); less than 5 percent shrubs

(Arkansas and wild rose, leadplant, green sage,

poison ivy, sand cherry, wild plum, chokecherry

and western snowberry).

Choppy Sands Range: Eighty-five percent grasses

(prairie sandreed, little bluestem, sand bluestem,

blowout grass, needle-and-thread, prairie June

grass, sand dropseed, sand love grass, spiny

muhly, switchgrass, and blue grama); less than 5

percent grasslike plants (thread-leaf sedge); less

than 10 percent forbs (bush morning glory, painted

milkvetch, bracted spiderwort, western ragweed,

cudweed sagewort, sunflowers, scurfpeas, yucca,

pricklypear cactus and the endangered blowout

penstemon); less than 5 percent shrubs (Arkansas

and wild rose, green sage, poison ivy, sand cherry,

wild plum, chokecherry and western snowberry).

Grassland Cover (Structure) Objective:

Annually provide diverse vegetation composition and

structure with greater than 50 percent (30,930

acres) of the total grassland (61,861 acres)

remaining in undisturbed cover (i.e., vegetative

cover that has not been disturbed by grazing,

mowing or fire during the preceding growing

season through July 10 of the current year) to

meet nesting, brooding, feeding and protective

cover requirements of various grassland dependent

wildlife species. The following combinations of

cover treatment and vegetative structure are

recommended for meadow and hill acreage:

Cover Treatment Acreage (%) VOR Ave.

(Range)*

Meadow (13,106 Acres)

Disturbed cover ~5,200 (~40%) ~ 3.0" (1-10")

1 Year Rest ~2,600 (~20%) ~10.0" (2-20")

2 Years+ Rest ~5,200 (~40%) ~12.0" (4-24")

Hills (48,755 Acres)

Disturbed cover ~21,900 (~45%) <3.0" (1-10")

1 Year Rest ~12,200 (~25%) =>6.0" 1-16")

2 Years+ Rest ~14,600 (~30%) =>6.0" 1-18")

* - Visual Obstruction Readings averages are residual

cover readings taken in the Fall (before the

upcoming nesting season).
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 101

Wetland Management

The Service will continue to maintain water control

structures and depths appropriate for sport fisheries

at designated fishing lakes. Ditch plugs will be placed

on ditches unnecessary for water management. The

Refuge staff will conduct drawdowns and renovations

of wetlands and lakes when possible to rejuvenate

wetland plant productivity and diversity, and provide

carp control. Sport fishing lakes may periodically be

drawn down and renovated. Renovations in these cases

would include restocking with appropriate mixes of

sport fish species.

Wetland Habitat Objectives:

Groundwater Resources: Maintain a database on

Refuge groundwater resources to ensure

long-term protection of Refuge groundwater

quantity and quality.

Surface Water Resources: Maintain a database on

Refuge surface water resources by documenting

wetland elevations for long-term protection of

Refuge water supplies.

Maximize production of invertebrate (protein) and

plant (carbohydrate) resources on 11,181 wetland

acres to provide an appropriate food base for

indigenous wildlife (migratory birds, mammals,

reptiles, amphibians, fish) and enhance production

on 2,650 acres of lakes for sport fishing.

Maximize food production for migratory birds by

providing an unexploited food base on the

following acreage of wetlands that are not

designated for sport fishing:

Wetland Class Acreage

Temporary 735

Seasonal 1,094

Semipermanent 4,636

Lakes 4,716

Total Acreage 11,181

Enhance food production by periodic drawdowns/

renovations on the following Lakes designated for

sport fishing:

Wetland Acreage

Clear 532

Dewey 494

Duck and Rice 118

Hackberry 528

Pelican 617

Watts 173

West Long 76

Willow (Refuge) 112

Total 2,650

Maintain Dewey Marsh Fen and identify and maintain

other fen sites which have unique vegetation and

hydrology.

Indigenous Trees, Brush, and Planted Tree

Habitat Objective: Enhance the Sandhill

Prairie landscape by reducing invading cedar trees

while still maintaining a representative

interspersion of indigenous woody vegetation per

the following specific objectives.

Site specific indigenous woody vegetation

recommended targets: Maintain indigenous

woody vegetation of the north facing slopes next to

the south shorelines of Clear, Dewey, Hackberry,

Pelican, Whitewater, Dad’s and South Marsh

Lakes.

Maintain indigenous willow tree and brush on the

northwest-west ends of Dewey, Hackberry and

Pelican Lakes and around Duck Lake.

Maintain indigenous trees in and adjacent to the

Headquarters and Sub-headquarters areas.

Recommended maximum target level of

composition by habitat unit: Willow occurrence

and invasion on meadows and around lakes (less

than 10 percent).

Cedar occurrence and invasion on meadows (less than

5 percent) and in the Sandhills (less than 5

percent).

Reduce cottonwood invasion in the northern King Flat

area.

Maintain the two relic stands of quaking aspen at the

west end of Watts Lake Habitat Unit (H.U. 1A)

and the north side of Dewey Marsh (H.U. 3B)
102 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Exotic and Invading Species

The Service will continue its integrated pest management

program. Mechanical and some chemical control to

reduce Canada thistle, invasive cool season grasses,

and leafy spurge will continue. Increased efforts to

reduce cedar and exotic cool-season grasses through

prescribed fire will be conducted.

Exotic and Invading Species Objective:Prevent

additional exotic plant species from becoming

established and reduce the occurrence, frequency

and stand density of existing exotic species to less

than 5 percent of composition within five years.

The invading and exotic species targeted by this

objective include, but are not limited to:

Russian olive Black and honey locust

Siberian elm Mulberry

Smooth brome Quack grass

Reed canary grass Leafy spurge

Canada thistle Kentucky bluegrass

Wildlife

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.

Goals: Preserve, restore and enhance the ecological

diversity and abundance of migratory birds and other

indigenous wildlife with emphasis on waterfowl, prairie

grouse, and other grassland dependent birds.

The following wildlife objectives are based upon

unpublished Refuge data, and represent average

population levels that can normally be expected to

occur given the above habitat objectives. Periodic

severe weather events, continental changes in

migratory bird populations, and other factors can, and

do, cause fluctuations in Refuge populations.

Migratory Waterfowl Objectives:

Achieve an average annual breeding pair density of

equal to or greater than 4,000 dabbling and 700

diving ducks with a brood/pair ratio expressed as a

percent of equal to or greater than 20 percent over

a five year period (unpublished Refuge data

1978-91). A brood/pair ratio is the percent of pairs

that produce a brood to flight stage.

Maintain an annual breeding population of

approximately 100 Canada goose pairs.

Provide approximately 11,000 acres of wetland for

spring and fall migrating waterfowl.

Trumpeter swans: Cooperate with Lacreek NWR by

reporting all trumpeter swan production and

winter activity observed on and adjacent to

Valentine NWR. Generally one and periodically

two breeding pairs of swans are present on

Valentine NWR.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 103

Other Migratory Birds Objectives:

Maintain and increase breeding populations of

indigenous, neotropical migrants that are

water-based including American bittern,

white-faced ibis, black tern, marbled godwit,

northern harrier and other shorebirds and wading

birds that inhabit the Refuge. Establish average

densities of appropriate species and an overall

species richness/diversity index to document

baseline levels and to determine subsequent

population trends.

Maintain and increase breeding populations of

land-based species of management concern such as

upland sandpiper, long-billed curlew, short-eared

owl, barn owl, grasshopper sparrow, dickcissel,

eastern phoebe, eastern kingbird, loggerhead

shrike, and eastern meadowlark (Bogan, 1995).

Establish average densities of selected species and

an overall species richness/diversity index to

document baseline levels and to determine

subsequent population trends.

Maintain and increase breeding populations of colonial

nesting species (western and eared grebes,

Forster’s and black terns, cormorants and

black-crowned night herons).

Evaluate reintroduction of breeding populations of

sandhill cranes to the Nebraska Sandhills and

specifically Valentine NWR.

Prairie Grouse Objectives:

Maintain a five-year average density of equal to or

greater than one prairie grouse lek per 1.6 sq. mi.

(28 total leks including 15 prairie chicken and 13

sharp-tailed grouse) within the area designated as

the State Survey Block. The Survey is a portion of

the Refuge surveyed each year as one part of a

statewide survey of prairie chicken and

sharp-tailed grouse.

Maintain annually a minimum of 35 prairie chicken

leks (2.8 sq. mi. / lek) throughout Valentine NWR.

Annually achieve a minimum target sample of 350

prairie grouse wings from the Volunteer Prairie

Grouse Hunter Harvest Survey. Achieve a harvest

ratio of equal to or greater than 2.5 juveniles per

adult. The harvest ratio measures current year

nesting success and health of the population by

comparing the number of young in the fall

population to the number of adults. Ratios greater

than or equal to 2.5 indicate a healthy population.

Other Indigenous Wildlife Species Objective:

Ensure the diversity and abundance of indigenous

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and

invertebrates remain intact. Establish average

densities of key indicator species to document

baseline levels and to determine subsequent

population trends.

The Service will conduct research in the interior of the

Refuge to determine if suitable black-tailed prairie

dog habitat exists. If suitable habitat is found in

the interior of this 71,516 acre Refuge, the Service

will release this species, allow them to expand to a

manageable population size, and control them

within the boundaries of the Refuge.

The Service will maintain the existing furbearer

harvest program, which uses trapping as a

management tool to achieve Refuge wildlife

objectives.

Exotic and Invading Species Objectives:

Prevent the establishment of additional introduced

species and refrain from carrying out management

activities specifically to encourage population

expansion of existing introductions (i.e.,

pheasants).

Reduce carp population densities in Refuge lakes.

Sport Fishery Objective:

Maintain sustainable and harvestable populations of

sport fish in the nine designated sport fishing

lakes.
104 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Threatened, Endangered, and Management

Concern Species

Goal: Contribute to the preservation and restoration of

endangered and threatened flora and fauna that occur

or have historically occurred around Valentine NWR.

The Refuge staff will continue to maintain existing

habitat and document endangered bird use and will

conduct surveys for American burying beetles. The

Refuge staff will intensify efforts to reintroduce

blowout penstemon and will conduct Refuge wide

surveys for it and western prairie fringed orchids. In

consultation with the Service’s Ecological Services

staff, the Refuge staff will conduct applied research

efforts to determine management practices promoting

these species. The Service will maintain existing

woodland, and promote regeneration of woodland

habitat along lake borders that are important as bald

eagle roosting sites.

Threatened and Endangered Plant Objectives:

Maintain approximately 72 acres of blowouts, with

potential for the endangered blowout penstemon,

on the Refuge. In a minimum of five blowouts,

establish and maintain populations of 100

penstemon plants per blowout. Currently the

Refuge has an estimated 72 acres of blowouts in at

least a dozen locations. Three habitat units exist

with very small natural populations of penstemon

and three additional habitat units with nine

blowouts that have had plants transplanted into

them. The blowout penstemon recovery plan has

an objective of maintaining ten population groups

with 300 plants in each group. The Refuge, if

successful in increasing its populations to the

objective, would satisfy approximately 16 percent

of the endangered penstemon recovery goal.

Maintain and manage a meadow habitat with potential

for western prairie fringed orchids (2,000 acres)

insuring an average annual population of 300

individuals in at least four locations. Currently the

Refuge has an estimated population of

approximately 300 plants in five known locations.

Western prairie fringed orchids have been

observed on private land at four other sites

adjacent to the Refuge. The Refuge currently

manages meadows with orchids so that plants can

flower and set seed.

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species

Objectives:

Monitor and document migration use by whooping

cranes, piping plover, and least terns. Record

habitats used, areas used, and durations of stay.

Keep use areas free from human disturbance while

individuals are present. Use by these species is so

seldom that no habitat management objective or

population objectives can be stated. Monitoring,

documenting use, and keeping them undisturbed

may at some time provide insights into ways to

help these populations.

Monitor and document use by American burying

beetles.

Maintain large hackberry, cottonwood, and willow

trees around Refuge lakes as roost sites for

migrating and wintering bald eagles. Monitor and

document eagles use of habitat, roost trees, and

eagle mortality. Monitoring will help in describing

key locations and trees, and in documenting eagle

mortality, a problem in past years. Some of these

wintering locations could become nesting areas as

eagle populations expand.

Species of Management Concern Objective:

Maintain self sustaining populations of Blanding’s and

yellow mud turtles. Develop and implement

strategies to reduce mortality from vehicles.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 105

Interpretation and Recreation

Goal: Provide the public with quality opportunities to

learn about and enjoy Sandhill Prairie, fish, 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.

The Service will seek funds to construct and staff a

new environmental education/visitor center to an

area along Highway 83 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. Current facilities, wildlife

observation, and photography uses will remain

open.

Fishing Objective:

Provide year-round fishing opportunities for warm

water fish in designated lakes in a largely natural

setting. Watts Lake has handicap accessibility.

The Service will continue its current sport-fishing

program on nine designated fishing lakes. No

additional lakes will have sport fish stocked in

them.

Hunting Objective:

Provide quality hunting opportunities for waterfowl,

deer, prairie grouse, pheasants, dove, and coyote

on portions of the Refuge.

The current Refuge hunting program will continue

with the exception of 160 acres adjacent to the

Hackberry Civilian Conservation Corps fire tower

which will be closed to hunting. This no-hunting

area will be from the west side of the George

Wiseman Research Natural Area west to the

county road. This Fire Tower, which is adjacent to

the Wiseman Natural Area, will be enhanced to

support the addition of a self-guided nature trail

and interpretive observation deck on the tower.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Objective:

Conduct a cultural resource inventory and provide

protection for and interpretation of Refuge

cultural and paleontological resources and sites.

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.
106 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Ecosystem (Partner)

Goal: Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and

enhance a diverse, healthy, and productive ecosystem

of which Valentine is part.

Ecosystem Objectives/Strategies for

Valentine NWR:

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.

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations and

Policies:

Please refer to Appendix G. Compliance Requirements.

Description of Use:

Wildlife Observation, Wildlife Photography,

Interpretation and Environmental Education

Due the size and remote location of the Refuge, there

are few accurate counts of visitors, especially those

who come for these reasons. People come to the

Refuge to bird-watch and enjoy the prairie. It is

estimated that about 500 people visit the Refuge

annually for these purposes. Blinds for observing

prairie grouse are set up in the spring and are well

used. The number of people coming to the Refuge for

bird-watching and wildlife observation appears to be

increasing.

News releases concerning Refuge activities and 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, an

annual Kids Fishing Day, annual steel shot clinic, and

nature fest. Some requests for tours and educational

programs are denied due to insufficient staffing.

Three informational kiosks are located at major entry

points to the Refuge. The kiosks have general

information, a map of the Refuge, information on

managing grasslands for wildlife, and leaflet

dispensers.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)

proposes continuing with the uses as described and

adds the following facilities to improve interpretation

and access for visitors:

1. An observation deck on the old fire tower located

near Hackberry Lake—The platform would be a

wood deck with railings sitting inside the tower,

approximately 25 feet above ground. A view of the

Sandhills, lakes, and marshes would be provided.

The plan includes a self-guided nature trail leading

to the tower.

2. A self-guided auto tour route is proposed. The

length and location of the tour has not been

determined but will be included in a site plan now

being developed. This route will interpret Refuge

wildlife and habitat resources and be located on

the existing road network. Some upgrading of

roads will be required to allow passenger car

travel.

3. A prairie hiking trail will be designated to

facilitate access to remote areas of the Refuge for

visitors. No actual trail construction will be

required as the trail will pass through open

grasslands. The trail will be marked using small

sign posts. A simple map will be provided hikers.

4. A concession will be bid to conduct trail rides to

view the bison herd. Total number of visits and

access routes will be designated.

5. The headquarters will be moved to a location near

Highway 83 to provide better access for visitors. A

visitor contact station will be constructed at a

location to be determined by a site plan now being

developed.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 107

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands,

Waters, or Interests:

Some disturbance to wildlife, birds and mammals, will

occur in areas of the Refuge frequented by visitors. In

the past, visitation for these uses has been light with

an estimated 500 visits per year. It is anticipated that

use will increase, particularly if better access and

interpretation are offered. Increased use will result in

more disturbance; however, the Refuge is remote and

most of it will seldom, if ever, be visited by people

interested in wildlife observation.

Construction of interpretive facilities, a new

headquarters, and improved roads will result in the

loss of a small amount of habitat for wildlife. Small

amounts of wetlands may be lost as a result of road

construction. Improved roads may increase both traffic

and speeds and result in increased wildlife mortality.

Road mortality of the Blanding’s turtle is of special

concern. This turtle is a slow reproducing species

presently found near existing Refuge road systems.

Determination:Wildlife Observation, Wildlife

Photography, Interpretation and Environmental

Education are compatible.

The following stipulations are required to

ensure compatibility:

P wetlands will be avoided in road construction and

if impacted will be mitigated with twice the

acreage restored or created as the area impacted.

P as roads are improved a speed limit of 25 mph will

be instituted.

P roads near concentrations of Blanding’s turtles

may be closed during nesting season for this

species.

P road construction will focus on improving some

existing roads, not the construction of new routes.

P concessionaire use for horseback tours to view the

bison herd would be on a designated route and

limited in number and group size.

Justification: Based upon the biological impacts

presented above, it is determined that wildlife

observation, wildlife photography, interpretation and

environmental education within the Valentine 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 and the small

amount of acreage involved will result in minimal

impact. 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 Valentine

National Wildlife Refuge with minimal conflicts with

the wildlife conservation mission of the Refuge

System.
108 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Description of Use: Recreational Fishing

Nine Refuge lakes (Watts, Rice, Duck, West Long,

Pelican, Hackberry, Dewey, Clear, and Willow) are

open to fishing year round. Fishing is also permitted at

Yellowthroat Wildlife Management Area. Fishing,

especially ice fishing, accounts for the majority of

visits to Valentine NWR. In 1997, an estimated 7,900

visits were made for fishing. This figure is based upon

limited counts of fishermen throughout the year. In

1997, ice was on the lakes for fewer than average days,

resulting in a lower number of visits by ice fishermen.

In heavy use years, as many as 17,000 fishermen have

been logged.

Bass, perch, bluegill, muskie, saugeye, bullhead, and

northern pike are present in the fishing lakes. Size

limits are in effect to protect the larger northern pike

needed for carp control. Minnows are prohibited on

Refuge lakes to prevent the introduction of exotic fish.

Gas powered boats are not allowed. Catch-and- release

for bass and muskie is in effect on Watts Lake. The

Refuge lakes are most noted for large bass, catch-andrelease northern pike fishing, and large bluegills.

Many Master Angler fish are caught each year.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) proposes

continuing with the uses described in addition to

providing one improved boat ramp at each fishing lake,

except Rice, and the construction of one additional

handicapped accessible fishing dock at one of the lakes.

Catch and release tournaments by non-profit groups

will be authorized. The requirement that fishing guides

obtain a Special Use Permit will be instituted.

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands,

Waters, or Interests:

Studies have shown that fish compete for invertebrate

food resources with migratory birds. Stocking and

maintaining sport fish in the nine lakes open to fishing

will result in a loss of food resource for migratory

birds.

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance

to wildlife, both birds and mammals. Boating

associated with fishing is especially detrimental to over

water nesting species such as grebes and black terns.

Construction of improved roads and boat ramps will

result in the loss of a small amount of habitat,

including wetlands. Improved roads may increase both

traffic and speeds and result in increased wildlife

mortality. Road mortality of the Banding’s turtle is of

special concern. This turtle is a slow reproducing

species that is found near existing road systems.

Determination: Fishing is compatible.

The following stipulations are required to

ensure compatibility:

P wetlands will be avoided in road construction and

if impacted will be mitigated with twice the

acreage restored or created as that impacted.

P as roads are improved a speed limit of 25 mph will

be instituted.

P road construction will focus on improving some

existing roads, not construction of new routes.

P roads near concentrations of Banding’s turtles

may be closed during nesting season for this

species.

P to reduce wildlife disturbance, only electric motors

will be allowed on boats.

P no additional lakes will be opened to fishing.

P carp will be controlled to increase the invertebrate

food resource.

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

allowed as part of public fishing.

P use of live minnows will be prohibited to prevent

the introduction of additional exotic species.

P at Yellowthroat WMA only a portion of the waters

will be open to fishing during the spring, summer

and fall months.

Justification: Based upon the biological impacts

presented above, it is determined that recreational

fishing within the Valentine 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.

This has been identified as a priority use in the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997. Fishing is part of the goal for interpretation and

recreation, and the fishing objective of the Valentine

National Wildlife Refuge CCP, with only minor

conflicts with the wildlife conservation mission of the

Refuge System.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 109

Description of Use: Hunting

Waterfowl hunting is permitted on only a small portion

of the Refuge in the area of Watts, Rice, and Duck

Lakes. Seasons and limits are the same as for the

State. It is estimated that about 75 visits are made by

duck hunters each year.

The Refuge is open to hunting of sharp-tailed grouse

and prairie chickens during the State season that runs

from mid-September through December. The Refuge

is a popular location for out-of-state and Nebraska

hunters to pursue grouse. Grouse hunters are

surveyed via wing collection boxes located on the

Refuge. In 1997, 258 hunter days were recorded via

the collection boxes. Not all Refuge hunters

participate in the voluntary wing collection program.

The Refuge is also open to pheasant hunting during

the State season from November through the end of

January. An estimated 100 visits were made by

pheasant hunters in 1997.

The Refuge is open to deer hunting during the nineday Nebraska rifle deer season in November. The

majority of deer hunting use takes place opening

weekend. In 1997, a total of 88 white-tailed and mule

deer were harvested on the Refuge. Deer are checked

by refuge officers and at Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission check stations. The Refuge has some of

the heaviest hunting pressure of any location within

designated hunting units but a quality hunt is possible.

The Refuge is also open for muzzle loader deer

hunting. The season runs for three weeks in December.

Hunting pressure is light. Only seven hunters were

known to hunt on Valentine NWR in 1997. This form of

hunting is becoming more popular as permit numbers

are not limited, are statewide, and for either sex.

Archery deer hunting takes place on the Refuge from

mid-September through the end of December. Few

archery hunters were known to have hunted in 1997.

Coyotes can be hunted on the Refuge from December

1 through March 15. A free permit is required and can

be obtained in person or by mail. The permit is in the

form of a postcard that the hunter returns to the

Refuge at the end of the season with harvest

information. In 1996-97, 37 permits were issued.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)

proposes continuing the hunting programs as

described and adding a permit elk hunt if this species

is returned to the Refuge. Hunting guides and those

hauling deer will be required to obtain Special Use

Permits, existing hunting access roads will be

improved, but no new roads are planned. Yellowthroat

Wildlife Management Area and Holt Creek Wildlife

Management Area will be opened to hunting.

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands,

Waters, or Interests:

Improvement of some access roads for hunters will

result in the loss of a small amount of habitat,

including wetlands.

Hunters disturb non-target species and harvest target

species. Species hunted on Valentine NWR and that

are year-round residents ( i.e. deer, grouse, and

coyotes) have either maintained or increased in

population over the years in the presence of hunting.

The exception is ring-necked pheasants, which have

declined in numbers on the Refuge and in the

surrounding area. The decline in pheasant numbers

can be attributed to changes in habitat and weather

rather than to hunting pressure. The number of

migratory birds hunted on the Refuge (ducks, geese,

coots, and doves) fluctuate with continental trends

rather than Refuge harvested numbers.

Determination: Hunting is compatible.

The following stipulations are required to

ensure compatibility:

P wetlands will be avoided in road construction and

if impacted will be mitigated with twice the

acreage restored or created as that of the area

impacted.

P as roads are improved, a speed limit of 25 mph will

be instituted.

P road construction will focus on improving some

existing roads, not the construction of new routes.

P the use of steel shot will be required for all bird

hunting.

P dog training on the Refuge will not be allowed

outside of the regular hunting season.

P harvesting data and populations of grouse will be

monitored through wing collection boxes and lek

counts.

P deer harvest will be monitored in cooperation with

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

P any elk hunt harvested would be monitored

through a check station, if a hunt is initiated.
110 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Justification: Based upon the biological impacts

presented above and in the environmental assessment

contained in the CCP, it is determined that hunting on

the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge will not

materially interfere with or detract from the purposes

for which this Refuge was established.

Hunting of sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chickens

was started on the Refuge in 1965. Numbers of these

birds have increased in the presence of hunting. The

increase is also shown in spring lek counts and is the

result of changes in grassland management ( mainly

changes in the type of grazing and a reduction of the

amount of haying and grazing done).

A recreational coyote hunt was started in 1986.

Harvest of this species has fluctuated, mainly with the

price of pelts. Fur prices and harvest have been low in

recent years. Coyotes are still very common on the

Refuge and surrounding ranch lands. Recreational

coyote hunting has little or no impact on Refuge

populations.

The first deer hunt was held on Valentine NWR in

1964. Since that time, white-tailed deer numbers and

harvests have increased while the number of mule deer

taken has remained fairly constant. White-tailed deer

are common on Valentine NWR. Mule deer numbers

have remained fairly constant or shown a slight

decline. This has also occurred in other parts of

Nebraska with speculation that the decline is due to

competition with white-tailed deer and the fact that

mule deer are more vulnerable to hunting.

Dove hunting was initiated on the Refuge in 1983. Few

hunters visit the Refuge for dove hunting. An

estimated 50 birds are harvested each year.

Ring-necked pheasant hunting started on the Refuge

in 1965. No harvest records are maintained. Roosters

only can be harvested in Nebraska, thus the impact of

hunting on populations is minimal. Species numbers

have declined on the Refuge due to weather and

changes in habitat.

The first waterfowl hunt were held in 1977. Only a

small portion of the Refuge is open to this hunt. About

50 hunters harvest an estimated 100 ducks each year.

Description of Use: Grazing

Cattle grazing, rest, and prescribed fire are used to

manage grasslands on the Refuge. The 61,861 acres of

grassland on the Refuge are divided into 327 habitat

units by barbed wire and electric fences. Of this

acreage, 48,755 is in hills and 13,106 in meadows. Plans

are made each year to either graze, rest, or burn

grasslands on the Refuge.

In 1997, a total of 34,789 acres (56 percent) of Refuge

grasslands were rested. Rested grasslands are those

not grazed by cattle or burned by prescribed fire.

Refuge studies have shown that rested grasslands in

good condition are preferred nesting cover for

waterfowl and grouse. Management is also designed to

maximize undisturbed cover. Undisturbed cover

includes grassland that is not grazed, burned by either

wild or prescribed fire, or affected by hail for the

preceding year’s growing season and the current

year’s nesting season. In 1997, 50 percent of Refuge

grasslands were in undisturbed cover through June 30.

In 1997, a total of 388 acres (less than 1 percent) of

grassland in seven habitat units was burned using

prescribed fire. Prescribed fire is used to invigorate

native grasses, reduce cedar trees in grasslands, and

control invader grasses such as brome and Kentucky

bluegrass. Prescribed fires are planned and conducted

by the Refuge fire crew. Wildfires on the Refuge are

aggressively attacked by refuge firefighters and local

fire departments under cooperative agreements.

Nine permittees held annual permits to graze

approximately 6,600 animal use months (AUMs) over

the period from April 1,1997, through March 30, 1998.

Grazing permittees have been part of the program for

many years and all own land adjacent to or nearby the

Refuge. Refuge staff plan a specific program for each

permittee to maintain and improve the condition of

Refuge grasslands. Grazing permittees are charged at

market rate for use. The cost of improvements and

repairs to wells, fences, tanks, and other facilities

needed for the program are paid by the permittees and

the cost deducted from their final bill. In 1997, $26,759

was spent on improvements and deducted from final

billings. Deductions are also made for frequent moves

of cattle and grazing treatments that differ from

normal ranching practices. In 1997, a total of $46,203

was collected from permittees and deposited in the

U.S. Treasury.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 111

The Service will, based on funding, introduce bison to

the Refuge using a phased-in approach. Bison,

preferably surplus bison from Fort Niobrara NWR,

would be placed in the southwest portion of the Refuge

and numbers matched to the fenced area located there.

As much interior fence as possible would be removed.

Prescribed fire, water, and salt placement would be

used to influence bison use. The program will be

evaluated for at least five years for the effects on

habitat and wildlife. If the evaluation determines that

bison are effective in meeting the goals of the Refuge,

the herd would be expanded to other areas of the

Refuge wilderness area. Permittee grazing of cattle

would be used to manage the health and vigor of the

remaining Refuge grasslands. Three strategies are

presented for managing bison on the Refuge. In two,

the Refuge would own and manage the herd and in the

third, a private bison manager would be in charge of

fence maintenance, roundup and sale, and day-to-day

management of the herd according to Refuge

specifications.

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands,

Waters, or Interests:

The methods and expected results for the different grazing

strategies using permittee cattle are explained below.

Spring grazing treatment would take place prior to the

end of May on sub-irrigated meadow sites. Cattle

would be placed in designated units for more than two

weeks. During this period, cattle would eat or trample

almost all of the residual cover. They also overgraze

and thus reduce undesirable cool season exotic grasses

(Kentucky bluegrass and brome). Meadows that are

hayed are also sometimes given this treatment to add

fertilizer. Dramatic results occur with this treatment.

Exotic cool seasons, such as Kentucky bluegrass, are

suppressed and native warm season grasses, such as

switch grass, increase in vigor and density. The

disadvantage would be the loss of the unit for nesting

in the year of treatment and a lower waterfowl nesting

density the following year. Often the unit can, however,

be rested for up to five years following treatment. In

1997, 30 habitat units totaling 6,099 acres (9 percent of

grassland) received a spring grazing treatment and

including some areas that were later hayed.

Spring short-duration grazing would be in designated

units for less than two weeks during May. Generally

the cattle would be in the units for 3 to 5 days. This

type of grazing is generally accomplished in hilly units

to stimulate growth of grasses, especially cool seasons.

The short exposure times eliminate overgrazing. In

1997, 10 habitat units totaling 3,280 acres (5 percent of

grassland) had spring short-duration grazing. Where

possible, units grazed later in summer the previous

year are grazed the following year using this

treatment. This both varies treatment and reduces

disturbance to nesting cover. Most units grazed with

spring short-duration grazing show excellent growth

by fall.

Short-duration summer grazing (SD-S) is

accomplished from June 1 through September 1.

Cattle are in designated units for less than two weeks.

Most units are grazed from 3 to 5 days. Electric fences

are used to break up larger units and to increase stock

density. Most short-duration summer grazing is

completed by mid-July. In 1997, 79 habitat units

totaling 19,723 acres (32 percent of grassland) were

short-duration summer grazed. Units grazed in this

method show good growth by fall, if adequate moisture

has been received. If little or no late summer rainfall is

received, regrowth is less, especially in those units

grazed in late July or August.

Summer grazing (S) is accomplished from June 1

through September 1, and cattle are in designated

units for two weeks or longer. In 1997, no acres were

summer grazed. This type of grazing would take place

in larger units which have not been cross-fenced.

Fall grazing (F) is accomplished from September

through November. Fall grazing can reduce mulch

accumulations and add fertilization. Cattle will also

graze small wetlands and leave the surrounding upland

vegetation alone. (Generally the wetlands have green

in them while the uplands have only cured grasses.)

Grazing in wetlands recycles nutrients and provides

pair habitat for ducks in the spring. Fall grazing

eliminates both winter cover and nesting cover in the

following year. Some units are fall grazed and then

given a spring grazing treatment the following year. In

1997, six habitat units totaling 1,446 acres (2 percent of

grassland) were fall grazed.

Winter grazing is accomplished from November

through April. In winter grazing, cattle are fed hay in

a unit. The hay is harvested on the Refuge under

agreement. When the weather is harsh, the cattle feed

on hay; when it is milder, cattle graze away from the

hay ground. Winter feeding creates dense weed patches

for several years following the treatment. These weed

patches provide winter food for deer, pheasants, and

other resident wildlife. Units with a history of winter

grazing combined with feeding also have an excellent

growth of grasses away from the feed area. Resident

wildlife utilize waste grain resulting from the feeding

operation. In 1997, three habitat units totaling 1,167

acres (2 percent of grassland) were winter grazed.

Grazing, using bison, would most likely be less precise

than using permittee cattle due to the reduction in

fenced areas and increased pasture sizes. Bison and

prescribed fire have been used successfully at the

nearby Niobrara Valley Preserve to meet the Preserve’s

goal of replicating historic conditions. Nonnative

grasses, such as smooth brome and Kentucky

bluegrass, could increase. The increase of these

grasses will reduce the vigor of native warm season

grasses preferred as nesting cover by waterfowl,

grouse, and other species of grassland birds.

It is anticipated that bison activity will create a mosaic

of grassland conditions, with some areas being heavily

grazed and others unused. This mosaic should increase

the overall diversity of the bird population on the Refuge.
112 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Determination: Grazing is compatible.

The following stipulations are required to

ensure compatibility:

P monitoring of both habitat and wildlife to evaluate

the effects of cattle grazing.

P should bison be placed on the Refuge, a monitoring

program would be instituted to determine the

effects of this change on habitat and wildlife.

P grazing in areas where threatened or endangered

plants (blowout penstemon and western prairie

white fringed orchid) occur will be accomplished so

as not to negatively impact these plants.

Justification: Based upon the biological impacts

presented above and contained in the CCP and the

Environmental Assessment prepared in 1994, it is

determined that grazing on the Valentine National

Wildlife Refuge will not materially interfere with or

detract from the purposes for which this Refuge was

established.

An Environmental Assessment of Grassland

Management for Valentine NWR was prepared in

1994. This assessment examined the effects of the

present grassland management methods using

permittee cattle. The assessment found positive effects

of grazing for Refuge grasslands including increased

vigor, reduction of introduced grasses, recycling of

nutrients, better seedling development, and

stimulation of production. Increased vigor in Refuge

grasslands was found to have positive effects on

Refuge wildlife, especially waterfowl and prairie

grouse. Species diversity and abundance of mammals,

reptile, and amphibians was found to be high with most

of the species historically found in the area still

present. Positive effects were found on soil and water.

No effect or a positive effect was shown on threatened

and endangered plants and animals.

Description of Use: Haying

Haying was accomplished on 714 acres (1 percent of

grassland) of sandy, sub-irrigated, and wetland range

sites and yielded 1,520 tons of hay in 1997. Haying is

accomplished on a share-basis with three permittees

receiving 60 percent and the Refuge 40 percent of the

hay harvested. Some hay is also harvested on contract

with the cost deducted from permittee grazing bills.

Most meadows hayed are also grazed in the fall or

spring. This adds fertilization to the meadows and

improves the quality and quantity of hay produced.

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands,

Waters, or Interests:

Annual haying reduces the value of an area for nesting

cover as little residual cover is present in the spring of

the following year. Changes in grassland composition

also occur with more cool season grasses in hayed

areas. Hayed areas provide browse areas for prairie

grouse, Canada geese, deer, and, on occasion, sandhill

cranes. Whooping cranes have also used hayed areas.

Units with a history of winter grazing combined with

feeding have excellent growth of grasses away from

the area where the hay is fed. Western prairie white

fringed orchids are found in both hayed and non-hayed

areas on the Refuge. Haying may reduce competition

from grasses and benefit the orchids.

Determination: Haying is compatible.

The following stipulations are required to

ensure compatibility:

P haying will be discontinued in the proposed

wilderness area as the need for winter feed for the

Texas longhorn herd located at Fort Niobrara is

eliminated.

P in areas hayed where the threatened western

prairie white fringed orchid occurs, orchids will be

marked and not cut to assure seed production.

Justification: Based upon the biological impacts

presented above and the Environmental Assessment

prepared in 1994, it is determined that haying on the

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge will not materially

interfere with or detract from the purposes for which

this Refuge was established.

Haying is used to provide browse areas for Canada

geese, prairie grouse, and deer and for winter feed for

the Texas Longhorn herd at Fort Niobrara National

Wildlife Refuge. In some years, part of the Refuge

share of hay is used for road repair and maintenance.

Haying has a positive effect for some species and

negatively effects some ground nesting species. It may

have a positive affect for the threatened western

prairie white fringed orchid.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 113

NEPA Compliance:

Categorical Exclusion _________

Environmental Assessment _________

Environmental Impact Statement ________

FONSI _________

Signatures:

Project Leader: _____________________________________ Date: ________________

Royce R. Huber, Refuge Manager

Fort Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex

Concurrence:

_________________________________________________ Date: ________________

 Refuge Supervisor

_________________________________________________ Date: ________________

 Assistant Regional Director, Refuges and Wildlife
114 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 115

Appendix F.

List of Animal Species at

Valentine NWR

Loons

Common Loon Gavia immer

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

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis

Cormorants

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Bitterns, Herons

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Great Egret Ardea alba

Snowy Egret Egretta thula

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis

Green Heron Butorides virescens

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Ibis, Stork

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi

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

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus

Ducks

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

Gadwall Anas strepera

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope

American Wigeon Anas americana

American Black Duck Anas rubripes

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

Greater Scaup Aythya marila

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica

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-shinned 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

Gryfalcon Falco rusticolus

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus

Gallinaceous Birds

Gray Partridge Perdix perdix

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus

Greater Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus cupido

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus
116 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Rails, Gallinules

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis

Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

Sora Porzana carolina

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus

American Coot Fulica americana

Cranes

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis

Whooping Crane Grus americana

Plovers

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Stilt, Avocet

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana

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

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres

Red Knot Calidris canutus

Sanderling Calidris alba

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla

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

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago

Phalaropes

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

Gulls

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphis

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

California Gull Larus californicus

Herring Gull Larus argentatus

Terns

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia

Common Tern Sterna hirundo

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri

Least Tern Sterna antillarum

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

Barred Owl Strix varia

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus

Goatsucker

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii

Swifts

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica

Hummingbirds

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris

Kingfisher

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Woodpeckers

Lewis’ Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Flycatchers

Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe

Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Shrikes

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

Vireo

Bell’s Vireo Vireo bellii

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 117

Jays, Magpies, Crows, Ravens

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata

Black-billed Magpie Pica pica

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Lark

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris

Swallows

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

Pygmy Nuthatch Sitta pygmaea

Creeper

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

Wrens, Dipper

House Wren Troglodytes aedon

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris

Kinglets

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Thrushes, Bluebirds

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides

Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Veery Catharus fuscescens

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

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

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla

Yellow Warbler Dendrocia petechia

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendrocia coronata

Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens

Blackburnian Warbler Dendrocia fusca

Palm Warbler Dendrocia palmarum

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendrocia castanea

Blackpoll Warbler Dendrocia striata

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus aurocapillus

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia

MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens

Tanagers

Summer Tanager Piranga rubra

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

Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii

Le Conte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsini

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

Swamp Sparrow Melospizaa georgiana

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
118 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

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

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula

Finches

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus

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

Mammals:

Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus

Northern Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda

Least Shrew Cryptotis parva

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus

Western Small-footed Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus californicus

White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii

Woodchuck Marmota monax

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger

Plains Pocket Gopher Geomys bursarius

Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens

Ord’s Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ordii

Beaver Castor canadensis

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

Plains Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys montanus

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster

House Mouse Mus musculus

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius

Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Coyote Canis latrans

Gray Fox Canis lupus

Common Raccoon Procyon lotor

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis

Mink Mustela vison

American Badger Taxidea taxus

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Elk Cervus elaphus

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Moose Alces alces

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Amphibians and Reptiles:

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Woodhouse’s Toad Bufo woodhousii

Plains Spadefoot Spea bombifrons

Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens

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

Many-lined Skink Eumeces multivirgatus

Northern Prairie Lizard Sceloporus undulatus

Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer Coluber constrictor

Plains Hognose Snake Heterodon platyrinos

Pale Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum

Bullsnake Pituophis catenifer

Plains Garter Snake Thamnophis radix

Red-sided Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis

Prairie Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 119

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 (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.
120 Valentine 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 13084, Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.

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 wildlife-dependent

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.

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.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 121

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C.

668dd-668ee. (Refuge Administration Act): 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.

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.”
122 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 123

Appendix H. NEPA Documentation

Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Notice

A total of six management alternatives were considered during the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan planning process. Four management alternatives for Valentine National Wildlife

Refuge were assessed in detail 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 Valentine NWR 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, hunting, 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 No impact will occur on minority and low-income populations or communities.

__________________________________________________ _____________________

Regional Director, Region 6 Date

Fish and Wildlife Service

Denver, Colorado
124 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Summary of the Environmental Assessment

Purpose of and Need for Action

(Management of the Refuge)

Valentine NWR, located in north-central Nebraska is a

unique and ecologically important component of the

National Wildlife Refuge System. This Refuge was

established in 1935 to provide refuge and breeding

ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.

However, some uses presently occurring on the Refuge

were recently evaluated for compatibility with the

purpose of the Refuge. It is necessary to take action to

ensure continuity of activities compatible with the

Refuge’s stated purpose, and 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 national wildlife refuges

within 15 years.

The comprehensive conservation planning effort is

intended to help this Refuge meet the changing needs

of wildlife species and the public. The planning effort

provided the opportunity to meet with Refuge

neighbors, customers, and other agencies to ensure

that this Plan was relevant and truly addressed

natural resource issues and public interests.

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge

Vision Statement

Valentine NWR will strive to preserve, restore, and

enhance the ecological integrity of Nebraska Sandhill

uplands and associated wetlands as habitat for

migratory birds and other indigenous wildlife for the

benefit of present and future generations of

Americans.

Valentine 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 habitat, 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.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 125

Alternative A. Current Management (No Action):

Continuing current management activities and public use.

P Manage grasslands through grazing, using

permittee cattle, rest, and limited prescribed

fire.

P Limited surveys and management for

threatened and endangered species.

P Control exotic plants and weeds using grazing,

fire, beneficial insects, and herbicides.

P Continue public use with hunting, fishing on

the same number of lakes, and allow wildlife

observation.

P Continue cooperative agreements and

partnerships in place.

P Continue present monitoring of wildlife and

habitats.

Consequences of Implementing the Current

Management (No Action) Alternative

On Natural Resources:This alternative, by

maintaining the current grassland management

strategies, would have provided the greatest assurance

that populations of waterfowl, prairie grouse, and

other wildlife will be maintained. The current art and

science of native grassland management to produce

abundant populations of these species are as well

developed on Valentine NWR as anywhere in the

country. Quantities of undisturbed and rested cover

are near ideal for maximum output of migratory birds

and native prairie wildlife.

This abundance has been achieved by fine-tuning

grassland management through placement of more

than 327 fenced habitat units to enable specific

management practices on small targeted areas. The

Refuge has achieved considerable success in providing

tall warm-season grass cover over most of the Refuge.

A mosaic of grassland heights provides a diversity of

bird and wildlife use.

On Cultural and Paleontological Resources:

This alternative maintains the current information

base and minimum interpretation of prehistoric and

historic resources. The Refuge has not had funds to

conduct a cultural survey of the Refuge. Cultural and

paleontological resources would have no additional

protection or interpretation under current

management.

On Public Use: This alternative maintains the

existing public uses on the Refuge. It, therefore, has

the least impact on Refuge users because they know

what the existing recreational opportunities are. This

alternative provides for approximately 8,000 to 17,000

fishing visits on the Refuge, and 1,500 to 3,000 hunting

and wildlife observation and photography visits.

As none of these public uses are controlled other than

by area, it is believed that this level of use satisfies

current demand for these activities. This alternative

does not allow increased effort on providing

environmental education activities, increased

interpretation, and the public greater access to Refuge

staff.

On Socio-Economic Conditions: This alternative

maintains the current management regime and,

therefore, the current amount of economic use of the

Refuge would be maintained.

This alternative does not increase infrastructure

investment in the Refuge, nor does it increase the

staffing level on the Refuge. The lack of these

increases does not take anything away from the local

economy. It also does not add any extra opportunities.

The multiplier effect of these changes through the

economy would, therefore, also not occur.

By maintaining public use at existing levels, the

current tourism boost to the local economy from the

Refuge remains the same.

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.

Other public use activities which include wildlife/

wildland observation, environmental education/

interpretation, and fishing will continue but not be

improved or expanded.
126 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Alternative B. Historical: Manage Refuge habitats

and wildlife to replicate pre-settlement conditions.

P Introduce a herd of 500 bison to the Refuge as

a habitat management tool.

P Remove, overtime, permittee cattle (phase out).

P Increase use of prescribed fire to replicate

naturally occurring fire frequency.

P Remove water control structures and return

lakes to natural levels.

P Monitor and study threatened and endangered

species to determine effects of historic

management.

P Control exotic plants using increased

prescribed fire along with beneficial insects

and herbicides.

P Establish prairie dog colonies.

P Continue current hunting programs and

initiate a bison hunt.

P Increase number of lakes open to fishing but

won’t manage water levels for sport fisheries.

P Seek a concession to access the bison herd and

increase emphasis on interpretation of

historical ecology.

P Continue current cooperative agreements and

seek partnerships in bison management.

P Increase monitoring of the bison herd as well

as fire effects and wildlife trends.

Consequences of Implementing

the Historical Alternative

On Natural Resources: This alternative changes

the current grassland management of the Refuge from

an intensive holistic short duration/high intensity

regime using permittee cattle to a more natural regime

utilizing bison, a native herbivore. Up to 500 head of

bison utilizing approximately 7,200 AUMs, when the

Refuge is fully fenced, would replace eight permittee

herds grazing approximately 6,600 AUMs primarily

during spring and summer months. To accomplish this,

a bison proof electric fence would need to be

constructed on the outside boundary of the Refuge,

and nearly all interior fences would be removed. No

haying would be conducted on Valentine NWR under

this alternative.

Prescribed fire activities will increase to provide cedar

control, to influence bison use areas by providing more

nutritious and palatable regrowth that is very

successful in influencing their feeding areas, and to

invigorate grasslands in areas that receive almost no

grazing use.

The impact on prairie grouse, migratory waterfowl,

and other migratory birds differs from species to

species and will depend upon the degree of use of the

Refuge by bison. By controlling bison numbers, the

Refuge staff will be able to maintain nearly the same

level of forage removal as with domestic cattle.

Interspecific competition for breeding areas between

bison and waterfowl and prairie grouse will probably

occur. During their breeding season, birds generally

avoid large animal use areas. It is believed that the

areas utilized by the bison herd(s) during the summer

months will represent only a small portion of the

Refuge; thus, the overall bird productivity will be only

slightly affected, and the grassland objectives of rest

and undisturbed cover will continue to be achieved.

Because of the mosaic of grassland conditions that

bison will provide, it is anticipated that migratory bird

use may increase. Some species that are adapted to

open, short grazed areas, such as shorebirds, will

increase during migration and breeding periods. This

alternative also calls for introduction of prairie dogs to

the Refuge. Prairie dogs and their associated burrows

and short grass environments provide a diverse habitat

for prairie mammals, reptiles, birds, and insects.

This alternative would lower artificially high water

levels by removing water control structures in some

larger lakes on the Refuge. These lakes are currently

being used for sport fishery management and would

continue to be so. The lower, natural lake levels would

increase the vulnerability of the fish species to winterkill. Eventually, those lakes with minimal depths would

lose sport fishery capability.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 127

On Cultural and Paleontological Resources:

This alternative would seek to increase historical and

prehistoric interpretation on the Refuge. This would

most likely be provided by interpretation of overlooks

such as the fire tower platform and other historic sites.

This alternative would not provide for a cultural

survey on the Refuge, nor help cultural and historic

interpretation through relocation of the headquarters

to a site along Highway 83.

On Public Use: This alternative would affect existing

public use in several ways. Currently, the major public

use activity is fishing. This alternative would continue

the number of lakes people can fish in. It would also

allow removal of water control structures on fishing

lakes, thereby lowering the lake’s water level. If lakes

then winter-killed, fishing opportunities would decrease.

Overall, fishing success would probably decrease under

this alternative, thus ultimately reducing this use on

the Refuge. Historically, very few Sandhill lakes had

any records of fish populations and, those that did,

were not inhabited by sport fish currently sought after.

This alternative would not change any existing hunting

program and would add a Refuge guided hunt to help

control bison surplus. Visitors can hunt and fish in

areas in which bison may be present. This may at

times create hazards for hunters, anglers, and hikers.

The Refuge will be operated like many national parks

that have large animals. No guarantees of public safety

will be made for people engaged in recreation in areas

used by these animals. That is part of the “wildlife

experience” and each person considering recreating in

areas with these animals needs to consider their own

abilities and base their decision to participate on their

own risk assessment. Appropriate safety messages,

educational efforts, and, perhaps at times, even closing

off certain areas of the Refuge, should be a part of

management of this Refuge if bison are reintroduced.

This alternative adds public use opportunity by

allowing one concessionaire to provide access to the

bison herd and conduct trail rides through the Refuge

at certain times of the year. This activity is a new

opportunity and would provide a new and unique way

to enjoy the Refuge.

On Socio-Economic Conditions: This alternative

would gradually phase out the economic advantages

currently provided to local ranchers by not allowing

permittee grazing on the Refuge. Compared to 1997,

this would mean the eventual loss of approximately

6,000 AUM’s to nine local ranch families. Cattle

dependent on this forage would be lost to these

ranchers or replacement forage would have to come

from other sources. The Refuge would lose revenues

generated by this activity to repair infrastructure such

as wells, fences, and trails.

The reintroduction of bison on the Refuge may create

increased tourism and recreational use as a result of

the presence of this species. To the extent this

occurred, area businesses would reap the benefits of

increased sales of recreational supplies, food, gas, and

lodging.

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 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.
128 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Alternative C. Intensive Wildlife Management:

Actively manage habitats and Refuge programs to

increase outputs in certain areas.

P Actively manage grasslands using grazing with

permittee cattle and Texas longhorn cattle from

Ft. Niobrara NWR, rest, and prescribed fire.

P Retain water control structures in place and

use active water level management, including

drawdowns.

P Increase monitoring, management, and research

on threatened and endangered species.

P Establish black-tailed prairie dog colonies on

Refuge lands.

P Control weeds and exotic plants using

increased prescribed fire along with grazing,

beneficial insects, and herbicides.

P Continue current Refuge hunting programs

with limits on numbers of hunters instituted if

crowding occurs.

P Reduce number of Refuge lakes open to sport

fishing but increase management of those

open for fishing.

P Increase interpretation and environmental

education and relocate Refuge headquarters to

a location along Highway 83.

P Continue current cooperative agreements and

partnerships and seek additional ones.

P Pursue land trades and acquisition from

willing sellers.

P Increase monitoring of wildlife and habitats.

Consequences of Implementing the Intensive

Wildlife Management Alternative

On Natural Resources: This alternative would

generally maintain the current grassland management

program on the Refuge; a small drop in forage use of

600 AUM’s would occur. Other changes would be that

approximately 1,500 AUM’s of permittee cattle use would be

replaced with Texas longhorn cattle from Fort Niobrara

NWR. Because this herd would be under Refuge

control, the capability will exist to increase forage

removal during April and May, and increase grazing

pressure in fall and winter months. The percentage of rest

and undisturbed cover would not change significantly

from the current level; the Refuge will increase undisturbed

cover to 60 percent, from 56 percent currently.

This alternative will increase the use of prescribed fire on

the Refuge for cedar control and grassland invigoration.

A decease in haying on the Refuge will occur. These

grassland management changes are not expected to

significantly increase or decrease migratory waterfowl,

prairie grouse, or other migratory and indigenous

wildlife.

This alternative will introduce prairie dogs to suitable

areas on the Refuge. The short grass and burrow

systems created by prairie dogs increase biodiversity

of mammals, reptiles, birds, and insects on prairie

habitats. The Refuge will also increase its efforts to

reestablish federally listed plants on the Refuge.

Increased monitoring and coordinated research efforts

to increase the knowledge base on how management

practices affect blowout penstemon and western

prairie fringed orchids will be conducted. Surveys for

American burying beetle will also be conducted.

This alternative would reduce the number of lakes

designated for sport fishery management. The Refuge

staff would seek to enhance the remaining sport

fishery lakes by increasing drawdowns and renovation

to increase vegetation and insect productivity. These

renovations would include restocking of sport fish.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 129

On Cultural and Paleontological Resources:

This alternative would increase interpretation of

cultural and historic resources on the Refuge. It will do

so by conducting a Refuge-wide survey of prehistoric

and historical resources. It will also seek to move the

headquarters to Highway 83. This facility would have

an opportunity for increased interpretation of these

resources for the public.

On Public Use: This alternative would reduce the

number of lakes open to fishing. The remaining lakes

would be enhanced through periodic drawdowns and

renovations to increase productivity. These renovations

would include sport fish restocking. The net result on

public fishing opportunity is expected to be very little.

A smaller number of fishing lakes (from the present

nine to seven) would be open; those that remain open

are expected to be higher quality.

The Refuge hunting programs would remain the same.

Increased opportunities for interpretation of Refuge

resources will be provided by a more accessible

headquarters along Highway 83. Staff availability to

the public will increase as a result of this move.

On Socio-Economic Conditions: This alternative

would reduce the current permittee grazing on the

Refuge by approximately 1,500 AUM’s. This forage

would be removed by Texas longhorn cattle brought in

from Fort Niobrara NWR. The ranchers losing the use

of this forage would have to replace it elsewhere or

downsize their cattle herd to accommodate the

reduction.

This alternative would increase Refuge infrastructure

investment due to the relocation of the headquarters;

this investment would allow private contractors the

opportunity to hire workers and perform the

construction of the site and buildings. This alternative

also adds some staff and increases the Refuge payroll.

These jobs and salaries are multiplied through the

community and enhance the overall local economic

climate.

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.
130 Valentine 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, and the desire to

implement a more natural/historic management

regime with bison and prescribed fire as historical

habitat management tools.

P Fence and place bison herd on the proposed

Wilderness Area of the Refuge.

P Increase prescribed fire in this area and

incrementally remove interior fences. Monitor

this area over a five-year period to document

changes in grasslands and wildlife. After the

five-year period, determine if bison grazing

was an adequate habitat management tool and

otherwise, return to permittee cattle as the

primary grassland management tool.

P Retain Refuge lakes presently open to fishing

open with water control structures, water

level, and other management used to benefit

sport fish.

P Plug old drainage ditches.

P Monitor threatened and endangered species

use and conduct applied research to determine

methods to increase use. Transplant blowout

penstemon in additional sites and protect trees

for bald eagle roosts.

P Attempt to establish black-tailed prairie dog

towns in suitable habitats.

P Control weeds and exotic plants using a

combination of prescribed fire, beneficial

insects, and herbicides.

P Continue current hunting and fishing

opportunities.

P Increase emphasis on environmental education

and interpretation and move Refuge

headquarters site to a location near Highway

83.

P Continue current cooperative agreements and

partnerships.

P Seek outside funding to implement parts of the

Plan.

P Seek a partnering effort in bison management.

P Pursue land trades and acquisition with willing

sellers to straighten Refuge boundaries.

P Pursue trading Holt Creek Wildlife

Management Area for Willow Lake WMA with

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

P Increase monitoring of grasslands and wildlife

with emphasis on evaluation of the use of bison

and fire to manage grasslands.

Consequences of Implementing the Modified

Historical (Preferred) Alternative

On Natural Resources:This alternative will

reintroduce bison to the area of the Refuge currently

under consideration for designation as Wilderness

Area. The Refuge will gradually phase in bison to the

proposed Wilderness Area. As bison are phased in,

permittee cattle will be phased out. The area of

reintroduction of bison into the Refuge will be fenced

with bison proof fence at the boundaries and the

majority of the interior fence will be removed.

Prescribed fire will increase on the Refuge as a means

to influence bison areas of use, invigorate grassland

that receives very little use, and to reduce cedar

invasion of grasslands. Haying will gradually be

reduced from the current acreage of 700.

Nonnative grasses such as smooth brome and

Kentucky bluegrass will probably increase as grazing

treatments using bison will be less precise than

current management using cattle. The increase of

these grasses will reduce the vigor of native warm

season grasses preferred as nesting cover by

waterfowl, grouse, and some other species of grassland

birds.

It is anticipated that bison activity will create a mosaic

of grassland conditions, with some areas being heavily

grazed, others moderately grazed and others unused.

This mosaic should actually increase the overall

diversity of the bird population on proposed

Wilderness Area of the Refuge by allowing greater

grassland song bird use and increasing migratory use

by all species of birds. This alternative also seeks to

introduce prairie dogs to suitable habitats within the

Refuge. The burrows of prairie dogs increase mammal,

bird, reptile, and insect diversity on prairies, and

should on Valentine NWR as well.

This alternative also increases the level of effort spent

on reestablishing blowout penstemon on the Refuge;

increases research on management practices that

facilitate expansion on Western prairie fringed orchids;

and conducts surveys for American burying beetles.

These efforts will enhance federally listed species’

protection on the Refuge.

On Cultural and Paleontological Resources:

This alternative will increase the level of interpretation

of prehistoric and historic resources on the Refuge. It

will do so by conducting a Refuge-wide survey of

prehistoric and historical resources. It will also seek to

move the headquarters to Highway 83. This facility

would increase interpretation opportunities of these

resources to the public.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 131

On Public Use: This alternative will maintain the

current sport fishery program, with nine lakes open to

fishing. No expansion into other lakes on the Refuge

will be allowed. The Refuge will seek to conduct

drawdowns and renovations of these and other lakes to

increase vegetative and aquatic insect productivity. In

the case of sport fishing lakes, these renovations will

include restocking of sport fish.

This alternative does not change any existing hunting

programs except to close 160 acres adjacent to the

Hackberry CCC fire tower. The public will be able to

hunt and fish in areas that bison may be present in.

Bison may at times create hazards for hunters,

anglers, and hikers. The Refuge will be operated like

many national parks that have large animals. No

guarantees of public safety will be made for people

engaged in recreation in areas used by these animals.

That is part of the “wildlife experience” and each

person considering recreating in areas with these

animals needs to consider their own abilities and base

their decision to participate on their own risk

assessment. Appropriate safety messages, educational

efforts, and, perhaps at times, even closing off certain

areas of the Refuge, should be a part of management

of this Refuge if bison are reintroduced into the

proposed Wilderness Area of the Refuge.

This alternative adds public use opportunity by

allowing one concessionaire to provide access to the

bison herd and conduct trail rides through the Refuge

at certain times of the year. This activity is a new

opportunity and would provide a new and unique way

to enjoy the Refuge.

This alternative includes enhancement of the existing

fire tower overlook and establishment of a hiking trail

accessing the tower. By establishing a headquarters

along Highway 83, the public will have greater access

to Refuge staff and greater access to all Refuge public

use programs.

On Socio-Economic Conditions: This alternative

would gradually phase out the economic advantages

currently provided by allowing permittee grazing on

the proposed Wilderness Area of the Refuge. This

forage would be lost to these ranchers or replacement

forage would have to come from other sources. The

Refuge would lose revenues generated by this activity

to repair infrastructure such as wells, fences, and

trails.

This alternative would increase Refuge expenditures

on infrastructure. Implementation of the preferred

alternative would add to the local economy as needed

supplies are purchased and contractors hired to

complete proposed projects.

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

personnel. Salaries of additional staff will 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 allow a local entrepreneur the

opportunity to start a new business.

The introduction of bison on the proposed Wilderness

Area of the Refuge may expand tourism and

recreational use as a result of the presence of this

species on Valentine NWR. To the extent this

occurred, area businesses would reap the benefits of

increased sales of recreational supplies, food, gas, and

lodging.

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

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.
132 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 133

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.
134 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 135

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 & Parks Commission, Rex Amack

P NE Game & Parks Commission, Bill Vodehnal

P NE Game & Parks Commission, Joel Klammer

P NE Game & Parks Commission, Kris Danielson

P NE Game & Parks, Valentine Fish Hatchery

P State Historic Preservation Officer, Lincoln, NE

City/County/Local Governments

P Melvin Christensen, Cherry County Sheriff

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 Commissioner

P Cherry County Commissioners

P Valentine Niobrara Council

Libraries

P Valentine Public Library

P Ainsworth Public Library

Organizations

P Audubon Society, Dave Sands

P National Audubon Society, Gretchen Muller

P Central Mountain & Plains Section of the Wildlife

Society

Dr. Rick Baydack, Winnipeg, MB

Dr. Carolyn Hull-Sieg, Rapid City, SD

Joe Hyland, Lincoln, NE

Jeff Nichols, Ogallala, NE

Dr. Gary Packard, Ft. Collins, CO

Dr. Pat Reece, Scottsbluff, NE

Tom Rider, Lander, WY

Dr. Terry Riley, Aberdeen, SD

Dr. Dan Svedarsky, Crookston, MN

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 Assc., 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 Wildlife Refuge Assc., Washington, D.C.

P National Wildlife Refuge Assc., Colorado Springs, CO

P The Nature Conservancy, Al Steuter

P Nebraska Branch for Holistic Management

P Nebraska Cattleman, Troy Bredenkamp

P Nebraska Chap/merican 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&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
136 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999

Smiley, Jay

Sokol, Dick

Sovereign, Ron

Stack, Taylor and Linda

Sterry, Rich

Streeter, Bob

Smith, Neil

Soper, Don

Stoeger, Doug

Stokes, Alan

Stroup, William

Stump, Dr. Bill

Suhr, Jenny

Tegtmeier, Jim

Terhaar, Dennis

Thortall, Vic

Tibbs, Raymond

Toman, Tom

Torgerson

Turner, Bill

Turner, Lawrence

VanDerPloegh, Marvin

Van Winkle, Jim

Vineyard, Brian

Vosicky, George

Walkling, Al

Waln, Bill

Walton, Judy

Wescott, Mike

Witthuhn, John

Young, Cork and Mary

Young, Loren

Young, Mike

Young, P.H.

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 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 Ken Higgins, SD Coop Unit, SDSU, Brookings

P Mark Morgan, KSU, Dept of Horticulture,

Forestry, & Recreation, Manhattan, KS

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

Birger, Dick

Birger, N.H.

Blome, George

Breuklander, Steve

Brown, Greg

Burge, Mike

Burge, Russell

Carter, Wayne

Christiansen, Lou

Churchill, Dean

Cloutier, Terry

Colburn, Dean

Conner, Keith and Sally

Cook, Georgia

Cornelius, Bob

Crawford, Mary

Custard, Rick

Damrow, Roger

Davenport, John

Davis, John

Ducey, Jim

Ellis, Bob

Fields, Robert

Fitch, Ken

Fishell, Ralph

Johnson, Dale

Jones, Doug

Kasselder, Charles

Keenan, Mike

Kerr, Steve

Kramer, Kaye

Kuck, Lance

Kuhre, Beryl

Kutilek, William R.

Lee, Jim

Long, Larry

Lord, Elver

Lorenzen, Robin

Maginnis, Berdine

Maginnis, Monty

Marlott, Kenneth

Mathey, Kevin

May, Maynard

Mecure, Randy

Mecure, Rich

Metschke, Corey

McPeak, Janet

Millard, Scott

Moosman, Nola

Muller, Gretchen

Muller, Roxann

Mulligan, Bill

Murphy, John

Nagorski, Rod

Nelson, Leonard

Nichols, Meachelle

Nielsen, Einar

Olson, Ole

Parks, Reuben

Penlerick, LeRoy

Perrett, Brian

Peters, Bill

Peterson, Chad

Peterson, Georgia

Peterson, Kent

Pierce, Roger

Price, Dave

Reece, Bud

Reimann, K.F.

Riley, Terry

Robbins, Jr., Dick

Robart, Kevin

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

Sealing, Clee

Segar, John

Sharp, Wayne

Sherwood, Greg

Simmons, Carl

Simmons, Jean

Gallino, Orville

Gass, Bob

Geddie, John

Geib, Sandy

Geiger, Steve

Gillespie, Jerry

Gordon, Troy

Graham, Doug

Grabher, Bob

Graff, Martin

Graham, Twyla

Graves, Leroy

Grooms, Jerry

Gudden, Andrew

Gudgel, Duane

Gunnty, Kent

Gustafson, Bob

Hanna, Jeff

Hartman, Darrel

Heathershaw, Pat

Hellmund, Paul Cawood

Henry, Dale

Hickerson, Hal

Higgins, Tom

Hoehne, Paul

Hollenbeck, Rex

Hollopeter, Willard

Hunter, Carolyn

Huscher, Nora

Ingle, Kay

Isom, Stephen

Jackson, Bob

Jarvi, Guy

Jeffers, Dick

Jenson, Ron
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 137

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 Non-game 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.
138 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 139

Appendix L.

Intra-Service Section 7

Consultation
140 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 141
142 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 143
144 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 145
146 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 147
148 Valentine 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

Scenic Photo, Valentine NWR, USFWS