Fort Niobrara
 

National Wildlife Refuge
 

Draft
 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan
 

and Environmental Assessment
 

April 1999 

Prepared by
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 

Ft. Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex
 

HC14, Box 67
 

Valentine, NE 69201
 

and
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 

Land Acquisition and Refuge Planning
 

P.O. Box 25486, DFC
 

Denver, CO 80215
 

2 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Table of Contents
 

Summary............................................................................................................................ 5
 

Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................... 9
 

Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan ................................ 9
 

Planning Process, Planning Time Frame, and Future Revisions ..................... 9
 

Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................. 10
 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals .......................................... 10
 

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge History................................................... 13
 

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge Purpose and Mission ......................... 18
 

Refuge Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................... 19
 

Interrelationships of Goals and Objectives............................................................. 19
 

Habitat Management.................................................................................................... 19
 

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 20
 

Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................... 21
 

Interpretation and Recreation.................................................................................... 21
 

Ecosystem (Partner) ..................................................................................................... 22
 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action .......................................................... 23
 

Alternative A. Current Management (No Action) .................................................. 23
 

Alternative B. Historical ............................................................................................. 27
 

Alternative C. Intensive Wildlife Management ..................................................... 29
 

Alternative D. Modified Historical (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 32
 

Implementing the Plan (Preferred Alternative) .................................................... 35
 

Affected Environment................................................................................................... 40
 

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ................................................................................... 40
 

Climate ............................................................................................................................. 40
 

Air Quality....................................................................................................................... 40
 

Topography ...................................................................................................................... 40 
 

Geology.............................................................................................................................. 40
 

Soils ................................................................................................................................... 41
 

Water Resources and Associated Wetlands ............................................................ 41
 

Vegetation ........................................................................................................................ 41
 

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 47
 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources.................................................................. 49
 

Special Legislated Designations................................................................................ 50
 

Socio-Economic and Political Environment ........................................................... 50
 

Public Uses...................................................................................................................... 50
 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 3 
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 51
 

Alternative A. Current Management (No Action) .................................................. 51
 

Alternative B. Historical ............................................................................................. 52
 

Alternative C. Intensive Wildlife Management Alternative ............................... 54
 

Alternative D. Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action) ..................................... 56
 

List of Preparers ............................................................................................................ 58
 

Consultation and Coordination with Others............................................................ 58
 

Appendix A. Summary of Actions Proposed Under
 

Management Alternatives ....................................................................................... 59
 

Appendix B. Fort Niobrara NWR Species List....................................................... 65
 

Birds .................................................................................................................................. 65
 

Mammals.......................................................................................................................... 68
 

Amphibians and Reptiles ............................................................................................. 68
 

Appendix C. References ................................................................................................ 69
 

Appendix D. Section 7 ................................................................................................... 71
 

Appendix E. Glossary .................................................................................................. 73
 

Appendix F. Key Legislation/Policies ...................................................................... 75
 

Appendix G. Mailing List of Agencies and Individuals ....................................... 77
 

4 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Summary 

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

acres in size and located along the Niobrara River in 

north-central Nebraska. The Refuge is a unique and 

ecologically important component of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (System) which includes more than 513 

refuges totaling approximately 93 million acres across the 

United States. Fort Niobrara was established by Executive 

Order in January, 1912 as a “preserve and breeding 

ground for native birds.” Its purpose was expanded later 

that same year to include the preservation of bison and elk 

herds representative of those that once roamed the Great 

Plains. The unusual assemblage of plant communities 

(Sandhills Prairie, Mixed Prairie, Rocky Mountain 

Coniferous Forest, Eastern Deciduous Forest, and 

Northern Boreal Forest) support a rich diversity of 

wildlife generally unchanged from historic times. 

Comprehensive conservation planning is being done for the 

Refuge to guide management over the next 15 years to 

ensure progress is made toward the mission and goals of 

Fort Niobrara and the Refuge System. This planning effort 

provides opportunity for interested people, governments, and 

private organizations to give input on future management of 

the Refuge. This Plan will provide clear goals and objectives 

for management of Refuge habitats, wildlife, threatened 

and endangered species, cultural and paleontological 

resources, compatible public uses, and partnerships, along 

with implementation strategies, and recommended 

staffing and funding. The completed Plan will also meet 

the planning requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act enacted by Congress in 1997. 

This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

considered four alternatives for management of Fort 

Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge. Each of the alternatives 

was evaluated for environmental consequences in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

alternatives are summarized below. 

Current Management (No Action): This alternative would 

continue current management programs of the Refuge. 

Winter population levels of 350 bison, 70 elk, and 250 Texas 

longhorns would be maintained and receive primary 

consideration in management. Native bird management 

actions would be accomplished to the extent possible. 

Limited flexibility in habitat management programs would 

continue with approximately 96 percent of the Refuge 

grazed annually. Approximately 50 miles of interior fence 

and 50 miles of boundary fence would be maintained to 

control timing of grazing and access/movement of bison, 

elk, and longhorns. Less than 3 percent of the Refuge 

would be managed through prescribed burning each year 

to control cedars. Other exotic and invading plants would 

be controlled with beneficial insects, grazing, and herbicides. 

Management of the Niobrara River, numerous streams, 

and associated riparian habitat would be minimal. The 

prairie dog colony would be maintained at 20 acres and not 

allowed to expand. Limited biological monitoring of Refuge 

plant communities and animal populations would be 

accomplished. Protection and interpretation of cultural 

and paleontological resources would continue to be 

minimal. Current public use opportunities which include 

wildlife/wildland observation, photography, interpretation/ 

education, picnicking, hiking, and fishing would be 

maintained. River floating would continue with the number 

of outfitters maintained at the current level of 11 and no 

restriction on the number of launches per outfitter. 

Cooperative agreements and partnerships in place would 

continue. 

Historical: This alternative would manage Refuge 

habitats and wildlife to replicate conditions that existed 

before settlement. Bison and elk herds would be 

maintained at current management levels. Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep would be reintroduced to the 

Refuge and allowed to grow to a population of 50. Texas 

longhorns would no longer be managed on the Refuge. Big 

game fence would be expanded to enclose nearly the entire 

Refuge and much of the interior fence would be removed 

to allow more natural grazing patterns. Prescribed burns 

would increase to simulate historic fire intervals. Cornell 

Dam and all tributary impoundments would be removed 

returning these areas to a natural state. Prairie dogs 

would be established at a second site and allowed to 

expand to approximately 380 acres. Exotic and invading 

plants would continue to be controlled with beneficial 

insects, prescribed burns, and herbicides. Monitoring of 

the various habitats and wildlife populations would 

increase. Management of cultural and paleontological 

resources would be increased. Wildlife/wildland observation, 

photography, picnicking, hiking and fishing opportunities 

would be similar to current management. Environmental 

education/interpretation would be increased through 

construction of a new visitor center. Limited, strictly 

controlled bison, elk, and bighorn sheep hunting 

opportunities would be made available periodically to the 

public to assist with population management. River 

floating would be reduced by continuing the current 

restriction on number of outfitters and restricting the 

number of launches by all users to 1993 levels. Existing 

cooperative agreements and partnerships would continue 

with the exception of fish rearing in impounded tributaries as 

they would no longer be impounded. Additional partnerships 

would be sought. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 5 
Clockwise from upper left: Bison have been managed on 

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge since 1913 to 

preserve a population representative of the large herds 

that once roamed the Great Plains; Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge and the surrounding area is the 

only place in North America where Rocky Mountain 

coniferous forest, northern boreal forest, eastern deciduous forest, mixed-prairie and sandhill prairie vegetation communities meet and intermingle; several of the 

management alternatives at Fort Niobrara call for a 

change in the longhorn program; river floating is a popular recreational activity on Fort Niobrara; the Fort Falls 

Nature Trail allows visitors to experience the habitats 

and wildlife along theFalls and the Niobrara River; elk, 

especially bulls with growing antlers, can be found near 

or in Refuge ponds and streams during the hot days of 

summer; the loud rolling “pulip pulip” call of upland 

sandpipers signal that spring has come to the prairie; in 

April, prairie chicken males display on traditional breeding grounds on the Refuge; habitat created by prairie 

dogs attract a variety of wildlife including burrowing 

owls which use the underground burrows for nesting. 

6 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 7 
Intensive Wildlife Management: This alternative would 

intensify and diversify management of Refuge habitats and 

wildlife. Native birds would receive greater management 

emphasis. Approximately 225 bison, 50 elk, and 125 

longhorns would be managed on the Refuge. Texas 

longhorns would be used periodically as a grazing tool on 

Valentine NWR. Bighorn sheep would be reintroduced 

and allowed to expand to 50 animals. Prairie dogs would 

be established at a second site and allowed to expand to 

approximately 380 acres. Boundary and interior fences 

would be retained in the current configuration and 

habitat units managed under a deferred grazing rotation; 

however, reduced herd levels would increase management 

options. Prescribed fire would increase and be used to 

control cedars, invigorate native prairie, and encourage 

regeneration of woodlands. Use of fenced animals and 

rest as management tools would increase. Cornell Dam 

and all functional tributary impoundments would be 

maintained and breached impoundments restored based 

on their value to native birds and fish. Control of exotic and 

invading plants would increase with use of prescribed 

burns, grazing, beneficial insects and herbicides. 

Endangered species management would be expanded. 

Monitoring of various habitats and wildlife populations 

would increase. Protection and interpretation of 

cultural and paleontological resources would increase. 

Wildland/wildlife observation, environmental education/ 

interpretation, hiking, horseback riding opportunities 

would be expanded. A new environmental education/ 

visitor center would be constructed. Limited, strictly 

controlled elk and bighorn sheep hunting opportunities 

would be made available periodically to the public to 

assist with population management. River floating 

through the Refuge would be reduced after the Service 

determines acceptable peak use levels and management 

strategies that fairly distribute reduced floating 

opportunities among outfitters and the general public. 

During the interim, River use would be capped at 1998 

levels and current restrictions on number of outfitters 

continued. Current cooperative agreements and 

partnerships would continue and additional ones sought 

for bison management and possible acquisition of 

nondevelopment easements around the Refuge. 

Modified Historical (Preferred Alternative): The 

Modified Historical Alternative was selected as the 

preferred alternative. This alternative was selected 

based on an analysis of the environmental consequences, 

the requirement to manage for the Refuge’s enabling 

legislated purpose of native birds, bison and elk, and the 

desire to implement a more natural/historic management 

regime. The bison herd would be maintained at 200-300 

animals and elk herd at 70-100. Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep would be reintroduced to the Refuge and allowed 

to expand to 50. Texas longhorns would no longer be 

managed on the Refuge. Big game boundary fence would 

be expanded to enclose nearly the entire Refuge and 

interior fence would be removed, where possible, to allow 

more natural grazing patterns. Management actions to 

improve health and sustainability of the various habitats 

and meet needs of various native bird populations and herds 

of bison, elk, and bighorn sheep would be implemented. 

Prescribed fire would increase and be used to control 

cedars, invigorate native prairie, encourage regeneration 

of woodlands, and distribute bison and elk grazing. The 

Niobrara River, tributaries, and associated riparian 

habitat would be maintained in their current condition. 

Exotic/invader plants would continue to be controlled with 

beneficial insects, prescribed burning, and herbicides. 

Prairie dogs would be established at a second site and 

allowed to expand to approximately 380 acres. Sufficient 

biological monitoring would be accomplished to 

document diversity, population trends, health, and 

genetics. Protection and interpretation of cultural and 

paleontological resources would increase. Wildland/ 

wildlife observation, environmental education/ 

interpretation, hiking, and horseback riding opportunities 

would be expanded. Funds to construct a new 

environmental education/visitor center would be sought 

and interpretive displays improved during the interim. 

Limited, strictly controlled elk and bighorn sheep 

hunting opportunities would be made available periodically 

to the public to assist with herd management. Current 

fishing opportunities would continue. River floating 

through the Refuge would be reduced after the Service 

determines acceptable peak use levels and management 

strategies that fairly distribute reduced floating 

opportunities among outfitters and the general public. 

During the interim, River use would be capped at 1998 

levels and current restrictions on number of outfitters 

continued. Current cooperative agreements and 

partnerships would continue and additional ones sought 

such as big game management, new environmental 

education/visitor center, and possible acquisition of 

nondevelopment easements around the Refuge. 

8 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Purpose of and Need for Action 

Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has recognized 

the need for strategic planning of the national wildlife 

refuges of its National Wildlife Refuge System(System). 

The System now has more than 513 refuges totaling 

approximately 93 million acres. Fort Niobrara National 

Wildlife Refuge, located in north-central Nebraska (see 

Figure 1), is a unique and ecologically important component 

of the Refuge 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 will help each station and thus the entire 

System to meet the changing needs of wildlife species 

and the public. The planning effort provides the opportunity 

to meet with our neighbors, our customers, and other 

agencies to ensure that plans are relevant and truly 

address natural resource issues and public interests. It 

is our goal to have the System be an active and vital part 

of the United States’ conservation efforts. This Draft 

CCP/Environmental Assessment (EA) discusses 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, the alternatives considered, and 

the preferred alternative (the CCP). 

Planning Process, Planning Time Frame, and 

Future Revisions 

Comprehensive conservation planning efforts for Fort 

Niobrara NWR began in January 1997 with a meeting of 

regional management and planning staff and field station 

employees at Fort Niobrara NWR. At that meeting a 

core planning team was designated with the major 

responsibilities of gathering information and writing the 

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

direction to the core planning team. A working group was 

also organized to provide interchange of information 

between Service personnel, outside agencies, and 

interested stakeholders of the Refuge. 

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

held in the Cherry County Hall meeting room, Valentine, 

Nebraska. The open house provided participants an 

opportunity to learn about the Refuge’s purposes, mission 

and goals, and issues currently facing management. People 

attending were provided the chance to speak with Service 

representatives and to share their comments. 

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

Service management and planning staffs in April 1997. 

The tour gave participants a chance to view fenced 

animal management and prominent wildlife species of the 

Refuge, discuss management aspects of the Refuge, and 

give planning staff ideas for consideration in the planning 

process. 

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

permittees that are actively involved with canoeing and 

tubing on the Niobrara River through the Fort Niobrara 

NWR. The CCP addresses this issue, and the meeting 

provided an opportunity for Refuge staff and permittees 

to share information concerning this use. 

During the planning process, the review and working 

groups have had access to information on objectives and 

alternatives being considered. Written comments have 

been exchanged and verbal conversations have been held. 

This Draft CCP/EA is the first opportunity that these 

groups and the public have had to review the entire 

planning effort and the Plan. A 60-day comment period is 

provided. 

The CCP will guide 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 the 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. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 9 
Step-Down Management Plans 

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. The 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. 

Under this Plan, the Fort Niobrara NWR will revise its 

current monitoring plan. An overall Habitat Management 

Plan will be prepared to guide all aspects of habitat 

management including but not limited to: annual grazing 

by large animal herds, the use of prescribed fire, prairie 

dog restoration, and rest required by native birds. A 

fishing plan will be prepared to provide a basis for special 

regulations concerning this use on the Niobrara River and 

Minnichaduza Creek. A cultural resource/paleontological 

management plan and a public use plan for use on the 

Niobrara River will also be prepared. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and 

Goals 

The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 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.” The 

goals of the System are aimed at fulfilling this mission. 

Some major goals are to provide for specific classes of 

wildlife species for which the Federal government is 

ultimately responsible; these “trust resources” are 

threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and 

anadromous fish. Most refuges provide breeding, 

migration, or wintering habitat for these species. Nearly 

all refuges also supply habitats for big game species and 

resident or nonmigratory wildlife as well. 

Individual refuges provide specific requirements for the 

preservation of trust resources. For example, waterfowl 

breeding refuges in South and North Dakota provide 

important wetland and grassland habitat to support 

populations of waterfowl as required by the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. Valentine NWR 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. 

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, six wildlife-dependent recreational uses are 

recognized as priority public uses of refuge lands. These 

are wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation, fishing and hunting. These, 

and other uses, are allowed on refuges after finding that 

they are compatible with the purpose of the refuge. Uses 

are allowed through a special regulation process, 

individual special use permits, and sometimes through 

normal state fishing and hunting regulations. 

10 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Figure 1
 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 11 
12 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge 

History 

Fort Niobrara NWR was established by Executive 

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

acres from the public domain as a “preserve and breeding 

ground for native birds.” The reserve was established 

at a time when tremendous concern existed over the 

exploitation of birds and near extinction of bison. 

Two environmental groups, National Association of 

Audubon Societies and American Bison Society, were 

very influential in the establishment and determination 

of purpose of several Federal parks and refuges including 

Fort Niobrara during the first two decades of the 20th 

century. The National Association of Audubon Societies 

was formed in 1905 and its first president, William 

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

Roosevelt. Numerous correspondence was exchanged 

between them regarding over-harvest of birds, funding 

for the Bureau of Biological Survey, and protection of 

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

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

the Fort Niobrara Military Reservation. The American 

Bison Society, headed by Dr. William Hornaday, was 

directly responsible for establishing Wichita Mountains 

NWR in Oklahoma, National Bison Range in Montana, 

and Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota for the 

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

instrumental in bringing bison to Fort Niobrara. Dr. 

Palmer, a member of the American Bison Society and 

2nd Vice President of the Audubon Society, states in the 

1912 Annual Report of the American Bison Society that 

“on January 12, 1912, the Niobrara Bird Reservation was 

created by Executive Order. This reservation comprises 

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

River, near Valentine, including some grazing land, and 

only needs a fence to make it an ideal reservation for 

buffalo and other big game of the Great Plains.” 

A 1913 report from the Chief of the Bureau of Biological 

Survey to the Secretary of Agriculture summarizes the 

events leading up to the addition of the big game purpose 

to Fort Niobrara. The following is an excerpt from that 

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

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

Nebraska, generously offered his herd of buffalo, elk, and 

deer to the Government for preservation on national 

territory within the state of Nebraska. The lack of 

suitable quarters caused some delay in accepting the 

offer, but on November 14, 1912, an Executive Order was 

issued setting aside as a game preserve a tract of land 

additional to the Niobrara bird reservation near Valentine, 

Nebraska. The herd was then officially accepted by the 

Secretary of Agriculture and preparations began for 

establishing it on this very favorable location. Through 

the cooperation of the National Association of Audubon 

Societies and the citizens of Valentine, an enclosure was 

provided at an expense of $1,700. Some of the buildings 

remaining on the old Fort Niobrara Military Reservation 

were utilized as headquarters, and a warden was 

appointed on December 16, 1912.” 

The Refuge was expanded again by Executive Orders in 

1920 and 1936, the Resettlement Administration, subsequent purchases from private individuals, and a donation 

from the Nebraska Public Power District bringing the 

Refuge’s total acreage to 19,131. Refuge reports state 

that the 1920 expansion was for protecting/providing 

winter roost sites for sharp-tailed grouse and prairie 

chickens, and tracts of land acquired in 1936 were for 

various purposes including planting of grain crops for 

migratory birds, pronghorn antelope management, and 

administrative efficiency (inholdings, straighten 

boundaries). 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 13 
Management History 

Management efforts from the Refuge’s establishment 

through the early 1940’s considered the needs of both 

birds and big game. Initial work involved a general 

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

of the boundary and big game enclosure. Construction of 

boundary fences of Refuge lands north of the Niobrara 

River for use by expanding bison and elk herds was 

planned in 1915 with the project completed in the early 

1920’s. Earthen dams were built across various tributary 

streams beginning in 1922 to improve conditions for 

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

and Work Projects Administration staff rebuilt several 

original earthen dams, constructed new dams, planted 

various wetland plants, constructed predator fencing 

around ponds to improve nesting conditions, and planted 

shelter belts for birds. Corrals, additional fence, and 

watering facilities south of the Niobrara River were also 

constructed during this time. Approximately 150 acres of 

Refuge lands were planted to various grain crops for 

grouse and waterfowl in the late 1930’s. 

Refuge reports and other correspondence suggest a shift 

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

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

early 1940’s, although emphasis varied depending upon 

the viewpoint of management. Numbers of bison, elk, and 

longhorns maintained on the Refuge fluctuated according 

to forage availability and genetic management needs. For 

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

of Refuge grasslands were annually hayed or grazed by 

permittees and not available for use by big game herds. 

Approved winter herd levels during this time period 

were 175 bison and 150 longhorns. Following a review of 

management programs in the mid-1950’s, permittee 

haying and grazing was terminated and more fence and 

water facilities were constructed to allow areas to be 

rested, encourage recovery of grasses, better distribute 

grazing by the bison and longhorns, and enable 

management to consider the needs of prairie grouse. 

Herd levels following the review in 1956 and until the 

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

and 200-300 longhorns maintained under a deferred 

grazing rotation. Bison and longhorn herds were allowed 

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

short duration grazing, and meet suggested genetic 

management recommendations. Longhorn numbers 

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

Refuge high of 400 animals 1992-1996. Maintenance of 

bison and longhorns at high herd levels limited habitat 

management options and raised concern that native bird 

populations, especially prairie grouse, were not receiving 

adequate management consideration. A review of the 

habitat and fenced animal management programs was 

initiated and included consultation with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) on grassland condition 

assessment and grazing program recommendations, 

consultation with geneticists and review of literature 

regarding bison and longhorn management, and review of 

scientific literature as it relates to native bird management. 

Water Rights/Management History 

Fort Niobrara NWR holds no water rights permits with 

the State of Nebraska; however, lands reserved from the 

public domain for creation of the Fort Niobrara NWR 

carry with them a Federal Reserved Water Right that 

the United States has not asserted at this time. 

The Refuge has 25 windmill driven stock water wells and 

six domestic wells which do not require groundwater 

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

are exempt from special dam construction or water 

storage permits because of their size and because 

diversion or withdrawal of water from the reservoirs is 

nonexistent. 

A portion of the Niobrara River was designated as Wild 

and Scenic in 1991. The National Park Service has 

asserted, as yet unquantified, a Federal Reserve Water 

Right to maintain instream flow. 

In 1986, the Nebraska Public Power District quitclaimed 

land to the United States that included the Cornell Dam 

and Power House. 

Bison History 

An estimated 30 million bison once roamed the Great 

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

animals were alive due to loss of habitat and hunting. 

Free-ranging bison are believed to have been extirpated 

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

reintroduced to Fort Niobrara in January 1913 as part of 

the national effort to preserve this native herbivore with 

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

of Friend, Nebraska and the transfer of two bulls from 

Yellowstone National Park. Additional introductions 

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

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

Bison Range) to minimize inbreeding and maintain the 

species as closely genetically as possible to those 

surviving the bottleneck of near extinction. Policy/ 

philosophy implemented over the years has been to 

preserve and maintain a representative herd under 

reasonably natural conditions in numbers sufficient to 

ensure their continued existence. Management actions 

have included culling, controlled herd movements, 

branding, brucellosis vaccination, disease testing, and 

limited genetic monitoring. 

14 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Elk History 

Elk were once abundant in the northern Great Plains, 

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

described the elk herds along the Niobrara River in the 

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

elk were extirpated from Nebraska due to hunting and 

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

Fort Niobrara in January 1913 with the donation of 17 elk 

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

policy/philosophy implemented over the years has been 

to maintain a representative herd under reasonably 

natural conditions in numbers sufficient to ensure their 

continued existence. Periodic introductions of elk to the 

Refuge herd have occurred over the years in an effort to 

minimize the negative effects of inbreeding. Elk numbers 

have varied with winter population levels exceeding 100 in 

the early 1930’s and recent population levels averaging 50 

to 60. 

Longhorn History 

Longhorns have been managed at Fort Niobrara since 

1936 to assure perpetuation of a historically significant 

animal. The following information, taken from Dobie 

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

historical significance of the longhorn and how the 

government became involved in the preservation effort. 

Longhorn cattle originate from Spanish cattle that were 

brought to the New World in about 1521 by Gregorio 

Villalobos. Early explorers, including Coronado, brought 

these cattle from Mexico into what is now Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Texas. The herds eventually spread from 

Louisiana to California. Although utilized by Native 

Americans and settlers, the Spanish cattle roamed more 

or less uncontrolled for over 300 years gradually 

evolving into the “longhorn.” Longhorns were the first 

major beef supply in the United States and were the 

cattle that made famous the Chisolm, Dodge, and 

Boseman Trails. Beginning in the mid 1860s and ending 

by 1895, an estimated 5 million head of longhorns were 

trailed from Texas to Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, 

Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado, some walking 

approximately 2,000 miles. The attributes which helped 

the longhorn to survive heat, drought, flies, predators, 

limited forage, and travel great distances were a liability 

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

was threatened with extinction. Through a special 

Congressional appropriation, funds were made available 

to locate and manage representative, true-to-type 

longhorns at Wichita Mountains National Wildlife 

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

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

were shipped to Wichita Mountains. A second gene pool 

of this founding herd was established at Fort Niobrara 

with the transfer of 4 cows, 1 bull, and 1 steer in May of 

1936. 

The decision to establish a second gene pool of this 

founding herd at Fort Niobrara is considered 

departmental or internal as no record of an Executive 

Order, Congressional legislation, or Congressional intent 

exists. Longhorn management over the years has 

attempted to allow natural factors to influence and 

maintain historic herd traits such as foraging ability, 

milk production, calving ease, hardiness and protection of 

young from predators. In addition, animals selected/ 

perpetuated by management have exhibited representative 

conformation, horn structure, color variability, and 

genetic diversity. 

Pronghorn Antelope History 

Pronghorn antelope were historically common on the 

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

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

only in the western and northern portions of Nebraska. 

Efforts to reintroduce pronghorn antelope to Fort 

Niobrara NWR began in 1924 with the transfer of 10 

animals from Nevada. The herd gradually increased to 

17 animals in 1932, but then steadily decreased in 

numbers. Attempts to establish a second herd of 

antelope with the transfer of 34 animals in 1936 also 

failed. Coyote predation is the primary factor influencing 

the survival of pronghorn on Fort Niobrara. Pronghorn 

have not been actively managed for in recent years. 

Bighorn Sheep History 

Bighorn sheep formerly occurred in Nebraska on the 

Pine Ridge and adjacent badlands in the northwest part 

of the state; in breaks along the Niobrara River east to 

near Long Pine, Wildcat and Bighorn Ridges, and among 

the rough buttes and canyons along the North Platte 

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

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

A feasibility study of reintroducing bighorn sheep to the 

Refuge was completed in 1979; however, no action was 

taken. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 15 
Native Birds and Other Wildlife History 

Management of native birds and other wildlife has varied 

in intensity over the years with the greatest impact 

indirectly or directly due to habitat management practices. 

Prairie grouse, a term used to describe sharp-tailed grouse 

and prairie chicken, were once plentiful on the Great 

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

eastern markets, development of efficient railway 

shipping, and willingness of individuals to exploit a 

seemingly unlimited resource, combined to dramatically 

reduce prairie grouse populations. Extirpated in many 

parts of their ranges, remnant populations of 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 and included enlargement of the Refuge, feeding 

stations, farming/food plot program, revision of grassland 

haying and grazing programs in 1956, and population 

monitoring. Prairie grouse surveys were initiated in 1956 

as part of a multiple Refuge research project that 

studied prairie grouse populations in relation to land use. 

This study conducted from 1956 to 1965 in grasslands 

south and east of the Niobrara River suggested that the 

combination of rapidly increasing amounts of idle grassland 

(one phase of revised Refuge haying and grazing program) 

and favorable conditions for reproduction resulted in a 

rapid increase in grouse numbers on Fort Niobrara 

between 1956 and 1959. 

The substitution of bison grazing for rest in approximately 

4,200 acres beginning in 1963 did not depress the grouse 

population; however, researchers questioned what levels 

grouse populations would have reached if this grassland 

block had been left idle. They believed that habitat 

conditions (structure, species composition) which is 

correlated to use (grazing, haying) determined the 

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

operated equally in good and poor habitat to cause 

similar rates of annual population change. Annual counts 

of displaying sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chicken 

males conducted since the completion of this research 

project support that relationship or effect. Prairie 

grouse numbers have cycled with higher average 

population levels occurring on the Refuge when forage 

utilization [represented by Animal Use Months (AUM)] 

by bison, longhorns, and elk was lower. 

Other wildlife management activities completed over the 

years include reintroduction of Canada geese (1914), 

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

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

the early years to enhance bird production. Also, periodic 

control of prairie dogs was conducted. Descriptions in 

Refuge reports suggest prairie dogs were found in the 

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

and possibly on the tableland north of the Niobrara 

River. Presence/absence and statements of relative 

abundance have been made for various groups of wildlife 

species beginning with birds in 1913 and species lists 

have been compiled and updated as needed. 

16 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Public Use History 

Since the Refuge’s establishment, recreational 

opportunities on the Refuge have centered around 

wildlife/wildlands observation and education. Early 

management emphasized development of a foot trail and 

motorized tour route to allow Refuge visitors the 

opportunity to observe bison, elk, and Texas longhorns in 

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

popular attraction for school groups and Refuge visitors 

over the years. It contained information and interesting 

photographs about the old military Fort Niobrara, a 

collection and explanation of paleontological finds, a 

collection of mounted birds and museum skins of 

mammals, and a native grass display. The current visitor 

center was constructed in the mid 1970’s and contains 

various photographs, text, items, and computer/ 

interactive program interpreting Refuge history, 

wildlife, wildlands, management and the military fort. 

The Fort Niobrara Natural History Association has 

various books, postcards, posters, and miscellaneous 

wildlife related items for sale in the center. 

Canoeing the Niobrara River was referred to as “increasing 

in popularity” in 1972. However, the estimated 2,960 

activity hours reported in 1972 in the Fort Niobrara 

Wilderness Study was not considered excessive to 

prevent inclusion of the River corridor in the area to be 

designated as wilderness pursuant to criteria under the 

Wilderness Act. Since then, the number of people 

canoeing and tubing down the Niobrara River within 

Fort Niobrara NWR has steadily increased. Beginning in 

1993, outfitters and the Service recorded the number of 

people canoeing and tubing the River through the 

Refuge. This information showing the increase in floating 

use is found in Figure 2. Increased River use has raised 

concerns about disturbance to wildlife, impacts on 

vegetation, the quality of experience for Refuge visitors, 

and compatibility with the Wilderness Act. Management 

began to address River recreation concerns through the 

Environmental Assessment process in 1994 and efforts 

are ongoing. 

Figure 2 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 17 
Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge 

Purpose and Mission 

Refuge Purpose 

The Fort Niobrara NWR was created by Executive 

Order 1461, January 11, 1912, (13,279 acres) “...reserved 

and set apart for the use of the Department of Agriculture 

as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” 

Shortly after the Refuge’s establishment, J.W. Gilbert, 

owner of a private game park at Friend, Nebraska, “offered 

his buffalo, elk, and deer to the Federal Government for 

preservation on a national reservation, with the 

understanding that they would remain in Nebraska. The 

acceptance of this offer was delayed through lack of a 

suitable range in the State. On November 14, 1912, 

however, an Executive Order was issued enlarging the 

Fort Niobrara Game Preserve (then known as the 

Niobrara Reservation) by adding thereto the area 

formerly used as the parade grounds and headquarters 

for the old military post. This made the total area of the 

preserve about 14,200 acres. Mr. Gilbert’s offer was then 

formally accepted by the Secretary of Agriculture, and 

arrangements were made to transfer the animals to Fort 

Niobrara.” (Ruth 1938) As a result, the Refuge is to be 

managed (1) as a preserve and breeding ground for 

native birds, and (2) for the preservation of bison and elk 

herds representative of those that once roamed the 

Great Plains. 

Refuge Mission Statement 

Preserve, restore, and enhance the exceptional diversity 

of native flora and fauna and significant historic 

resources of the Niobrara River Valley and Sandhills of 

Nebraska for the benefit of present and future generations. 

18 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Refuge Goals and Objectives Habitat Management
 

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 here to provide a logical step-down from 

the broad purpose and mission statements to concrete 

management decisions. They are also useful in this 

document as a comparison with the following section on 

alternatives. Ideally, each alternative should meet all 

these objectives, in practice, some meet them more fully 

than others. The preferred alternative (the CCP) 

represents a course of action felt to meet them best. 

Interrelationships of Goals and Objectives 

The Refuge goals and objectives are 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. Goals and objectives for habitat, wildlife, 

threatened and endangered Species, interpretation and 

recreation, and ecosystem provides additional information 

for managers to refine specific actions and to help in 

evaluating success of habitat management and use of the 

Refuge by the public. In order for refuge managers to 

achieve the mission of the refuge fully, these objectives 

need to be understood holistically and applied in 

combination, each being a critical part of the Refuge 

mission. 

Goal: - Preserve, restore, and enhance the unique 

diversity of upland and riparian plant communities and 

associated water resources representative of the 

physiographic regions described as Sandhills Prairie, 

Mixed Prairie, Rocky Mountain Coniferous Forest, 

Eastern Deciduous Forest, and Northern Boreal Forest 

within the Northern Great Plains to ensure their rarity, 

richness, and representativeness is sustainable into the 

future. 

Grasslands Objective: 

Maintain the approximate 14,264 acres of Sandhill Prairie 

and Mixed Prairie vegetation communities in early 

through late successional stages to meet nesting, 

brooding, feeding and/or protective cover requirements 

of various grassland dependent birds, fenced animals and 

other wildlife. Species composition on a minimum of 90 

percent of the grasslands will be middle-to-late 

successional stage and consist of 75-85 percent grasses, 

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

percent shrubs (dominant species as described by Kaul 

and Rolfsmeier 1993, Schneider et al. 1996, USDA Soil 

Conservation Service 1983). Vegetation structure will 

exist in a range of heights and densities with complete 

visual obstruction to an average height of six inches in 

the fall on a minimum of 50 percent of the grassland 

acreage (Prose 1985; Prose 1987). A minimum of 50 

percent of the grasslands will not have planned burning 

or grazing during the native bird breeding season (April 

15 - July 15). 

Ponderosa Pine Savanna/Woodland Objective: 

Manage the approximate 3,022 acres of Rocky Mountain 

Coniferous Forest community to provide nesting, 

brooding, feeding and/or protective cover requirements 

of various native birds, fenced animals, and other wildlife. 

Approximately 85 percent of the acreage will be maintained 

as savanna and consist of 70 percent grasses, 10 percent 

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

10 percent trees with the remaining acreage managed as 

a woodland/forest. Species composition to manage for 

will be based on descriptions by Kaul and Rolfsmeier 

1993, Schneider et al. 1996, USDA Soil Conservation 

Service 1983. A minimum of 50 percent of this community 

type will not have planned grazing or burning during the 

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

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 19 
Riparian Eastern Deciduous/Northern Boreal 

Forest Objective: 

Maintain and preserve the approximate 1,296 acres of 

Eastern Deciduous Forest/Northern Boreal Forest 

riparian community to provide nesting, brooding, feeding 

and/or protective cover requirements of various native 

birds and other wildlife. Species composition to manage 

for will be based on descriptions by Kaul and Rolfsmeier 

1993, and Schneider et al. 1996. Habitat diversity will be 

enhanced by managing for a mix of trees (size and age 

classes with a minimum of 10 percent mature trees), and 

well-developed shrub and herbaceous layers. Strips of 

woodlands (150 acres) in habitat units utilized by fenced 

animals will be protected to the extent necessary to 

ensure regeneration. A minimum of 50 percent of this 

community type will not have planned grazing or 

burning during the native bird breeding season (April 15 

- July 15). 

Niobrara River and Associated Wetlands Objectives: 

Restore and maintain the approximate 375 acres of the 

Niobrara River and associated wetlands with emphasis 

on maintaining streambed quality, stream bank stability, 

water flow, water temperature, and quality. Use existing 

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

nitrate, pollutants) and water temperature as minimum 

baseline levels and repeat at five year intervals. Ensure 

vegetation adjacent to the River and streams are 

adequate to minimize erosion, dissipate water energy and 

trap sediments. 

Invader/Exotic Species Objective: 

Prevent additional exotic vegetational species from 

becoming established and reduce the occurrence, 

frequency and stand density of existing invader/exotic 

vegetation. Target level of combined total of invader/ 

exotics is less than 5 percent of species composition. 

Invader/exotic species to manage include leafy spurge, 

purple loosestrife, Canada thistle, Kentucky bluegrass, 

smooth brome, downy brome, sweet clover, reed canary 

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

Wildlife 

Goals: Preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological 

diversity and abundance of migratory and resident 

wildlife with emphasis on native birds. 

Maintain representative breeding herds of nationally 

significant animals under reasonably natural conditions. 

Prairie Grouse Objective: 

Maintain a five-year average density of one prairie grouse 

lek/1.4 sq. mile with an annual target of 100 sharp-tailed 

grouse and 65 prairie chicken breeding males in the 

grasslands (approximately 12,271 acres) south and east 

of the Niobrara River (USFWS, unpublished Refuge 

data). 

Native Bird Objective: 

Maintain or increase breeding and migration use on Fort 

Niobrara by Species of Management Concern, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 6, including northern 

harrier, ferruginous hawk, upland sandpiper, long-billed 

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

woodpecker, loggerhead shrike, dickcissel, lark bunting, 

grasshopper sparrow, chestnut-collared longspur, 

eastern meadowlark, and other habitat sensitive migratory 

birds such as western meadowlark, bobolink, claycolored sparrow, belted kingfisher, willow flycatcher, 

and yellow-breasted chat. Use existing data as minimum 

baseline levels and implement monitoring procedures that 

provide an index to overall species richness/diversity and 

document population trends of selected species over a 

five year period. 

Bison and Elk Objective: 

Preserve and maintain breeding populations of bison and 

elk with age and sex composition approximating historic 

herds. Implement management actions that maintain or 

increase levels of genetic variability to assure viable, 

sustainable populations according to accepted standards 

of conservation biology (Berger 1996, Berger and 

Cunningham 1994). 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Objective: 

Reintroduce Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep to the 

Refuge to restore an indigenous species into its historic 

range. 

Prairie Dog Objective: Maintain the existing 20 acre 

black-tailed prairie dog town in the exhibition habitat unit 

and establish a colony at another location to enhance 

Refuge biological diversity. The goal for prairie dog 

acreage on the Refuge will be at least 400 acres. 

Other Indigenous Wildlife Objective: Ensure the 

diversity and abundance of other indigenous mammals, 

reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates continues. 

Use existing data as minimum baseline levels and 

monitor periodically to document population trends. 

(Bogan, 1995) 

20 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Threatened and Endangered Species Interpretation and Recreation
 

Goal: Contribute to the preservation and restoration of 

threatened and endangered flora and fauna that occur or 

have historically occurred in the area of Fort Niobrara 

NWR. 

Endangered Plant Objective: 

Evaluate the Refuge for blowout penstemon habitat. If 

suitable habitat exists, establish plants in at least two 

site/ 

Endangered Wildlife Objective: 

Maintain a minimum of 10 percent of the woodlands within 

the Niobrara River corridor in mature or old-growth 

timber with an open and discontinuous canopy to provide 

undisturbed roosting habitat for wintering populations 

of bald eagles. Monitor and document eagle use on the 

Refuge and mortality in the area. 

Whooping Crane, Piping Plover, Peregrine Falcon, 

and Least Tern Objective:

 Maintain the shallow braided River habitat above 

Cornell Dam for use by whooping cranes, piping plovers, 

and least terns during migration. Keep use areas free 

from human disturbance. Monitor and document 

migration use by whooping cranes, piping plover, least 

terns, and peregrine falcons as it occurs. 

American Burying Beetle Objective: 

Determine if American burying beetles inhabit the 

Refuge. Implement appropriate management strategies 

if a population exists. 

Goal: Provide the public with quality opportunities to 

learn about and enjoy the ecological diversity, wildlands, 

wildlife, and history of the Refuge in a largely natural 

setting and in a manner compatible with the purposes for 

which the Refuge was established. 

Interpretation, Wildlife Observation and Photography, 

and Environmental Education Objectives: 

Provide visitors with quality interpretation, environmental 

education, wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities. 

Ensure a safe, quality River floating experience on the 

Wild and Scenic Niobrara River that follows the standards 

of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, National 

Wildlife Refuge System and maintains the integrity of 

the Fort Niobrara Wilderness Area. 

Protect and interpret Refuge cultural and paleontological 

sites. 

Fishing Objective: 

Provide opportunities for warm water fishing in sections 

of the Niobrara River and tributaries. 

Hunting Objective: 

Offer a limited, strictly controlled hunting opportunities 

for elk and bighorn sheep to facilitate removal of herd 

excess. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 21 
Ecosystem (Partner)
 

Goal: Promote partnerships to preserve, restore, and 

enhance a diverse, healthy, and productive ecosystem of 

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

Ecosystem Objectives/Strategies for the Fort 

Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex: 

Support the National Scenic River and Niobrara River 

Council to meet desired future conditions of the Niobrara 

Scenic River. 

Support the Sandhills Management Plan through 

Partners for Wildlife Program to enhance wildlife 

habitat on private lands. 

Support use of Refuges as research areas for relevant 

natural resource studies. Conduct applied research on 

management of threatened and endangered plant and 

animal populations. 

Develop an effective outreach program that results in 

two wildlife habitat/public use projects completed 

annually with non-governmental 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 the CCP document to help in marketing Refuge 

needs through grant writing and networking with other 

entities. 

22 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan developed four 

alternatives for management of Fort Niobrara National 

Wildlife Refuge which include Current Management (No 

Action), Historical, Intensive Wildlife Management, and 

Modified Historical (Preferred Alternative). These 

alternatives are summarized in a matrix (see Appendix 

A) and discussed in detail in upcoming pages of the 

document. Two alternatives, maximization of economic 

uses and placing the Refuge in custodial status, were 

briefly considered but discarded because they violate the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 and do not meet the mission and goals of Fort 

Niobrara and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Alternative A. Current Management 

(No Action) 

Grassland/Fenced Animal Management 

Approximately 350 bison, 70 elk, and 250 Texas longhorns 

are managed under reasonably natural conditions to 

assure a genetically sound breeding population, provide 

appropriate viewing opportunities for public enjoyment, and 

support scientific study feasible within the management of 

representative herds. Bison and elk herd structures (sex 

and age ratios) approximate free ranging herds. In 

accordance with Service policy, bison, elk, and longhorn 

numbers above sustainable winter population levels are 

sold or donated annually. Refuge receipts from 1997 

excess bison and longhorn auctions totaled $179,510. 

Introductions to the elk and Texas longhorn herds are 

accomplished periodically to maintain or improve genetic 

diversity. 

Maintaining long-term population genetic variability of the 

bison, elk and longhorn herds, which affects population 

fitness or health, is addressed through population size, 

sex and age ratio, and addition of animals from other 

populations. Elk and longhorn herds are maintained 

below minimum population levels, therefore, periodic 

introductions of animals from other populations are 

accomplished to minimize inbreeding. The bison herd at its 

current level and sex ratio provides the effective population 

size required for maintaining levels of genetic variability, 

without induced immigration, that commensurate with 

accepted standards of conservation biology (Berger 1996, 

Berger and Cunningham 1994). 

Biological monitoring of the grasslands and herds is the 

minimum required to document current habitat condition 

and guide management. Range condition surveys and 

suggested initial stocking rates of the Refuge are completed 

by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

every 5 to 10 years. Visual obstruction reading transects 

are accomplished periodically to document vegetation 

structure. Fenced animal monitoring includes monthly 

population surveys, annual disease testing of excess 

animals, and infrequent (7 to 10 years) genetic testing. 

Detailed breeding records of longhorns are also maintained 

for genetic management purposes. 

Habitat management strategies are implemented that 

maintain or improve grassland health and provide forage 

for bison, elk, and Texas longhorns. Approximately 50 

miles of interior fence and 50 miles of boundary fence 

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

control timing of grazing and access/movement of the 

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

length) implemented in the estimated 40 habitat units 

vary according to species management needs and 

behavior, natural use patterns/seasonal movements of 

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

conditions, available Animal Use Months (AUM), range 

site and condition. Large ungulate herds consume and/or 

remove by trampling an estimated 8,400 AUMs of forage 

a year which is approximately 40 percent of the total 

plant production, leaving approximately 60 percent of the 

vegetation for plant vigor and use by other wildlife 

(Waller et al. 1986, USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 1996). Texas longhorns, exhibition herds, and 

government horses are supplemented during the winter 

as conditions warrant with approximately 600 tons of 

prairie hay harvested from Valentine NWR. Other 

annual management actions include one or more years of 

rest on approximately 4 percent of the acreage, no 

planned grazing or burning on approximately 30 percent 

of the acreage during the native bird breeding season, 

prescribed burning of approximately 100 acres to 

invigorate native plants or control cedar invasion, and 

suppression of all wildfires. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 23 
Riparian and Woodland Management Native Birds and Other Wildlife 

Management of the Niobrara River, numerous streams, 

and associated riparian habitat emphasizes maintenance 

of current conditions. Nearly all of the Niobrara River 

and associated riparian habitat are fenced to control 

access of bison, elk, and Texas longhorns except the 

tributary streams in the wilderness area. The Cornell 

Dam is maintained to provide shallow-braided river and 

sandbar habitat upstream. Twelve ponds formed by 

damming tributary streams are held at full capacity 

throughout most of the year for use by waterfowl and 

other birds, fenced animals, and fish rearing under 

cooperative agreement with the Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission. Periodic drawdowns of these 

impoundments are accomplished for aquatic vegetation 

control and structure repair. Breached impoundments in 

the wilderness area are being allowed to return to a natural 

state. Several natural impoundments have been created by 

beavers. Research of historic water rights is ongoing. 

Limited monitoring of stream flow and contaminants is 

accomplished periodically. 

Woodland management is minimal and includes control 

of cedars, exclusion of fenced animals, and removal of 

dead or downed timber presenting a safety or fire hazard 

or threatening facilities. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Use by bald eagles, whooping cranes, and other federally 

listed species on the Refuge is documented through 

periodic surveys. Required habitat conditions are 

maintained. Protective actions are implemented as 

needed. 

Management strives to maintain the existing diversity 

and abundance of various native birds and other wildlife 

by providing a mosaic of habitat conditions. A 20-acre 

prairie dog colony is maintained in the exhibition habitat 

unit. A maternity colony of big brown bats (estimated 200 

individuals) inhabits the historic north barn during the 

late spring and summer with no management efforts 

made to alter their occupancy. 

Biological monitoring of native birds and other wildlife is 

carried out to the greatest extent possible with current 

staffing and management priorities. Prairie grouse lek 

counts are conducted each spring with data available for 

comparison dating back to 1956. A breeding bird survey 

route established in 1992 is conducted by staff or 

volunteers. Staff cooperate with the Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission by completing the annual Spring 

Coordinated Sandhill Crane Survey, Mid-December 

Goose Survey, Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey, Winter 

Turkey Survey, and Summer Turkey Brood Survey. A 

general wildlife observation log is maintained to document 

presence/absence and relative numbers of various 

species. 

Exotic and Invading Species 

Exotic and invading vegetation species are controlled 

through an integrated pest management approach. 

Various biological agents are being used in the ongoing 

effort to reduce the occurrence of purple loosestrife 

along the Niobrara River. Four small patches (less than 

one-eighth acre each) of leafy spurge and two larger 

patches (one acre each) are controlled through mechanical 

and limited chemical applications. Small areas of exotic 

cool season grasses exist at disturbed sites (i.e., road 

ditch, old farm ground, cattle feed areas) and are being 

controlled with grazing and prescribed burning. Limited 

mechanical control and prescribed burning of eastern 

red cedar is being implemented. Reed canary grass is 

common along the River, however, no control measures 

are in place. 

24 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Public Use 

Based on general observations and data collected in the 

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

people visit the Refuge annually for wildlife/wildland 

observation, photography, interpretation/education, 

picnicking, hiking, and floating on the Niobrara River. 

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

displays interpreting the history of the military fort, 

area wildlife and habitat, and Refuge management, is 

open Monday through Friday year-round and weekends 

Memorial Day to Labor Day with actual use recorded at 

approximately 6,000 visits. The Fort Falls nature trail is 

approximately one mile long and educates the hiker 

through a brochure describing the different vegetation 

communities and associated wildlife found in this unique, 

biologically diverse area. The 15-stop self-guiding auto 

tour route is located in the exhibition habitat unit and 

provides information on the prairie dog town, bison, elk, 

Texas longhorns, and other prairie inhabitants. Other 

interpretive facilities under some phase of development 

include a kiosk at the canoe launch with education panels 

titled “Niobrara Valley,” “Welcome to Fort Niobrara,” 

“Canoeing the Niobrara River”; the observation deck 

above Fort Falls includes education panels titled 

“Prairie Oasis,” “Fort Falls,” “Sand, Rock & Water”; 

and an interpretive panel to be located in the exhibition 

habitat unit providing information on elk and prairie 

dogs. Interpretation and environmental education 

services are provided when staff are available and include 

talks or guided tours for school groups (elementary 

through college level), scouts, 4-H and special projects 

(i.e., Old West Days Trail Ride). The public is invited to 

observe fall roundups and auctions of bison and longhorns, 

participate in Migratory Bird day activities, and other 

Refuge programs. 

The Niobrara River is open to fishing with a fishing plan 

expected to be completed in the near future. Angler 

opportunities are limited with most fishing occurring 

immediately below Cornell Dam. Kid’s Fishing Day is 

held annually in September and includes trout, catfish, 

and bluegill fishing in the corral pond, fish identification 

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

a cooperative effort between the Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission (NG&PC), Niobrara Natural History 

Association, volunteers, and the Refuge staff. 

The Bur Oak Picnic area is located along the Niobrara 

River at the Refuge entrance. Tables and rest rooms are 

used mainly by people visiting the Refuge for River 

floating or wildlife observation. 

The Refuge is closed to hunting. 

The Refuge is closed to recreational trapping. Trapping for 

depredation or damage control purposes is accomplished 

as necessary through force account or a special use 

permit in accordance with State and Service regulations. 

Floating the Niobrara River with canoes or tubes is a 

popular recreational activity on the Refuge. Over 18,000 

vessels carrying more than 30,000 people were put in the 

Niobrara River from the Refuge launch facility in 1997. 

Most of the canoeing and tubing takes place during June 

(18 percent), July (37 percent), and August (40 percent), 

with Saturday morning being the most congested period. 

During an average Saturday in July 1997, approximately 

1,200 people launched 684 vessels into the River from 

8-11 a.m. which is one vessel launch every 16 seconds. 

Due to the alarming increase of River use documented 

in outfitter reports from 1993-1997, crowding and 

compatibility with wilderness designation and wildlife 

needs, Refuge management has in place a moratorium on 

new outfitters. Also, the existing eleven outfitters have 

been informed that any expansion of their business on 

the Refuge is at their own risk, and River use on the 

Refuge should be redistributed to week days. The 

Refuge has been selected by the Service as a User Fee 

Demonstration Area due to the volume of River use, 

increasing cost of maintaining the launch area and public 

rest rooms, and the need for additional law enforcement. 

After receiving input from canoe and tube outfitters, 

National Park Service, Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission, Natural Resources District, and other 

interested parties, the Refuge staff set up a fee and 

collection system which is thought to be fair and simple. 

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

of public use levels on the Niobrara River and affects to 

Refuge wildlife/wildlands and wilderness and determination 

of acceptable use/levels are not being accomplished due 

to lack of funding and staffing. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 25 
Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Limited cultural resource studies have been conducted 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park 

Service, and various research institutions to locate and 

describe and evaluate cultural and paleontological 

resources. Less than 1 percent of the Refuge has been 

inventoried for these resources. The remains of old Fort 

Niobrara, including the north barn, have been determined 

eligible for Nomination to the National Register of 

Historic Places. Twelve of the 21 Refuge buildings are 

over 50 years old and need to be evaluated for historic 

significance. Minimal interpretation of the various 

cultural resources is available. 

Partnerships 

The Refuge works with a variety of organizations and 

individuals on natural resource projects including private 

landowners (Partners For Wildlife program); Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (Refuge grazing 

program, Wetland Reserve Program); Farm Service 

Agency (easement program); Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission (wildlife surveys, fish rearing in Refuge 

ponds); Cherry County Extension Service (youth 

programs, research); local law enforcement agencies 

(enforcement, youth rehabilitation); Inter Tribal Bison 

Cooperative (bison donations and management); zoos, 

conservation districts and other non-profit qualifying 

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

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

Department of Agriculture (disease and health issues, 

tests, research); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

(interpretative panels, animal transfers); Fort Niobrara 

Natural History Association (Refuge projects, sale of 

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

Commerce (community projects); Niobrara Council 

(River management); Texas Longhorn Breeders 

Association of America and International Texas Longhorn 

Association (longhorn pedigree, registration); The 

Nature Conservancy (fire management, research); Rural 

Fire Protection Districts (wildfire suppression on-and 

off-Refuge); and various universities (research). 

26 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Alternative B. Historical
 

Grassland/Fenced Animal Management 

A major feature of the historical alternative is to maintain 

the bison herd at 350 animals. The herd will be managed 

as a closed herd with no introductions from other herds 

in order to maintain specific genetic characteristics of 

this herd. The existing elk herd would be maintained at 

70 animals. Bighorn sheep will be reintroduced and 

allowed to expand to 50 animals. Herd numbers are after 

sale or wintering populations (breeding herd size). 

Bighorn sheep would be restored as a component of the 

historic assemblage of the resident wildlife formally 

found on the Refuge area. The present Texas longhorn 

herd will be removed and longhorn cattle will not be 

maintained on the Refuge in the future. An attempt will 

be made to place the herd with other responsible entities 

that will maintain the herd intact. Large ungulate herds 

will consume and/or remove by trampling an estimated 

5,610 AUMs of forage a year which is approximately 27 

percent of total plant production, leaving approximately 

73 percent of the vegetation for plant vigor and use by 

other wildlife (Waller et al. 1986, USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 1996). Exhibition herds and 

government horses will be supplemented during the 

winter as conditions warrant with approximately 40 tons 

of prairie hay harvested from Valentine NWR. 

The area available for use by wildlife herds will be 

expanded by the addition of 8-11 miles of fence to enclose 

nearly the entire Refuge and allow bison, elk, and 

bighorn sheep access to most of the native prairie and 

ponderosa pine savannah habitats. It is anticipated that, 

at least initially, bighorn sheep will require a separate 

enclosure. 

As much interior fence as possible will be removed so 

that herds will have more natural and open movement 

patterns. The Service will use prescribed fire, windmills 

and natural water sources, and salt to direct herd area 

use. The purpose is to provide a mosaic of heavily used, 

moderately used, and unused areas which will 

accommodate native grassland birds and other wildlife 

adapted to various grassland habitat conditions. The 

prescribed fire program will increase with up to 2,700 

acres treated annually to invigorate native prairie, 

influence big game use, control cedars, encourage 

regeneration of unique forest types, and simulate historic 

fire intervals (Lenhouts 1995). Other annual management 

actions include one or more years of rest on approximately 

10 percent of the acreage and suppression of all wildfires. 

Winter grazing of the Wilderness Area will be shortened 

2-4 weeks to stay under the carrying capacity of the unit. 

Assured levels of rest will be nonexistent during the 

native bird breeding season. 

Maintaining long-term population genetic variability of 

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

population fitness or health, will be addressed through 

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

from other populations. Elk and bighorn herds will be 

maintained below minimum population levels; therefore, 

periodic introductions of animals from other populations 

will be accomplished to minimize inbreeding. The bison 

herd at its current level and sex ratio provides the 

effective population size required for maintaining levels 

of genetic variability, without induced immigration, that 

commensurate with accepted standards of conservation 

biology (Berger 1996, Berger and Cunningham 1994). 

Sufficient monitoring of the herds to maintain current 

age and sex ratios, herd health, populations levels at or 

below maximum numbers will be completed. Surplus 

animals will be disposed of through traditional annual 

sales and donations and limited control hunts. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 27 
Riparian and Woodland Management 

Cornell Dam and all man-made tributary impoundments 

will be removed allowing these areas to return to a 

natural state. Nearly all of the River and associated 

habitats will continue to be fenced to control access by 

bison and elk. 

Woodland management will increase and focus on cedar 

reduction and regeneration of native plant communities 

through the use of prescribed fire. Mature cottonwoods 

will be maintained in the River corridor to ensure 

wintering bald eagles have adequate roosting habitat. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The Refuge will conduct an American burying beetle 

survey. The Refuge will also continue monitoring bald 

eagle and peregrine falcon use. It is anticipated that 

whooping crane and piping plover use will cease to occur 

as braided habitat associated with the Dam will gradually 

be lost as the River returns to natural conditions. 

Native Birds and Other Wildlife 

Native bird and other wildlife management under a 

historic regime will include increased monitoring and 

emphasis in planned habitat management. Management 

actions that favor species of management concern will be 

implemented to the extent possible. For example, the 

prairie dog colony will be allowed to expand to 400 acres 

which will benefit burrowing owls, a species of management 

concern, and a variety of other birds, mammals, reptiles, 

and insects. Prairie dogs will be controlled in areas 

where they present a safety hazard or conflict with 

management objectives. 

Alternative summer habitat will be provided for the bat 

colony currently using the historic barn and the colony 

relocated. The barn will then be appropriately sealed to 

prevent further degradation. 

Exotic and Invading Species 

The Service will continue its integrated pest management 

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

chemical control methods will continue to be used to 

reduce the presence of purple loostrife and leafy spurge. 

Cedar control efforts will increase through the use of 

prescribed fire and mechanical methods. Management 

efforts will be implemented to reduce the presence of 

invasive cool season grasses, sweet clover, Russian olive, 

and other exotic/invasive species. 

Public Use 

River use will be returned to 1993 levels. This will be 

accomplished by continuing the current restrictions on 

permittees, and by restricting the number of launches to 

all users to 1993 levels. In addition, bans on the possession 

of alcohol, boom boxes, water balloons and water cannons 

will be implemented. Also, no more than five tubes will 

be allowed to be tied together. 

Fishing will be allowed on the Niobrara River and 

Minnichaduza Creek. Special events, such as youth 

fishing day, will continue. 

The Service will initiate and periodically conduct limited 

Refuge hunts. Hunts are to help with herd stabilization 

and will not replace roundups as the major means of 

controlling big game populations. 

The Service will seek funds to construct and staff a new 

environmental education/visitor center to improve 

environmental education and interpretation of wildlife, 

cultural, and historic resources on the Refuge. A site 

plan, being developed, will include a concept design for an 

environmental education/visitor center. The site plan will 

also contain suggestions for improving the existing visitor 

center until such time as a new center is constructed. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

The Service will develop a cultural resource/paleontological 

management plan. The plan will include a 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. 

Partnerships 

The Service will continue all existing cooperative 

activities with other agencies currently in place, with the 

exception of fish rearing in impoundments on tributaries 

of the Niobrara River as these will be removed. The 

Service will seek to establish additional partnerships and 

outside funding sources for bison management. 

Monitoring 

The Service will revise the monitoring plan. At a minimum 

the following monitoring will be conducted: 

P wildlife herd monitoring sufficient to maintain age and 

sex ratios, health, genetic diversity, and annual excess 

removal. 

P native bird species monitoring to supply trend 

information on prairie grouse, species of management 

concern, grassland neotropical migrants, biodiversity 

trend indexes. 

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

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

habitat objectives are being measured and determined 

successful according to a Habitat Management Plan and 

the adaptive management process. 

P federally listed species monitoring, American burying 

beetle survey. 

P monitoring fire effects as part of the prescribed 

burning program. 

28 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Alternative C.
 

Intensive Wildlife Management
 

Grassland/Fenced Animal Management 

A major feature of the intensive wildlife management 

alternative is to reduce the bison herd to 225 animals. The 

herd will be managed as an open herd with introductions 

from other Department of Interior herds in order to 

maintain genetic diversity within the herd. The existing 

elk herd would be maintained at 50 animals. Herd numbers 

are after sale or wintering populations (breeding herd size). 

Bighorn sheep will be reintroduced and allowed to 

expand to 50 animals. Bighorn sheep would be restored 

for the purpose of restoring this species as a component 

of the historic assemblage of the Refuge. The present 

Texas longhorn herd will be reduced to 125. Cows will 

number approximately 100, with 20 bulls and 5 steers. 

Longhorn introductions/exchanges to maintain genetic 

diversity of the herd will continue according to Service 

policy. Sufficient monitoring of herds will be accomplished 

to maintain herd structures, animal health, and populations 

at or below maximum levels. Surplus animals will be 

disposed of through traditional annual sales and donation. 

Limited, controlled hunts may be used to remove 

surplus big game. 

Maintaining long-term population genetic variability of 

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

affects population fitness or health, will be addressed 

through population size, sex, and age ratio, and addition 

of animals from other populations. All herds will be 

maintained below minimum population levels; therefore, 

periodic introductions of animals from other populations 

will be accomplished to minimize inbreeding. Induced 

immigrations along with maintaining historic herd 

structures will provide the effective population size 

required for maintaining levels of genetic variability that 

commensurate with accepted standards of conservation 

biology (Berger 1996, Berger and Cunningham 1994). 

Large ungulate herds will consume and/or remove by 

trampling an estimated 5,115 AUMs of forage a year 

which is approximately 24 percent of total plant production, 

leaving approximately 76 percent of the vegetation for 

plant vigor and use by other wildlife (Waller et al. 1986, 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1996). 

Texas longhorns, exhibition herds, and government 

horses will be supplemented during the winter as 

conditions warrant with approximately 250 tons of prairie 

hay harvested from Valentine NWR. Interior fence will 

be retained in the current configuration and units will be 

managed under a deferred grazing rotation. Longhorns 

may be used in the Valentine NWR habitat management 

program to further increase habitat management 

flexibility on Fort Niobrara NWR. Some additional big 

game fence may be needed for initial introduction efforts 

of bighorn sheep. Other annual habitat management 

actions will include one or more years of rest on at least 

10 percent of the acreage, no planned grazing or burning 

on approximately 50 percent of the acreage during the 

native bird breeding season, suppression of all wildfires, 

and prescribed burning of approximately 500 - 1000 acres 

to invigorate native plants, reduce cedars, and encourage 

regeneration of woodlands. 

Riparian and Woodland Management 

Habitat associated with the Niobrara River and numerous 

tributary streams will be maintained or enhanced. Cornell 

Dam will be maintained to provide shallow-braided river 

and sandbar habitat upstream. Functional tributary 

impoundments will be maintained and non-functional 

impoundments that will benefit native birds and fish will 

be restored. Nearly all of the River and associated 

habitat will be fenced to control access by bison, elk, and 

Texas longhorns. 

Efforts to improve the woodland community will focus on 

reduction of cedars and regeneration of native woodland 

species through the use of prescribed fire and other 

forest management practices. Management will ensure 

that an adequate number of mature trees are maintained 

for winter roosting use by bald eagles. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 29 
Threatened and Endangered Species Public Use 

The Service will conduct an American burying beetle 

survey and will also continue monitoring bald eagle and 

peregrine falcon, whooping crane, and piping plover use. 

Blowout penstemon will be introduced into suitable 

habitat. 

Native Birds and Other Wildlife 

Native birds will receive greater management emphasis 

with actions implemented to meet habitat requirements 

of various species. Monitoring will increase to document 

native bird response to habitat management. 

The 20-acre prairie dog colony in the exhibition habitat 

unit will be maintained and a second colony of prairie 

dogs will be established in suitable habitat and allowed to 

expand to approximately 380 acres. Prairie dogs will be 

excluded from areas where their presence creates a 

safety hazard or conflicts with management objectives. 

Alternative roosting habitat will be provided for the bat 

colony currently located in the historic north barn. The 

north barn will then be appropriately sealed to prevent 

further degradation. 

Exotic and Invading Species 

The Service will continue its integrated pest management 

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

chemical control methods will continue to be used to 

reduce the presence of purple loosestrife and leafy spurge. 

Cedar control efforts will increase through the use of 

prescribed fire and mechanical methods. Management 

efforts will be implemented to reduce the presence of 

invasive cool season grasses, sweet clover, Russian olive, 

and other exotic/invasive species. 

The Service recognizes that an overcrowding situation 

exists on the Niobrara River in the Wilderness Area of 

the Refuge on summer weekends as a result of people 

floating the River. River use will be capped at 1998 levels 

and restrictions on number of outfitters will continue. 

The Service will address the crowding situation by 

determining acceptable peak use levels and implementing 

management strategies that fairly distribute reduced 

floating opportunities among outfitters and the general 

public. In addition, bans on the possession of alcohol, 

boom boxes, water balloons and water cannons will be 

implemented. No more than five tubes will be allowed to 

be tied together, and River floating will only be allowed 

downstream of Cornell Dam. 

Wildlife/wildland observation opportunities will be 

increased with the addition of an access point for hiking and 

horseback riding in the Wilderness Area, establishment of 

a concession to take people to view the bison herd, and 

construction of a trail to a scenic overlook of the 

Niobrara canyon. 

The Service will allow fishing on the Niobrara River and 

Minnichaduza Creek. Special events, such as youth 

fishing day, will continue. 

The Service will initiate and conduct limited Refuge 

hunts for elk and bighorn sheep. 

The Service will seek funds to construct and staff a new 

environmental education/visitor center to improve 

environmental education and interpretation of wildlife, 

cultural, and paleontological resources on the Refuge. A 

site plan, being developed, will include a concept design 

for 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. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

The Service will develop a cultural resource/paleontological 

management plan. The plan will include Refuge-wide 

cultural resource inventory and paleontological resource 

inventory strategies. It will also include increased 

interpretation, protection, and education about the 

cultural and paleontological resources on the Refuge. 

30 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Partnerships 

The Service will explore partnerships with others 

concerning bison management. Existing cooperative 

efforts will be maintained for fire suppression, excess 

bison for the Inter Tribal Bison Council, participation in 

the Niobrara council, and other common coordination 

efforts with other agencies and landowners. The Service 

will seek to increase partnerships with others. 

The Service will seek to develop outside funding sources. 

Examples would be construction of the environmental 

education center, big game fence, paleontological 

inventory, and possible acquisition of nondevelopment 

easements on the Refuge’s north and west borders. 

Monitoring 

The Service will revise the monitoring plan. At a minimum 

the following monitoring will be conducted: 

P wildlife herd and longhorn herd monitoring sufficient 

to maintain age and sex ratios, health, genetic diversity, 

and annual excess removal 

P native bird species monitoring to supply trend 

information on prairie grouse, species of management 

concern, grassland neotropical migrants, and 

biodiversity trend indexes 

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

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

habitat objectives are being measured and determined 

successful according to a Habitat Management Plan and 

the adaptive management process. 

P research/monitoring on Refuge resources and human 

interactions from River floating will be conducted to 

determine carrying capacity of the River. 

P water quality parameters on the Niobrara River 

P federally listed species monitoring, American burying 

beetle survey 

P monitoring fire effects as part of the prescribed 

burning program 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 31 
Alternative D.
 

Modified Historical (Preferred Alternative)
 

Grassland/Fenced Animal Management 

Approximately 200-300 bison and 70-100 elk will be 

managed on the Refuge under reasonably natural 

conditions. Bighorn sheep will be reintroduced to the 

Refuge and allowed to grow to a herd of 50. Texas 

longhorns will no longer be managed at Fort Niobrara. 

In accordance with Service policy, animal numbers above 

winter population levels will be transferred to other 

refuges, sold, or donated annually. Limited Refuge hunts 

may be used as a tool periodically to reduce the bighorn 

sheep and elk populations. Sex and age ratios of the 

herds will approximate historic free-ranging herds. 

Bison, elk, and bighorn sheep populations will be managed 

as “open” herds with introductions or exchanges made 

periodically to maintain the genetic integrity of the herds 

and minimize the negative effects of inbreeding. Sufficient 

monitoring of the herds will be accomplished to ensure 

genetics and health of the animals are maintained and 

herd levels are at or below desired numbers. 

Bison, elk, and bighorn sheep herds will have access to 

nearly all of the grasslands and ponderosa pine savannah 

habitats with the addition of 8-11 miles of big game fence. 

As much interior fence as possible will be removed so 

that herds have a more natural and open movement 

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

influence habitat use. The prescribed fire program will 

increase with up to 1,000 acres treated annually to 

invigorate native prairie, influence big game use, control 

cedars, and encourage regeneration of unique forest 

types. Other annual management actions will include one 

or more years of rest on approximately 10 percent of the 

acreage and suppression of all wildfires. A Habitat 

Management Plan will be developed and an adaptive 

management approach will be used to measure 

achievement toward the grassland habitat objectives. 

Large ungulate herds will consume and/or remove by 

trampling an estimated 3,500 - 5,000 AUMs of forage a 

year which is approximately 17 to 24 percent of total 

plant production, leaving approximately 76 to 83 percent 

of the vegetation for plant vigor and use by other wildlife 

(Waller et al. 1986, USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 1996). Exhibition herds and government horses 

will be supplemented during the winter as conditions 

warrant with approximately 40 tons of prairie hay 

harvested from Valentine NWR. 

Maintaining long-term population genetic variability of 

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

population fitness or health, will be addressed through 

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

from other populations. All herds will be maintained 

below minimum population levels; therefore, periodic 

introductions of animals from other populations will be 

accomplished to minimize inbreeding. Induced 

immigrations along with maintaining historic herd 

structures will provide the effective population size 

required for maintaining levels of genetic variability that 

commensurate with accepted standards of conservation 

biology (Berger 1996, Berger and Cunningham 1994). 

Riparian and Woodland Management 

The Niobrara River, numerous tributary streams, and 

associated riparian habitat will be maintained. Cornell 

Dam will be maintained to provide shallow-braided river 

and sandbar habitat upstream. Twelve ponds formed by 

damming tributary streams will continue to be held at 

full capacity throughout most of the year for use by 

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

under cooperative agreement with the Nebraska Game 

and Parks Commission. Breached impoundments in the 

wilderness area will be returned to their natural state. 

Nearly all of the River and associated habitat will 

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

bighorn sheep. 

Efforts to improve the woodland community will focus on 

reduction of cedars and regeneration of native woodland 

species through the use of prescribed fire and other 

forest management practices. Management will ensure 

that an adequate number of mature trees are maintained 

for winter roosting use by bald eagles. 

32 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Threatened and Endangered Species 

In addition to continuing to provide for wintering bald 

eagle use as mentioned above, the Service will conduct 

an American burying beetle survey, introduce blowout 

penstemon into suitable habitat for this species, and 

continue to provide periodic migration habitat for 

whooping cranes, plovers, and terns in the braided River 

channel habitat upstream of Cornell Dam. 

Native Birds and Other 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. 

Refuge acreage inhabited by prairie dogs will increase to 

at least 400 acres with the establishment of a second 

colony in suitable habitat. Prairie dogs will be excluded 

from areas where their presence creates a safety hazard 

or conflicts with management objectives. 

Alternative summer roosting habitat will be provided for 

the maternity colony of big brown bats currently using 

the historic barn. The barn will then be appropriately 

sealed to prevent further degradation. 

Exotic and Invading Species 

The Service will continue its integrated pest management 

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

chemical control methods will continue to be used to 

reduce the presence of purple loosestrife and leafy spurge. 

Cedar control efforts will increase through the use of 

prescribed fire and mechanical methods. Management 

efforts will be implemented to reduce the presence 

invasive cool season grasses, sweet clover, Russian olive, 

and other exotic/invasive species. 

Public Use 

River Use 

The Service recognizes that an overcrowding situation 

exists on the Niobrara River, in the Wilderness Area of 

the Refuge, on summer weekends as a result of people 

floating the River. The Service will alleviate this using 

the following processes: 

Interim Strategy. Following completion of this 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, a detailed River 

Management Plan will be prepared using one of the 

strategies that follow. In the interim, no new outfitters 

will be issued permits to launch canoes or tubes on the 

Refuge. River use on weekends in the summer will be 

capped at 1998 levels. 

A social carrying capacity study of the River was started 

in 1998. Visitors to the Refuge were interviewed and 

asked to rate a series of photographs with varying 

numbers of canoes and tubes in them. The study results 

will be used to set upper limits of use for summer 

weekends, weekdays during the summer, and the 

remainder of the year. Once peak use levels have been 

determined, one of the following strategies will be used 

to distribute use among outfitters and the general public. 

Strategy A. A reservation system would be implemented 

to regulate the number of floaters on the River. The 

reservation system would function similarly to other 

high public use areas where an individual applies for a 

limited number of opportunities on a first-come, first-serve 

basis. Applications would be accepted 60 days in advance 

of the desired floating date. This would allow the Service 

to regulate the number of floaters during any particular 

time period. For the past few years, the Service has 

monitored floaters and determined reoccurring time 

periods when the number of floaters exceed what the 

Service deems as acceptable levels. Initially, the 

reservation system would be employed during times that 

float-use exceeds acceptable levels. As use continues to 

expand and/or is redistributed from peak times, the 

reservation system would be expanded. For time periods 

that remain below the maximum number of floaters, no 

reservation would be required and open floating would be 

available. Since reservations would be secured by 

individuals and not outfitters, the Service would not have 

to regulate the number of outfitters using the Refuge. 

Outfitters using the Refuge would be required to obtain 

Service special use permits. Once individuals obtained a 

floating reservation, they would be at liberty to make 

floating arrangements with any outfitter working the 

River or use their own equipment. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 33 
Strategy B. A concession contract would be negotiated 

between the Service and a private company or individual 

to implement the reservation system as outlined in 

Strategy A. The contractor would run the reservation 

system and maintain the canoe launch area and also 

possibly operate the visitor center, give tours to the main 

bison herd, and offer hiking/horseback trips to the 

Wilderness Area. The contractor would receive a 

percentage of the income from reservation and/or user 

fees charged to visitors. Canoe outfitters would operate 

under the guidelines outlined in Strategy A, with 

individuals getting a reservation and then choosing an 

outfitter. 

Strategy C. The current number (11) of outfitters would 

be maintained; however, measures would be taken to 

limit the number of floaters they serve and provide 

longer term permits for use of the Refuge. Currently, 

the Service issues one-year special use permits to the 

outfitters holding permits the preceding year. Special 

use permits for new outfitters wishing to establish a float 

business on the Refuge have not been made available. In 

order to treat all current and prospective outfitters 

equally, a lottery system would be employed that when 

fully implemented, each outfitter using the Refuge would 

have a 10-year permit. 

This strategy would require all existing outfitters (11) to 

draw for a special use permit. These permits would vary 

in length times of one, three, five, and ten years. Outfitters 

drawing one-year permits would immediately be placed in a 

new lottery with all interested outfitters that do not hold 

Refuge permits. Successful drawers would receive 10-year 

permits that are effective the year following expiration of 

the one-year permits. Subsequent drawings would be 

held in 3, 5, and 10 years resulting in all outfitters 

possessing 10-year permits that expire at varying years. 

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

was implemented in 1998. Monies collected will be used 

to maintain and improve the canoe launch area and add 

additional law enforcement officers. Fees will be reviewed 

periodically and adjusted to cover expenses. 

Bans on the possession of alcohol, boom boxes, water 

balloons and water cannons will be implemented. No 

more than five tubes will be allowed to be tied together, 

and River floating will only be allowed downstream of 

Cornell Dam. 

River floaters will be encouraged to follow the code of 

ethics developed by the Niobrara Scenic River Council. 

Hunting and Fishing 

The Service will conduct periodic hunts to control 

populations of elk and bighorn sheep. Hunts will be used 

only when other means of excess disposal such as 

roundup and donation are not feasible. The Refuge will 

continue to be closed to all other hunting. 

The Service will allow fishing on the Niobrara River and 

Minnichaduza Creek. Special events, such as youth 

fishing day, will continue. 

Other Public Uses 

The Service will seek funds to construct and staff a new 

environmental education/visitor center to improve 

environmental education and interpretation of wildlife, 

cultural, and historic resources on the Refuge. A site 

plan being developed will include a concept design for an 

environmental education/visitor center. The site plan will 

also contain suggestions for improving the existing visitor 

center until such time as a new center is constructed. 

Wildlife/wildland observation opportunities will be 

expanded and include an access point for hiking and 

horseback riding in the Wilderness Area and construction 

of a trail to a scenic overlook of the Niobrara river 

canyon. 

Viewing of bison and elk will continue to be available year 

round in an exhibition habitat unit. Current facilities and 

wildlife observation and photography uses will remain 

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

concessionaire during peak public use periods, mainly 

the summer months. 

No additional roads or trails will be built; sufficient 

connections currently exist with county and Refuge 

roads. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

The Service will develop a cultural resource/paleontological 

management plan. The plan will include Refuge-wide 

cultural resource inventory and paleontological resource 

inventory strategies. It will also include increased 

interpretation, protection, and education about the 

cultural and paleontological resources on the Refuge. 

The historic hay shed will be protected from further 

degradation by sealing the building and relocating the 

bat colony. 

34 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
 

Partnerships 

The Service will continue to cooperate with Nebraska 

Game and Parks Commission for rearing of brood fish in 

tributary impoundments. Agreements in place for 

wildlands wildfire suppression efforts, excess bison for 

the Inter Tribal Bison Council, participation in the 

Niobrara Council, and other common coordination efforts 

with other agencies and landowners will continue. The 

Service will seek to increase partnerships with others. 

The Service will seek to develop outside funding sources 

and support for implementing some aspects of this 

preferred alternative. Examples would be construction 

of the environmental education center, big game fence, 

and possible acquisition of nondevelopment easements on 

the Refuge’s north and west borders. 

Monitoring 

The Service will write a Habitat Management Plan that 

will be stepped down from the CCP. At a minimum the 

following monitoring will be conducted : 

P wildlife herd monitoring sufficient to maintain age and 

sex ratios, health, genetic diversity, and annual excess 

removal. 

P native bird species monitoring to supply trend 

information on prairie grouse, species of management 

concern, grassland neotropical migrants, biodiversity 

trend indexes. 

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

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

habitat objectives are being measured and determined 

successful according to a Habitat Management Plan and 

the adaptive management process. 

P water quality parameters on the Niobrara River. 

P federally listed species monitoring, American burying 

beetle survey. 

P monitoring/research on River use through the 

Wilderness Area and it’s wildlife and social impacts. 

P monitoring fire effects as part of the prescribed 

burning program. 

Implementing the Plan (Preferred Alternative) 

This section is intended to provide additional information 

to the preferred alternative section above. Where 

possible, time frames are delineated, specific strategies 

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

Habitat 

Develop a Habitat Management Plan. Consider the 

requirements of various native birds and other wildlife 

(i.e., bison, elk, bighorn sheep). 

Incrementally reduce the bison herd from its current 

winter population level of 350 animals. Winter population 

levels will vary from 200-300 animals and based on 

habitat, native bird, and bison herd genetic objectives. 

Surplus bison will be reintroduced to Valentine NWR. 

Fort Niobrara herd reductions will correspond to 

fencing of the southwest portion of Valentine NWR. 

Excess bison will first be allocated for the Valentine 

habitat program with remaining excess disbursed 

through transfer to other Service herds, donation, and 

public auction. 

Remove Texas longhorn cattle from the Refuge within 

1-2 years of completion of the Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 

Wichita Mountains NWR will have priority in receiving 

all or part of the herd. The Service will then attempt to 

place the remaining longhorns with an entity willing to 

manage the herd for genetic purposes. The last option 

for disbursing the herd will be through public auction. 

Incrementally remove interior fence where feasible and 

construct 8-11 miles of big game boundary fence. 

Reduce vehicle trails on the Refuge. Identify main access 

trails to be maintained and discontinue use of other 

trails. Complete minimum trail maintenance required for 

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

Stabilize and encourage revegetation of blowouts located 

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

Allow other blowouts to exist in a natural state if they 

provide suitable habitat for blowout penstemon. 

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. 

The Service’s Regional Dam Safety Officer will continue 

to inspect Cornell Dam periodically to ensure compliance 

with applicable laws, policies, directives, and technical 

recommendations governing Federal safety of dams. 

Furthermore, this Officer will provide technical assistance 

should determination be made that the Dam is no longer 

safe and needs to be removed. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 35 
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. 

Wildlife 

Continue to conduct sharp-tailed grouse and greater 

prairie chicken lek counts. Obtain prairie grouse lek data 

from the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and 

harvest data from Valentine NWR for general comparison 

to Fort Niobrara NWR population trends. 

Implement nongame bird monitoring techniques in the 

grasslands and woodlands to document population 

trends and species richness/diversity. 

Conduct a graduate research project that documents 

native bird response pre- and post-change in management 

from current habitat management emphasizing fenced 

animals to a more natural, less-controlled management 

regime emphasizing native birds. 

Conduct a graduate research project that compares 

native bird use within the River corridor during high and 

low public use periods. 

Continue to maintain a general observation log of bird 

sightings to document presence/absence, relative 

abundance, and use areas. 

Continue to implement fenced animal management 

practices that ensure long-term health and survival of 

the herds. Actions to be taken include periodic animal 

introductions to minimize inbreeding, disease testing and 

vaccination, and mineral supplementation. Geneticists 

and health care professionals will be consulted on a 

regular basis regarding recommended practices and/or 

requirements. 

Consult with population ecologists and/or bison geneticists 

regarding genetic management recommendations/ 

options for the Fort Niobrara NWR bison gene pool 

maintained in two herds; one herd on Fort Niobrara 

NWR and the other herd on Valentine NWR. Collect and 

analyze bison genetic material to establish baseline for 

future comparison. 

Conduct seasonal population surveys of bison, elk, and 

bighorn sheep to document numbers by age and sex, 

mortality, natality, and general health/condition. Annually 

test excess animals for various diseases and ensure that 

animals introduced to the Refuge meet all health test 

requirements. Complete genetic testing of the herds at 

intervals recommended by geneticists to assess if fenced 

animals are being managed appropriately. 

Maintain the black-tailed prairie dog colony in the 

exhibition habitat unit at approximately 20 acres. 

Attempt to establish a second, self-sustaining colony of 

prairie dogs in suitable habitat and allow it to expand to 

approximately 380 acres. The location and boundary of 

the second colony will be determined based on Refuge 

management concerns (i.e., facilities, large ungulate 

handling areas) and adjacent landowners. Manage 

predator populations and vegetation to hold prairie dogs 

to designated acreage with other control measures 

implemented as necessary. 

Construct alternate, artificial bat roosts and locate near 

water where insect populations are abundant, protected 

against wind, predators, and direct sunlight. (Greenhall 

1982) Maintain old, hollow trees to provide natural bat 

roost sites. Encourage big brown bat colony to relocate. 

Complete surveys of small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, 

and fish at five year intervals. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Identify habitat suitable for blowout penstemon and, if it 

exists, introduce plants at a minimum of two sites with 

assistance from University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 

Implement management actions that result in a 

sustainable population of blowout penstemon. 

Conduct an American burying beetle survey. 

Continue to conduct biweekly eagle surveys October-April. 

Monitor bald eagle mortality and submit carcasses to 

the National Health Lab for analysis. Implement 

appropriate protection measures. Conduct an aerial survey 

of the Niobrara River every two years to document 

proximity of or possible nesting activity on the Refuge. 

Conduct periodic surveys of the Niobrara River to 

document use or non-use by whooping cranes, least terns, 

and piping plovers. Document habitat selection, usage, and 

distribution. Implement appropriate protection measures. 

36 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Public Use 

The Service will seek funds to construct and staff a new 

environmental education/visitor center to improve 

environmental education and interpretation of wildlife, 

cultural, and paleontological resources on the Refuge. A 

site plan, being developed, will include a concept design 

for the new center and suggestions for improving the 

existing visitor center until such time as a new center is 

constructed. Interim projects to complete include 

updating exhibits and broaden themes to include wildlife 

and their habitats; unusual ecological diversity; cultural 

and paleontological resources; and management. 

Investigate the possibility of a shared environmental 

education/visitor center with the Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission, National Park Service, Forest 

Service, The Nature Conservancy, Valentine Chamber of 

Commerce, and others. 

Develop and implement a River Management Plan the 

year following the Final CCP that addresses the various 

public use issues/concerns and describes/defines in detail 

management strategies to be implemented. 

Bans on the possession of alcohol, boom boxes, water 

balloons and water cannons will be implemented. 

Permits will be required for Scout, church, educational 

and other such groups floating the River. Reservations 

will be required and use will be limited to one group with 

a maximum of 30 people per day. 

Fort Falls Nature Trail will be maintained for public 

enjoyment. The self-guiding interpretative brochure will 

be updated. 

Provide a wilderness access point. Use will be limited to 

three groups at one time with a maximum group size of 

five horses or ten people. An outfitter, selected by 

lottery, will be allowed to guide a maximum of one group 

per day and will pay a fee and/or a certain percent of 

gross receipts to the Refuge. 

Construct a trail to a scenic overlook of the Niobrara 

canyon and provide appropriate interpretation. 

Establish a concessionaire contract to view and interpret 

the bison and elk herds during the summer tourist 

season. 

Continue to improve the main auto tour route by 

resurfacing with gravel and closing/revegetating 

numerous side trails. Expand the display habitat unit 

and provide more natural and aesthetic setting by 

removing and/or relocating fence. 

Staff and expand the hours of operation of the visitor/ 

environmental education center. 

Maintain the visitor center, information kiosks/leaflet 

dispensers, education panels, other signs, picnic tables, 

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

Update Refuge brochures to new Service standards. 

Develop a Refuge specific environmental education 

curricula for teachers to use independently. 

Continue to prepare periodic news releases and send to 

newspapers, radio, and television to inform the public 

about Refuge events and issues. 

Sport fishing regulations will follow those of the 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission except that 

taking of frogs, turtles, and minnows will be prohibited. 

A sport fishing plan will be prepared. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 37 
Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Complete a Refuge-wide cultural resource survey and 

develop a management plan based on results. The Plan 

will include management strategies for the historic hay 

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

storage, environmental education) for the designated 

historic site. 

Relocate the big brown bat colony and complete 

appropriate bat proofing and renovations according to 

future management plans. 

Conduct a Refuge-wide paleontological inventory. 

Display and interpret cultural and paleontological 

specimens. 

Ecosystem (Partners) 

Maintain a contaminant database on the Niobrara River. 

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

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

temperature, sediment, nitrates, and other pollutants. 

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

Audubon Society, Niobrara Outfitters Association, Fort 

Niobrara Natural History Association, Cherry County 

Schools, and others to complete at least two wildlife/ 

public use projects a year. 

Contact and seek cooperation/partnership with universities 

regarding a paleontological inventory of the Refuge. 

Consider acquisition of nondevelopment easements from 

willing adjacent landowners to protect refuge integrity. 

Contact and seek cooperation/partnership with 

International Safari Club, Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation, and others regarding large ungulate 

projects. 

Work with USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS), Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, 

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

Niobrara Natural Resource District, and others to 

complete at least two wildlife habitat and/or public use 

projects a year. 

Continue to cooperate with NRCS on soil mapping and data 

digitizing of Service lands, review and comment on revised 

National Range and Pasture Handbook, participation in 

range judging contests, range condition surveys, and 

provide technical assistance on wildlife/wildland concerns. 

Continue to cooperate with the Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission on wildlife surveys and fish rearing in 

Refuge ponds. 

Write a minimum of three grant proposals a year to seek 

outside funding. 

Work with State of Nebraska Veterinarian, Nebraska 

Game and Parks Commission, National Park Service, 

and others on management of fenced and free-ranging 

elk. 

Work with veterinarians for the State of Nebraska, 

neighboring states, USDA-APHIS, and private sector on 

disease/health issues, regulations, etc. 

38 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Staffing Needed to Implement the Fort Niobrara NWR 

Preferred Alternative (CCP) 

The following Staff Chart shows current staff and 

proposed additional staffing needed to fully implement 

the preferred alternative. If all positions were filled, the 

Refuge Complex would be able to carry out all aspects of 

the preferred alternative to a high standard. If some 

positions are not filled, all aspects of the Plan may not be 

able to be completed or those completed may be done 

over a longer period of time. Staffing and funding are 

expected to come over the 15 year life of this Plan. 

Positions marked with an * are shared with Valentine 

NWR. The new refuge operations specialist position 

would be responsible for the Partners For Wildlife 

program, Holt Creek WMA, and Tower WMA. 

(X=filled; --=vacant) 

Position Current Proposed 

Refuge Manager* X X 

Refuge Operations Specialist X X 

Refuge Operations Specialist* -­ X 

Outdoor Recreation Planner* -­ X 

Law Enforcement Officer* X X 

Administrative Officer* X X 

Office Automation Clerk* X X 

Wildlife Biologist X X 

Bio. Technicians/Seasonal (2) -­ X 

Heavy Equipment Operator* X X 

Maintenance Worker (2) X X 

Maintenance Laborer/Seasonal (2) -­ X 

Asst. Fire Management Officer* X X 

Range Technician (Fire) X X 

Firefighters/Seasonal (3) X X 

Funding Needed to Implement Fort Niobrara NWR 

Preferred Alternative (CCP) 

Currently, a large backlog of maintenance needs exists 

on the Refuge. The needs are recorded in a national 

Maintenance Management System (MMS). In 1997, 

under current management plans, the backlog for Fort 

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

also need to be met under this preferred alternative. A 

synopsis of these needs is listed below: 

Vehicles and Equipment $708,000 

Fences, Corrals, and Wells $943,000 

Water Control Structures and Dikes $197,000 

Roads and Bridges $292,000 

Public Use Facilities $709,000 

Buildings and Maintenance Facilities $821,000 

Residences $160,000 

TOTAL $3,830,000 

The System uses another database, the Refuge Operating 

Needs System (RONS), to document proposed new 

projects that will implement a comprehensive conservation 

plan, implement ecosystem or federally listed species 

goals or meet legal mandates. The total cost to implement 

the preferred alternative is $3,908,000. A synopsis of 

these needs is listed below: 

Biological Monitoring and Studies $110,000 

Habitat Management $443,000 

Reintroduction of Bighorn Sheep $ 20,000 

Resource Protection $393,000 

Public Education and Recreation $742,000 

Environmental Education Center $2,200,000 

TOTAL $3,908,000 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 39 
Affected Environment 

Geographic/Ecosystem Setting 

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

north-central Nebraska along the Niobrara River. The 

Refuge and surrounding area is recognized by ecologists 

for its biogeographic significance due to the co-occurrence 

of five distinctly different, major vegetation communities 

within and adjacent to the Niobrara River corridor. The 

region is the only place in North America where Rocky 

Mountain Coniferous Forest (eastern limit), Northern 

Boreal Forest (southern limit), Eastern Deciduous 

Forest (western limit), Mixed Prairie and Sandhill 

Prairie meet and intermingle (Kaul and Rolfsmeier 1993)). 

The unusually diverse plant and animal assemblages found 

in this area are due to unique surface and subsurface 

geologic formations, water and soil conditions, current 

and past climates, and differential sun exposure 

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

had significant affect on the biological diversity that 

evolved in this region prior to Euro-American settlement 

includes wildfire and the use of fire by aboriginal men 

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

grazing and impacts associated with grazing of bison, elk, 

pronghorn antelope, and prairie dogs (Knopf 1994, Bragg 

and Steuter 1996). Though changes in composition and 

density of native flora and fauna have occurred since 

settlement, Bogan (1995) reported that Fort Niobrara is 

one of the few areas where the basic components of the 

1850 landscape are still present and viable. 

Climate 

The climate of the region is highly variable and 

characterized by cold winters and hot summers. Total 

annual precipitation averages 18 inches with approximately 

65 percent occurring during the May-to-September 

growing season (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s National Climatic Data Center 1996). 

Winter precipitation is usually in the form of snow with the 

annual accumulation averaging 37 inches. Temperatures 

range from -39o F to 114o F with July and August being 

the warmest months (average high temperature 85-87o F) 

and January and February the coldest months (average 

low temperature 8-12o

 F). The average frost free period is 

approximately 150 days. Winds ranging from 5-15 mph 

are common throughout the year and are generally out 

of the north, west, or northwest direction in the winter 

and out of the south, west, or southwest direction during 

the summer. Low humidity, high temperatures and 

moderate to strong winds cause a rapid loss of soil 

moisture by evapo-transpiration during the summer. 

Air Quality 

Air quality is good due to the absence of significant air 

pollution sources. The Fort Niobrara Wilderness is a 

Class 2 Status Area under the Clean Water Act. 

Topography 

The Refuge topography is varied and well-defined. The 

Niobrara River valley extends from east to west across 

the Refuge and is entrenched 150 to 350 feet below the 

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

different levels from 175 to 275 feet above the present 

River channel and from 30 to 250 feet below the general 

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

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

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

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

its major tributaries. Table land north of the River valley 

is nearly level to gently rolling with several surface 

areas modified by narrow, steep-sided and shallow 

drainage ways, by small areas of typical sandhills, 

numerous hummocks, and low, elongated sandy ridges. 

Sandhill terrain south of the River is undulating to hilly 

with dune tops 10 to 100 feet higher than the surrounding 

area. The range of hills, with alternating pockets or 

narrow valleys, usually run parallel in an irregular 

northwest-southeast direction. Generally, the southerly 

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

(windward) sides. Elevations on the Refuge range from 

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

Geology 

The geologic framework of the Refuge, as summarized 

by Osborn 1979, consists of six formations and are as 

follows (from oldest to youngest): Rosebud Formation 

“bedrock” makes up the Niobrara River valley walls and 

lower courses of the major tributaries within the Refuge; 

Valentine Formation is a sandy, stream-deposited unit 

unconformably overlying the Rosebud and forming 

gentle slopes; Ash Hollow Formation is a hard, sandy 

unit with many ledges and layers of volcanic ash which 

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

Terrace Deposits are sand and gravel deposits high 

above the present Niobrara River that were deposited 

during the later part of the Pleistocene Ice Age when the 

River was flowing at a higher elevation and forms the 

flats upon which the Refuge headquarters is built; 

Sandhills are stabilized dune sand of the late Pleistocene 

and Holocene age; Low Terrace and Floodplain Deposits 

are adjacent to the modern Niobrara River and contain 

rocks derived from older formations but are not of 

significant age geologically. 

40 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Soils 

Soil groups and series found on the Refuge are mapped 

and described in detail in the 1956 Soil Survey of Cherry 

County. Dominant soils south of the Niobrara River in 

the Sandhills portion of the Refuge are Valentine (fine 

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

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

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

are generally found on terraces above streams, Sarpy 

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

River and streams, and little soil development exists on 

rough broken land and steep bluffs. Benchland north of 

the Niobrara River and small areas near River “breaks” 

consist of mostly Holt (fine sandy loam, gently undulating) 

and Rosebud (loamy fine sand, gently undulating) soils. 

Water Resources and Associated Wetlands 

The Niobrara River flows from west to east across the 

Refuge for approximately nine miles with the channel above 

Cornell Dam braided and shallow with the downstream 

portion of the River confined to a single, narrow channel. 

The River is laden with sand and silt and flows swiftly at 

about 6-8 miles per hour. River flow is fairly stable 

throughout the year, averaging close to 1,000 cubic feet 

per second (Bentall 1990). Numerous streams and seeps 

along the Niobrara River valley flow intermittently or 

perennially. Several waterfalls exist on the Refuge 

where spring creeks flow over hard rock layers. River 

and stream flows derive almost entirely from steady 

groundwater seepage from the Ogallala or High Plains 

aquifer. Floods along the Niobrara River mostly result 

from winter ice jams with spring and summer floods 

rare. Tributary creeks, especially on the north bank, flash 

flood occasionally during severe summer thunderstorms. 

Small areas of palustrine wooded wetlands are situated 

alongside the River channel and consist of various tree 

species including cottonwood, green ash, peachleaf willow 

with an understory of shrubs (sandbar willow, western 

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

Palustrine emergent wetlands vegetated with cattail, 

bulrush, phragmites, sandbar willow, prairie cord grass 

and various sedges are present on River and tributary 

floodplains and channels, isolated catchments and slopes, 

and at 12 man-made impoundments near the mouth of 

some feeder streams. Total water/wetland acres on the 

Refuge are approximately 375. Refuge wetlands are 

shown on Figure 3. 

Ground and surface water quality are generally good. 

The Nebraska Department of Water Quality rated the 

Niobrara River as Class A for which quality will be 

maintained and protected. Fecal coliform counts are 

generally within standards for water contact recreation; 

however, samples exceeding health standard levels were 

obtained at the confluence of a river tributary on the 

Refuge several years ago. A new wastewater treatment 

plant for the city of Valentine has improved the quality of 

water discharged into a Niobrara River tributary. 

Vegetation 

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

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

known for Nebraska. Native species equal 519 while 62 

are introduced. Preliminary mapping of principal plant 

communities of the Refuge is found in Figure 4 with 

general descriptions (Churchill 1988, Kaul 1990, Kantak 

1995) summarized below. 

Grasslands 

Sandhills prairie is found atop sand dunes south and west 

of the River and is dominated by a mixture of tall-, midand short-grasses with their relative abundance differing 

according to variation in water holding capacity of the 

sandy soil as influenced by topography. Common grass 

species include sand and little bluestems, sand 

lovegrass, prairie sandreed, switchgrass, blue and hairy 

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

prairie junegrass and western wheatgrass. Shrubs include 

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

and yucca. Typical forbs are hoary vetchling, purple and 

silky prairie clovers, sand milkweed, spiderwort, bush 

morning glory, prairie coneflower, lemon scurfpea and 

several penstemon species. 

Mixed prairie is located most extensively on the flat 

tableland above the pine-covered slopes north of the 

Niobrara River where drier, sandy loam soils support 

shallow-rooted, drought-tolerant species. This vegetation 

type also occurs south of the River where appropriate 

soil moisture characteristics exist. Dominant grass 

species include little bluestem, blue grama, side oats 

grama, needle and thread grass, and threadleaf sedge. 

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

prairie rose, and several other forbs and shrubs are 

present. 

Total grassland acreage on the Refuge is approximately 

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

acres of restored native prairie. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 41 
Woodlands 

Ponderosa pine savanna and forest, the eastern extension 

of Rocky Mountain Coniferous Forest, is located on 

rocky soils and steep eroding cliffs of the north wall of 

the River valley and upper slopes of canyons on the 

south side where there is no shading by deciduous trees. 

Other native woody species found on these xeric sites 

include choke cherry, fragrant sumac, prairie rose, sand 

cherry, and yucca. Herbaceous understory species are 

typical of adjacent prairie. Total acreage on the Refuge is 

approximately 3,022 acres. 

Eastern Deciduous Forest covers much of the River 

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

larger tributaries where a permanent water supply is 

accessible via the shallow floodplain water table or from 

permanent spring seeps. This woodland type is also 

found in moist slopes and draws. Bur oak are common 

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

hackberry present. The understory is varied and 

comprised of typical mesic, shade-tolerant species. 

Paper birch, a characteristic species of the Northern 

Boreal Forest community, is restricted and clustered 

around cold springs in sheltered spring branch canyons, 

or near spring-fed seeps along the steep canyon walls of 

the south side of the River valley. Understory consists of 

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

sedges and mosses. Eastern red cedar has invaded these 

woodland communities and is dominant in some areas. 

Total Refuge acreage is approximately 1,296 acres. 

Tree Plantations established in the 1930’s by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps and later by Refuge staff are located 

mostly in administrative areas and consist of Eastern red 

cedar, black and honey locusts, American elm, green and 

white ash, and/or ponderosa pine Totaling approximately 

59 acres. 

Invader/Exotic 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. 

42 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
fIGURE 3
 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 43 
44 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
fIGURE 4
 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 45 
46 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Wildlife Mammals 

A rich and significant diversity of wildlife species with 

eastern, western, northern and southern affinities as well 

as niches specific to the northern Great Plains inhabit 

the Refuge and surrounding area (Armstrong et al 1986, 

Labedz 1990, Freeman 1990, Hrabik 1990). Population 

numbers vary according to amount of suitable habitat 

and other factors. Species lists for birds, mammals, 

amphibians, and reptiles are found in Appendix A. 

Birds 

A tremendous diversity of native birds inhabit Fort 

Niobrara NWR seasonally or year-round with a total of 

227 species recorded since the Refuge’s establishment. 

Approximately 48 percent of avian species have ecological 

affinities with the woodlands in and adjacent to the 

Niobrara River valley due to complex and varied habitat 

stratification. Dominant breeding species in the woody 

habitats include ovenbird, great crested flycatcher, 

black-and-white warbler, American redstart, black-capped 

chickadee, red-eyed vireo, house wren, eastern kingbird, 

orchard oriole, common yellowthroat, brown thrasher, 

and rufous-sided towhee (Sedgwick 1995). Wild turkey 

are common year-round residents of the woodlands while 

bobwhite quail are rare. Raptors likely to be seen in 

suitable woody habitat include Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed 

hawk, merlin, kestrel, and rough-legged hawk. Bird 

species that evolved with ecological niches in grasslands 

comprise 11 percent of total Refuge species which is 

typical of the Great Plains. Species that are relatively 

abundant on Fort Niobrara NWR include grasshopper 

sparrow, western meadowlark, sharp-tailed grouse, 

greater prairie chicken, and upland sandpiper. Swainson’s 

hawk, northern harrier, prairie falcon, and ferruginous 

hawk have grassland affinities and are present periodically 

in low numbers. Approximately four pair of burrowing 

owls inhabit the 20 acre prairie dog town and raise young 

each year. Thirty-two percent of Refuge bird species 

inhabit the Niobrara River, streams, ponds, and various 

wetlands. Canada goose, mallard, and wood duck are 

common breeders and several additional species of 

waterfowl, shorebirds, gulls, terns, marsh and 

waterbirds are present for several days or months but 

not often seen. Species encountered in multiple habitats 

and common on the Refuge include turkey vulture, 

mourning dove, belted kingfisher, and cliff swallow with 

golden eagle and osprey seen occasionally. 

Species of management concern by the Service that have 

been recorded on the Refuge include burrowing owl, 

ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, long-billed curlew, 

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

meadowlark, dickcissel, grasshopper sparrow, Baird’s 

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

red-headed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, and 

loggerhead shrike. 

The mosaic of habitats found in this area of the northern 

Great Plains support an abundant diversity of native 

mammals. Approximately 44 of the original 52 native 

mammalian fauna currently inhabit the Refuge and 

surrounding area with seven additional species introduced 

or their ranges extended (Bogan and Ramotnik 1995). 

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

were reintroduced to the Refuge in 1913. Other large 

native ungulates that are common include white-tailed 

deer and mule deer with pronghorn antelope being 

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

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

numbers are limited. Smaller native mammals that are 

abundant include Ord’s kangaroo rat, white-footed 

mouse, deer mouse, prairie vole, and western harvest 

mouse (Bogan 1995). Less numerous species include 

northern short-tailed shrew and masked shrew which are 

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

estimated 200 individuals, inhabits the historic hay barn 

during the summer. Coyote are a common, widespread 

predator with bobcat less numerous and observed 

periodically in and adjacent to the River corridor. Beaver 

are widespread and found on the Niobrara River and 

numerous streams. River otter were historically 

common along the River but today are rarely sighted 

and are listed as endangered by the State of Nebraska. 

Species that extended their range into this area include 

raccoon, eastern fox squirrel, and black-tailed jackrabbit. 

Texas longhorn cattle, a non-native species, was introduced 

to the Refuge in 1936 but had historically been trailed to 

Fort Niobrara Military Reservation during the late 

1800s as a source of meat for Native Americans. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

At least 24 species of reptiles and amphibians occur on 

the Refuge and/or surrounding area which is a significant 

proportion of the herptofauna of the northern Great 

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

during surveys conducted 1991-1992. Species recorded in 

the Niobrara River, streams, and associated wetland 

habitat included Blanchard’s cricket frog, western 

chorus frog, bull frog, northern leopard frog, common 

snapping turtle, and painted turtle. Species found in 

association with drier habitats include plains spadefoot, 

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

snake and prairie racerunner. Woodhouse’s toad, eastern 

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

spread in distribution and common on the Refuge. A 

spiny softshell turtle was documented for the first time 

in Cherry County just off the Refuge in the Minnichaduza 

Creek in 1992. Yellow mud turtle, identified by the 

Service as a species of management concern, probably 

inhabits the Refuge; however, no recent sightings have 

been made. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 47 
Fishes Threatened and Endangered Species 

Fish communities found in the Niobrara River and its 

tributaries are unique to Nebraska. According to Hrabik 

(1990), relict populations of more typical northern, 

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

common to the northern Great Plains, are found on the 

Refuge and surrounding area due to repeated glaciation 

and tectonic activity. The presence and distribution of 

these has not changed much since historic time due to 

the stable flows, consistent temperatures, reduced 

sedimentation, low dissolved solids of the Niobrara River 

drainage (Bentall 1990; Farrar 1983) and lack of degradation 

from agriculture (Case 1986). Numerous species of 

cyprinids, ictalurids, and percids are common. Species of 

concern (Nebraska List) that may inhabit waters on Fort 

Niobrara NWR include northern redbellied dace, pearl 

dace, finescale dace, and blacknose shiner. 

Twelve man-made ponds maintained by the Nebraska 

Game and Parks Commission periodically contain various 

species of game fish. 

Several plant and animal species listed under provisions 

of the Endangered Species Act have been documented on 

the Refuge and/or in the surrounding area. 

Bald eagles migrate through the area during the spring 

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

April) along the Niobrara River. Winter populations 

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

Refuge in some years. Wintering eagles depend on 

suitable night and severe weather roosts in sheltered 

timber stands located close to food sources (Peterson 

1986). Roost trees on Fort Niobrara NWR are mostly 

mature cottonwoods with open structure and stable 

limbs located along the shores of the Niobrara River. No 

eagles nest on the Refuge; however, nesting has been 

documented several miles east at the confluence of the 

Niobrara and Keya Paha Rivers since 1996 (J.Dinan pers. 

comm.). Eagle mortality due to pesticide poisoning 

(Famphur), gunshot, and electrocution has been 

documented in the area with actions taken to reduce its 

occurrence (law enforcement, education, removal or 

modification of source) annually. 

Peregrine falcons migrate through the area in late April 

and early May and in September and October. Sightings 

by Refuge staff are rare. 

Whooping cranes migrate through the area in April and 

October. One adult whooping crane was sighted with 

approximately 100 sandhill cranes resting in native 

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

most recent sighting of whooping cranes on the Refuge 

was made in October, 1993 when two adult cranes spent 

several days roosting and feeding on shallow, sparsely 

vegetated segments of the Niobrara River above Cornell 

Dam. 

Piping plovers are occasionally sighted on the Refuge 

during spring and fall migrations. Most of the exposed 

sandbar habitat on the Refuge is located above Cornell 

Dam with sandbars downstream usually exposed in July 

and August. 

Threatened and endangered plants and animals 

documented in the area, but not documented on the 

Refuge, include blowout penstemon, western prairie 

fringed orchid, American burying beetle, and the interior 

population of the least tern. 

48 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Numerous significant cultural and paleontological, 

remains exist on the Refuge. The following summaries 

were taken from Cultural Resource Inventory And 

Assessment For Selected Areas Within Fort Niobrara 

National Wildlife Refuge, Valentine, Nebraska: A Final 

Report by Osborn 1979. 

Paleontologic resources of the Niobrara River valley are 

unusually rich with 17 distinct fossil sites excavated on 

the Refuge within the wilderness area. Two fossil beds of 

the lower Pliocene and upper Miocene epochs provided 

the non-articulated skeletons and bone fragments of more 

than 20 extinct mammalian species including three-toed 

horses, camels, antelopes, rhinoceroses, rodents, and 

rabbits. 

Archaeological remains collected in this area suggest 

short-term occupation by prehistoric and historic 

aboriginal groups for hunting and gathering. Artifacts 

date back through several cultures to the Paleo-Indian 

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

flint chips, projectile points, other stone tools, animal 

bone fragments, charcoal pieces, and pottery pieces. 

Aboriginal occupation of this region documented in 

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

the Dakota Sioux, Ponca, and Pawnee. 

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

the restriction of Sioux Indian tribes to the Great Sioux 

reservation in Dakota Territory (now western South 

Dakota) and establishment of Fort Niobrara Military 

Reservation. The Fort was established in 1879 to monitor 

Sioux activity and control operations of cattle rustlers 

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

Texas were distributed to the Sioux, and the Fort served 

as a market for locally furnished goods and services. 

Soldiers were dispatched to several skirmishes although 

no major battles or events occurred. The Fort was 

closed in 1906 and retained by the War Department as a 

remount station until 1911 when a portion was transferred 

to the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological 

Survey to be used as a preserve and breeding ground for 

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

Army, remains on the Refuge and is listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Euro-American settlement of the Sandhills began in the 

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

cattle market provided by the Military Fort. The railroad 

(Fremont, Elkhorn, and Missouri Valley) reached Fort 

Niobrara in 1883 resulting in the development of the town 

of Valentine. Homesteading was further encouraged by 

the Fort’s ready market for local farm produce and 

labor. Several saw and flour mills were in operation along 

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

farming grew during the 1880’s but were challenged by 

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

encouraged more settlement; however, the Sandhills was 

nearly the last of the Great Plains to be homesteaded. 

Population in the area increased and peaked during 

World War I with elevated commodity prices but 

steadily declined to current levels (Miller 1990). 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 49 
Special Legislated Designations 

Wilderness Area 

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

wilderness on October 19, 1976. The area includes a 

portion of the Niobrara River valley and timbered 

benchland interspersed with native prairie north of the 

River. Wilderness is managed according to the Wilderness 

Act of 1964 which requires wilderness areas to be 

managed in a natural condition with opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 

Research Natural Area 

A relatively dense stand of ponderosa pine, approximately 

200 acres located within the Wilderness Area, was 

established as a Research Natural Area in 1960. 

Wild and Scenic River 

Seventy-six miles of the Niobrara River which includes 

the nine mile portion on the Refuge was included in the 

Wild and Scenic River System in 1991. The Niobrara 

Scenic River is managed by a 15 member Niobrara 

Council of which the Refuge manager holds one seat. 

National Recreational Trail System 

Five miles of the Niobrara River on the Refuge has been 

included in the National Recreational Trail System since 

1982. 

National Historic Building 

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

remaining of the historic military Fort Niobrara is 

registered as a National Historic Building. 

National Register of Historic Places 

Fort Niobrara was nominated to the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Socio-Economic and Political Environment 

The Refuge is located in Cherry County approximately 

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

and biggest city in the county with a population of 

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

the largest County in Nebraska with a total area of 

approximately 6,013 square miles. Rural population in 

the County is very sparse due to large ranch sizes. 

Predominate land-use in the county is native prairie 

grazing and haying with less than 10 percent of the 

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

ranching is the primary source of income in the county, 

although income generated from tourism is increasing. 

Access to the Refuge is by Nebraska Highway 12 and a 

county maintained gravel road and bridge. Major 

highways traversing the county are US Highway 83 

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

nearest airport with scheduled passenger service is in 

North Platte located 136 miles south of Valentine. 

Neighboring jurisdictions of Fort Niobrara include the 

National Park Service (Niobrara National Scenic River), 

Nature Conservancy (Niobrara Valley Preserve), 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (Merritt 

Reservoir Recreation Area, Smith Falls State Park, 

Bowring Ranch, Cowboy Trail, Valentine Fish Hatchery, 

several Wildlife Areas), Middle Niobrara Natural 

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

Forest Service (Nebraska National Forest), and Bureau 

of Land Management (several small tracts). 

Public Uses 

Public use of the Refuge occurs year-round with the 

greatest amount of visitation documented from mid-May 

to mid-October. Activities include wildlife/wildland 

observation, photography, interpretation/education, 

picnicking, hiking, floating the Niobrara River, fishing 

and periodic special events. A more detailed look at 

current levels of use is found in Alternatives, A. Current 

Management (No Action). 

50 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Environmental Consequences
 

Alternative A. Current Management 

(No Action) 

Natural Resource Consequences 

Continuation of current management would result in 

bison, elk, and Texas longhorn herds receiving primary 

consideration in management. Maintaining the bison herd 

at 350 animals would allow the genetic integrity and 

variability of the herd to be maintained without 

introductions. Periodic introductions to the elk herd and 

longhorn exchanges between Wichita Mountains and 

Fort Niobrara NWRs would continue to be accomplished 

for genetic and health management purposes. 

Little flexibility would continue in habitat management 

with emphasis placed on maintaining various habitats in 

their current condition and meeting the needs of the fenced 

animals. Bison, elk, and Texas longhorns will continue to 

consume and/or remove by trampling an estimated 8,400 

AUMs of forage a year which is approximately 40 percent 

of total plant production, leaving approximately 60 

percent of the vegetation for plant vigor and use by other 

wildlife (Waller et al. 1986, USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 1996). Texas longhorns, exhibition 

herds, and government horses will be supplemented 

during the winter as conditions warrant with approximately 

600 tons of prairie hay harvested from Valentine NWR. 

Most of Fort Niobrara NWR’s habitat management 

objectives would not be met due to numbers of bison, elk, 

and longhorns maintained on the Refuge. Refuge 

habitats rested one or more years would only total 4 

percent of the acreage, approximately 30 percent of the 

Refuge would not be disturbed (no planned grazing or 

burning) during the native bird breeding season which is 

less than the desired level, and prescribed burning would 

have limited opportunity for use in invigorating native 

plants or control of cedar invasion. 

Limited management efforts would be directed toward 

the Refuge’s enabling legislative purpose of native birds. 

Numbers of birds (species and individuals) would 

probably remain unchanged because management 

actions necessary to improve habitat conditions for some 

of the native bird populations would not be possible. For 

example, prairie grouse populations would be present 

but at below optimal levels because residual grassland 

vegetation on many areas of the Refuge would not meet 

minimum habitat requirements. Various wildlife species 

associated with prairie dog habitat would remain at their 

current minimum population levels because the prairie dog 

town would be held to its current size of approximately 20 

acres. Possible impacts of current management on the 

various vegetation communities, native bird populations, 

and other wildlife species would not be known because no 

additional biological monitoring would be accomplished. 

Woodland management would be limited and not 

adequately address concerns that some of the unique 

forest types are not regenerating, cedars are becoming 

dominant, and some woodlands are lacking in understory. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 51 
Cultural and Paleontological Resource Consequences Alternative B. Historical 

Cultural and paleontological resources would have no 

additional protection or interpretation under current 

management. The historic barn, which currently houses 

the summer bat colony, would continue to deteriorate. 

The present level of interpretation provided by the 

existing visitor center would continue. No existing funds 

are available to improve interpretation of cultural and 

paleontological resources. 

Public Use Consequences 

River floating under the current management alternative 

would continue with the number of outfitters maintained 

at 11 and no restriction on the number of launches per 

outfitter. This alternative, however, does not provide 

adequate measures to control growth, alleviate the 

crowding situation, nor does it protect the wilderness 

character and experience of this River section which 

ultimately could result in River floating through the 

Refuge being determined incompatible and shut down. 

Other public use activities which include wildlife/wildland 

observation, environmental education/interpretation, and 

fishing will continue but not be improved or expanded. 

Socio-Economic Consequences 

This alternative has the least initial consequences to the 

local area economy. Maintenance of bison herds and 

longhorn herds and their subsequent sale of excess 

animals would continue to contribute to Cherry County 

Revenue Sharing receipts. 

The lack of controls on River use on the Refuge initially 

do not curtail the current growth occurring in the 

tourism industry of Cherry County. Ultimately, however, 

this increased growth, if not responsibly managed, could 

result in enough deterioration of wilderness quality on 

the Refuge, to force a closure of this use. Should that 

occur, serious economic consequences could occur for a 

number of businesses in the Valentine area. 

This alternative maintains the other existing public uses. 

Revenues derived from out-of-town visitors to view 

animal herds in the exhibition habitat unit or use other 

facilities on the Refuge would remain unchanged. 

Staffing and funding levels for the Refuge under this 

alternative would also remain unchanged. Expansion of 

staffs and increased efforts to expand the Refuge 

infrastructure under other alternatives being considered 

would not occur with this alternative. The multiplier 

effect of these changes through the economy would 

therefore also not occur. 

Natural Resource Consequences 

This alternative would attempt to replicate historic 

ecological conditions to the extent possible on the 

Refuge. Bison and elk herds would be maintained at their 

current levels and the genetic integrity of the herds kept 

intact. Bighorn sheep would be reintroduced to the 

Refuge. Texas longhorns would no longer be managed on 

this Refuge. Removal of interior fence will enable bison 

and elk to establish more natural and historic distribution 

or habitat use patterns. Although highly mobile, bison show 

a strong preference for certain areas (influenced by plant 

growth stage, vegetation type and species, topography) 

during different seasons and have varying impacts. It is 

expected that bison will spend less time in the hills and 

more time on the more level and open areas. Fire, water, 

and salt will be used to distribute some of the use. Native 

prairie plant composition, height and density will be 

affected both positively and negatively by differing amounts 

and degrees of large ungulate grazing, fire, and rest. Large 

ungulate herds will consume and/or remove by trampling 

an estimated 5,610 AUMs of forage a year which is 

approximately 27 percent of total plant production, 

leaving approximately 73 percent of the vegetation for 

plant vigor and use by other wildlife (Waller et al. 1986, 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1996). 

At this level, forage consumption will be about 33 percent 

less than the current management regime which should 

result in increased standing vegetation (height and 

density) which should favor prairie grouse. Prairie dog 

acreage will increase providing additional habitat for 

various birds (i.e., burrowing owl, a species of management 

concern), mammals, reptiles, and insect species. Fire, a 

historic ecological force, will be used in various 

prescriptions to distribute bison grazing, invigorate 

grasslands, reduce cedar presence, and encourage 

regeneration of native tree species. Management efforts in 

the various woodland communities may have short-term 

negative effects on some species of native birds; however, 

the long-term effects will be positive after the tree, 

shrub, and herbaceous layers become more diverse and 

sustainable. The federally listed Blowout penstemon 

would be established in suitable habitat which would 

enhance biological diversity. The Niobrara River would 

return to a more natural condition by removing Cornell 

Dam and tributary impoundments within the Refuge. 

This would allow increased flows into the River and 

upstream fish migrations would no longer be stopped. 

Braided sandy river habitat upstream of Cornell Dam 

would decrease, which would negatively affect the 

federally listed whooping crane, interior least tern, and 

piping plover migratory use. Overall, this alternative would 

result in a more natural mosaic of habitat conditions 

favoring most native bird species and thus allow the 

enabling purpose of the Refuge to be achieved. 

52 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Cultural and Paleontological Resource Consequences 

Management efforts towards cultural and paleontological 

resources under this alternative would increase with 

completion of a cultural resource survey and development 

of a management plan. 

This alternative seeks to protect the historic barn from 

further degradation by supplying alternative bat 

habitat and preventing bats from re-entering the barn. 

Interpretation and education would also increase from 

current management. 

Public Use Consequences 

The historic alternative returns the Niobrara River to a 

more natural condition by removing Cornell Dam. This 

would increase the length of the River on the Refuge that 

is suitable for canoeing and tubing. 

This alternative would result in a reduction of River use 

to 1993 levels which would be approximately 74 percent 

of the current level. User fees initiated in 1998 would 

continue and be adjusted as necessary to assist with 

funding of law enforcement and maintenance of river 

recreation. 

This alternative would seek to construct a new 

environmental education/visitor center which would 

allow increased interpretation of Refuge cultural, 

paleontological and natural resource programs. It would 

improve Refuge efforts to educate both school age 

groups and the general public about wildlife and the 

natural resources which exist in the Nebraska Sandhills. 

This alternative would initiate a limited Refuge hunting 

program for large animals including bison, elk, deer, and 

bighorn sheep. The hunts would be primarily used to 

assist in control of excess animals, not to replace 

roundups and existing strategies for surplus animal 

removal. 

Socio-Economic Consequences 

This alternative would reduce the amount of revenue 

sharing funds distributed to Cherry County as a result 

of a loss of annual longhorn cattle sales. Using 1997 

levels as an example, it is estimated that the surplus 

longhorn cattle auction generated approximately $40,000 

in Refuge receipts. Cherry County receives a percentage 

of these proceeds under the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act. 

The use of prescribed fire may cause concern for local 

residents over the consequences of a prescribed burn 

that escapes containment and becomes a wildfire that 

burns off refuge onto adjacent private land. The refuge 

fire program will continue to minimize the risk of escapes 

by adhering to Service policy which requires that a 

prescribed burn plan be approved before any prescribed 

burning takes place. The burn plan addresses the 

potential for escape and specifies the personnel and 

equipment needed, weather requirements, contingency 

plans, and many other aspects of the burn to ensure it 

stays within prescription. Additional personnel and 

equipment that are necessary to conduct prescribed 

burns will benefit the community by being available to 

assist local rural fire departments in the suppression of 

lightning and human caused wildfires that occur in the 

local area. 

This alternative would reduce the number of people 

allowed to use the River through the Refuge. It is 

difficult to determine an actual economic impact from 

this reduction, because response of the public may be 

extremely varied. Some of the people that no longer use 

the River because of human congestion may return. 

Some of those denied use on the Refuge portion of the 

River may just put in further downstream or upstream, 

perhaps causing some additional costs to outfitters, but 

not a significant reduction in overall profits. Other more 

significant impacts would occur with those that simply 

canceled their trips to go elsewhere. The Refuge recognizes 

this cost and as a result is working with other agencies to 

provide other facilities for River use outside of the 

Refuge. This is important so that trip cancellations and 

opportunities to use the Scenic Niobrara River are 

present and viable for all concerned. 

This alternative would increase Refuge expenditures on 

infrastructure. Infrastructure investment of this type 

would provide opportunity for local contractors to 

complete projects and thus add to the local economy. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 53 
Alternative C. Intensive Wildlife 

Management Alternative 

Natural Resource Consequences 

Management under this alternative would be very intense 

but would enable native bird needs to be considered in 

habitat management decisions as well as continue to 

provide habitat for bison, elk, and Texas longhorns. 

Fenced animal numbers would be reduced with the bison 

herd maintained at 225, elk at 50, and longhorns at 125. 

Bighorn sheep would be reintroduced to the Refuge. 

Maintaining lower herd numbers would require periodic 

introductions to meet genetic and health management 

needs of the fenced animals. Longhorn management would 

require increased cooperation with and management 

assistance from Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. 

Habitat units would be managed similar to the current 

management program with herds moved under a 

deferred grazing rotation. Large ungulate herds will 

consume and/or remove by trampling an estimated 5,115 

AUMs of forage a year which is approximately 24 

percent of total plant production, leaving approximately 

76 percent of the vegetation for plant vigor and use by 

other wildlife (Waller et al. 1986, USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 1996). At this level, 

most habitat objectives should be met because forage 

consumption will be about 39 percent less than current 

management, acreage rested for at least one year would 

increase to 10 percent, and at least 50 percent of the 

Refuge would be rested during the native bird breeding 

season. An estimated 250 tons of prairie hay from 

Valentine NWR would be required for supplemental 

feeding of longhorns during the winter. Prescribed fire 

would be used on at least 500 acres a year to reduce 

cedar invasion, renovate native prairie, and encourage 

regeneration of native tree species. It is expected that 

changes in grassland management will result in an 

increase in mid- and tallgrass abundance which will favor 

prairie grouse populations and other grassland birds. 

Species diversity will be enhanced by allowing prairie 

dog acreage to increase to an estimated 400 acres and by 

establishing endangered blowout penstemon. Management 

efforts in the various woodland communities may have 

short-term negative effects on some species of native 

birds; however, the long-term effects will be positive 

after the tree, shrub, and herbaceous layers become 

more diverse and sustainable. Biological monitoring 

efforts will increase providing better data to document 

habitat condition, wildlife populations, and evaluate 

management. If the longhorns are used by the Valentine 

NWR habitat program described in Intensive Wildlife 

Management Alternative of the Valentine NWR CCP, 

habitat management flexibility on this Refuge would 

increase; however, costs (labor, equipment, facility 

maintenance) would increase. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resource Consequences 

Management of cultural and paleontological resources 

will increase under this alternative. A cultural and 

paleontological resource management plan will be 

developed and include a Refuge-wide cultural resource 

survey and paleontological resource inventory strategies. 

It will also include increased interpretation, education, 

and protection of cultural and paleontological resources 

of the Refuge. 

This alternative seeks to protect the historic barn from 

further degradation by supplying alternative bat habitat 

and preventing bats from reentering the barn. 

Public Use Consequences 

This alternative will initially stabilize River canoeing and 

tubing use by allowing only the existing 11 outfitters to 

launch on the Refuge and capping use on weekends 

during the summer at 1998 levels. The alternative 

provides for a research/monitoring period of two years to 

determine River carrying capacities that will preserve 

wildlife use and wilderness character and values of 

solitude. It is expected that these final levels will be 

lower than use today. Ultimately, this alternative will 

reduce this use on the Refuge. The phased approach will 

allow River outfitters and recreationists time to adjust to 

the anticipated change. The Service will work with other 

entities to develop other take-in and take-out locations off 

Refuge to more equitably distribute use throughout the 

Scenic River corridor. 

This alternative would seek to construct a new 

environmental education/visitor center which would 

allow increased interpretation of Refuge cultural, 

paleontological and natural resource programs. It would 

improve Refuge efforts to educate both school age 

groups and the general public about wildlife and the 

natural resources which exist in the Nebraska Sandhills. 

This alternative would add an access point for hiking and 

horseback riding in the Wilderness Area, provide for one 

concessionaire to take people to view large animal herds, 

and provide a trail to a scenic Niobrara Canyon overlook 

on the Refuge. 

This alternative would initiate a limited Refuge hunting 

program for elk, deer, and bighorn sheep. The hunts 

would be primarily used to assist in control of excess 

animals, not to replace roundups and existing strategies 

for excess animal removal. 

54 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Socio-Economic Consequences 

This alternative would have a small negative effect on 

Refuge Revenue Sharing to Cherry County. By reducing 

herd sizes of bison and longhorns, smaller numbers of 

excess animals would be sold, thus reducing Refuge 

receipts, and eventually County revenues. It is difficult 

to predict precise levels of reduction. The longhorn herd 

will be primarily a cow-calf herd with very small numbers 

of bulls and steers, so potential production and eventual 

animal turnover will be only slightly less than currently 

exists. Bison numbers will be reduced, and there will be 

fewer bison at sales from this herd. 

This alternative will have a phased in effect on River use 

and economic activity associated with that use. Initially, 

placing a ceiling on Refuge use will not cause reductions 

in business or tourism activity; it will maintain current 

levels. Growth of this use over 1998 levels will transfer into 

other areas of the River. This will expand opportunities for 

some businesses and landowners. Eventually, Refuge 

use will decrease. The phased in approach is being made 

because the Refuge is aware that this will cause loss of 

tourism and business activity associated with the Refuge. 

By delaying the reduction, River outfitters and area 

businesses are given the opportunity to adjust their 

businesses. Looking long-term, the stabilization of this 

use on the Refuge to acceptable levels will add security 

and stability to River outfitters. Without this, the 

specter of River use becoming incompatible on the 

Refuge is possible. If this occurred, it could result in a 

complete shutdown of River use on the Refuge. 

This alternative would increase Refuge expenditures on 

infrastructure. Investment of this type would provide 

opportunity for local contractors to complete projects 

and thus add to the local economy. This alternative does 

not reduce the current work effort required by existing 

Refuge activities and adds a significant number of new 

work activities. To address that need, additional staff will 

be needed. Salary increases for Refuge staff add to the 

overall local economy. 

The provision for a concessionaire to provide tours of the 

main bison herd would have a slight increase on Refuge 

receipts, and provide a local entrepreneur the opportunity 

to start a new business. 

The use of prescribed fire may cause concern for local 

residents over the consequences of a prescribed burn 

that escapes containment and becomes a wildfire that 

burns off-Refuge onto adjacent private land. The Refuge 

fire program will continue to minimize the risk of escapes 

by adhering to Service policy which requires that a 

prescribed burn plan be approved before any prescribed 

burning takes place. The burn plan addresses the 

potential for escape and specifies the personnel and 

equipment needed, weather requirements, contingency 

plans, and many other aspects of the burn to ensure it 

stays within prescription. Additional personnel and 

equipment that is necessary to conduct prescribed burns 

will benefit the community by being available to assist 

local rural fire departments in the suppression of 

lightning and human caused wildfires that occur in the 

local area. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 55 
Alternative D. Preferred Alternative 

(Proposed Action) 

Natural Resource Consequences 

The preferred alternative is a more natural, ecological 

approach to management of the Refuge. Herds of bison 

and elk will continue to be managed; however, bison 

numbers will be less with the winter population totaling 

200 to 300 animals. Bighorn sheep will be reintroduced to 

the Refuge. Management strategies that maintain these 

animals as wild species to the extent possible will be 

employed. Animal introductions will be accomplished in 

accordance with recommendations from geneticists and 

population ecologists for genetic and health management 

purposes. Texas longhorns will no longer be managed on 

the Refuge. Most interior fence will be removed enabling 

the bison and elk to establish more natural and historic 

distribution or habitat use patterns. Although highly 

mobile, bison show a strong preference for certain areas 

(influenced by plant growth stage, vegetation type and 

species, as well as topography) during different seasons 

and have varying impacts. It is expected that bison will 

spend less time in the hills and more time on the more 

level and open areas. Fire, a historic ecological force, will 

be used in various prescriptions to distribute bison 

grazing, invigorate grasslands, reduce cedar presence, 

and encourage regeneration of native tree species. Native 

prairie plant composition, height, and density will be 

affected both positively and negatively by differing 

amounts and degrees of large ungulate grazing, fire, and 

rest. Large ungulate herds will consume and/or remove 

by trampling an estimated 3,500 - 5,000 AUMs of forage a 

year which is approximately 17 to 24 percent of the total 

plant production, leaving approximately 76 to 83 percent 

of the vegetation for plant vigor and use by other wildlife 

(Waller et al. 1986, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 1996). At these levels, forage consumption will be 

about 40 to 58 percent less than the current management 

regime which will increase management flexibility and 

result in increased standing vegetation (height and 

density) in the grasslands which will favor prairie grouse 

and other grassland birds. Species diversity will increase 

with the establishment of the endangered blowout 

penstemon and an increase in prairie dog acreage. Prairie 

dogs and the burrow systems they create provide 

important habitat for burrowing owls (a species of 

management concern), other birds, mammals, reptiles, 

and insects. Prescribed burns in the various woody 

habitats may have short-term negative effects on native 

birds; however, the resulting regeneration and regrowth 

of the understory will be positive in the long-term. 

Biological monitoring will be increased providing additional 

information on various vegetation communities and 

associated wildlife which will improve management 

strategies. This alternative should result in a more 

natural mosaic of sustainable habitats that meet the 

needs of native and migratory birds, mammals, and other 

wildlife. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resource Consequences 

Management and subsequent protection of cultural and 

paleontological resources under this alternative will 

increase from the current management regime. Completion 

of a Refuge-wide cultural resource survey will meet 

legislated requirements and provide more comprehensive 

information to develop necessary protection/preservation 

strategies outlined in a cultural resource management 

plan. Cooperative agreements/partnerships will be 

sought for completion of a paleontological survey. 

Interpretation and education will increase with the 

development of new interpretive displays utilizing 

information and specimens collected from previous work 

and new surveys. Future use of the historic barn will be 

determined with appropriate renovation measures 

completed after the bat colony is relocated. 

Public Use Consequences 

This alternative will initially stabilize River canoeing and 

tubing use by allowing only the existing 11 outfitters to 

launch on the Refuge and capping use on weekends 

during the summer at 1998 levels. Two years of research/ 

monitoring will be completed to determine River 

carrying capacities that will preserve wildlife habitat, 

wilderness character and values of solitude. It is expected 

that these final levels will be lower than use today. 

Ultimately, this alternative will reduce River use on the 

Refuge. The phased-in approach will allow River outfitters 

and recreationists time to adjust to the anticipated 

change. The Service will work with other entities to 

develop other take-in and take-out locations off Refuge to 

more equitably distribute use throughout the scenic 

river corridor. 

Fishing opportunities will remain the same with fishing 

allowed on the Niobrara river and Minnichaduza creek. 

Special youth fishing days will continue. 

Hunting opportunities will be added to the public use 

program. Limited, strictly controlled elk and bighorn 

sheep hunts will be conducted periodically to remove 

surplus animals. It is expected that a high demand will 

exist for these limited opportunities. 

Wildlife/wildland observation opportunities will be 

increased under this alternative with the establishment 

of an access point for hiking and horseback riding in the 

wilderness area and construction of a trail to a scenic 

overlook of the Niobrara canyon. Also, this alternative 

enables a concessionaire to provide guided tours of the 

main herd of bison during the summer months. 

Efforts to educate visitors (i.e., school groups, general 

public) would increase with implementation of this 

alternative through construction of a new environmental 

education/visitor center, and development of new 

displays, leaflets, and an outdoor education curriculum. 

56 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Socio-Economic Consequences 

This alternative will initially reduce Refuge revenue 

sharing to Cherry County. The removal of the Texas 

longhorn herd will result in a reduction of approximately 

$40,000 annually from Refuge receipts. Under the 

existing formula in use, Cherry County would receive a 

portion of these receipts in revenue sharing. 

A reduction in Refuge receipts will occur from bison 

sales due to fewer bison maintained on the Refuge and 

the transfer of surplus Fort Niobrara bison to Valentine 

NWR for its habitat management program. Depending 

upon the management strategy selected for the Valentine 

NWR, eventually an increase could occur in revenues 

generated from sale of surplus bison from both refuges. 

This alternative will have a phased in effect on River use 

and economic activity associated with that use. Initially, 

placing a ceiling on Refuge use will not cause reductions 

in business or tourism activity; it will maintain current 

levels. Growth of this use over 1998 levels will transfer into 

other areas of the River. This will expand opportunities for 

some businesses and landowners. Eventually, Refuge 

use will decrease. The phased in approach is being made 

because the Refuge is aware that this will cause loss of 

tourism and business activity associated with the Refuge. 

By delaying the reduction, River outfitters and area 

businesses are given the opportunity to adjust their 

businesses. Looking long-term, the stabilization of this 

use on the Refuge to acceptable levels will add security 

and stability to River outfitters. Without this, the 

specter of River use becoming incompatible on the 

Refuge is possible. If this occurred, it could result in a 

complete shutdown of River use on the Refuge. 

This alternative would increase Refuge expenditures on 

infrastructure. Infrastructure investment of these types 

would provide opportunity for local contractors to 

complete projects and thus add to the local economy. 

This alternative does not reduce the current work effort 

required by existing Refuge activities and adds a 

significant number of new work activities. To address 

that need, the Refuge Complex will have to add staff. 

Salary increases for Refuge staff add to the overall local 

economy. 

This alternative would have a positive effect through 

provision for a concessionaire to provide tours to the 

main herds. This will provide a local entrepreneur the 

opportunity to start a new business. 

The Fort Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex has long been 

an important contributor to the economy, recreation, and 

social atmosphere of Cherry County. Choices made by this 

alternative recognize that relationship, and the future 

Refuge activities and programs will continue to contribute 

in a positive way to the area and its people. 

The use of prescribed fire may cause concern for local 

residents over the consequences of a prescribed burn 

that escapes containment and becomes a wildfire that 

burns off the refuge onto adjacent private land. The 

refuge fire program will continue to minimize the risk of 

escapes by adhering to Service policy which requires 

that a prescribed burn plan be approved before any 

prescribed burning takes place. The burn plan addresses 

the potential for escape and specifies the personnel and 

equipment needed, weather requirements, contingency 

plans, and many other aspects of the burn to ensure it 

stays within prescription. Additional personnel and 

equipment that is necessary to conduct prescribed burns 

will benefit the community by being available to assist 

local rural fire departments in the suppression of 

lightning and human caused wildfires that occur in the 

local area. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 57 
 

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), 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 and Melvie Uhland (Regional Office) 

produced the cover. Bernardo Garza (Regional Office 

Refuge Planner) reviewed this document and effected all 

necessary changes. 

Consultation and Coordination with Others 

Planning Process, Planning Time Frame and Future 

Revisions documented the procedure used to involve the 

public, and the opportunities that were available for 

participation. This section will generally list the types of 

comments that plan preparers were made aware of 

during the process by either written or verbal comment. 

No attempt is made to quantify the number of people 

making the comment, or within this document to identify 

individuals or organizations making specific comment. A 

list of all persons that commented or requested 

notification is available at the end of the section. 

Comments 

Fishing on Fort Niobrara 

P keep Refuge closed to fishing 

P Nebraska Game and Parks is pleased with partnership 

efforts on fishing program 

River Floating 

P keep canoeing as a use 

P like what Refuge did with parking lot, could expand it 

a little 

P sometimes too crowded, may need to limit access, 

quality of recreational experience has deteriorated 

P collect fees from outfitters not from individuals, 

outfitters should handle most of recreationers needs, 

user fee should be fair and equitable with proceeds going 

back into river, charge outfitters for annual permits 

P need to consider Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness Act, need more interpretation of river 

P should be able to canoe at night, trash and partying 

with tubes is a problem 

Grassland Management 

P prescribed fire should be increased 

Access to Refuge 

P we like refuge, bring friends and family, keep tour 

route open 

P put hiking trail in wilderness area 

P would like to use CCC cabin for overnights, would like 

viewing area for eagles 

Fenced Animal Management 

P we like big game and longhorn cattle, sale is important 

to county 

P longhorns need to be first to be reduced 

P increase herd accessibility to public 

P reintroduce bighorn sheep to refuge 

P maintain bison on Fort Niobrara, herd is unique 

Hunting 

P keep Fort Niobrara closed to hunting 

P would like to hunt buffalo, elk, bighorn sheep 

Bird Management 

P more needs to be done with native birds on Fort 

Niobrara 

58 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Appendix A. 

Summary of Actions Proposed Under 

Management Alternatives 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 59 
Issues, Concerns, and 

Opportunities 

Alternative A. Current Management (No Action) 

Alternative B. Historical 

Alternative C. Intensive Wildlife Management 

AM(

Habitat and Wildlife Management 

Opportunity to manage native habitats with historic processes. Concern that management needs to address ecological diversity and integrity of Refuge. 

Habitats would be managed to maintain current diversity and abundance of plants and animals. Use of fire and grazing in a “historic” regime would not be possible. 

A Habitat Management Plan would be developed with large ungulate grazing and fire regimes implemented to replicate historic conditions and address ecological diversity and integrity of Refuge. 

A Habitat Management Plan would be developed with tools of grazing, fire, and rest utilized to produce specific habitat and wildlife objectives and maintain ecological diversity and integrity of Refuge. 

A wg“pdao

Concern that management needs to do more for native birds. 

Native bird management actions would be accomplished to the extent possible while managing habitats to meet requirements of bison, elk, and longhorns. 

Native bird management actions would be accomplished to the extent possible while managing habitats under historic grazing and fire regimes. 

Habitat management actions would be implemented to meet various native bird requirements. 

Hwi

mcpm

Concern that forage utilization by bison, elk, and longhorns is too high and limits management options. 

Planned forage utilization under a deferred grazing rotation would continue at approximately 

8,400 AUMs per year with approximately 96 percent of the Refuge grazed and approximately 100 acres prescribe burned. 

Planned forage utilization would be reduced to approximately 5,610 AUMs per year with bison, elk, and bighorn sheep allowed to establish more natural habitat use patterns. Prescribed fire would increase to approximately 2,700 acres. Acres rested during the native bird breeding season and/or 1+ years would increase. 

Planned forage utilization under a deferred grazing rotation would be reduced to approximately 5,115 AUMs per year. Prescribed 

fire acres would increase to approximately 500-1000. Acres rested during the native bird breeding season and/or 1+ years would increase. 

Pr5eepw1n1

Concern that bison and elk management will change. 

Bison would continue to be managed as a “closed” herd with 350 animals maintained. Elk 

would be managed as an “open” herd with 70 animals maintained. 

Bison and elk herds would be maintained at current herd levels. Current genetic management efforts would continue. 

Bison and elk herds would be reduced with 225 bison and 50 elk maintained. Both herds would be managed as “open” genetic herds. 

aa

wg

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 60 
Issues, Concerns, and 

Opportunities 

Alternative A. Current Management (No Action) 

Alternative B. Historical 

Alternative C. Intensive Wildlife Management 

AM 

Habitat and Wildlife Management cont’d. 

Concern that longhorn management will change. 

Longhorn cattle would continue to be managed as currently conducted with 250 animals maintained. 

Longhorn cattle would no longer be managed on the Refuge. 

Longhorn cattle would be reduced to 125 animals and managed similar to current management. 

Lb

Opportunity to reintroduce bighorn sheep to the Refuge. 

Bighorn sheep would not be reintroduced to the Refuge. 

Bighorn sheep would be reintroduced to the Refuge and allowed to grow to a herd of 50 animals. 

Bighorn sheep would be reintroduced to the Refuge and allowed to grow to a herd of 50 animals. 

Bdg

Concern over cedar invasion and dominance. 

Limited control of cedars with prescribed fire would be accomplished. 

Cedar control efforts would increase. 

Cedar control efforts would increase. 

Ci

Opportunity to enhance management for threatened and endangered species. Opportunity to improve biological monitoring. 

Current efforts to protect endangered species and their habitats on the Refuge would continue. Limited monitoring of grasslands and bison, elk, longhorn, and grouse populations would continue. 

Management efforts would increase with introduction of blowout penstemon and completion of American burying beetle survey. Current management efforts would continue except maintenance of shallow, braided River habitat due to removal of Cornell Dam. Biological monitoring would increase to better document wildlife populations and their habitats. 

Current management efforts would continue and be expanded with introduction of blowout penstemon and completion of American burying beetle survey. 

Biological monitoring would increase to better document wildlife populations and their habitats. 

CwwpABiwh

Concern that management should increase prairie dogs and the habitat they create for other wildlife species. 

Current estimated 20 acre prairie dog town would be maintained. 

Current estimated 20 acre prairie dog town would be maintained and a second colony established and allowed to expand to 380 acres on the Refuge. 

Current estimated 20 acre prairie dog town would be maintained and a second colony established and allowed to expand to 380 acres on the Refuge. 

Cda at

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 61
Issues, Concerns, and 

Opportunities 

Alternative A. Current Management (No Action) 

Alternative B. Historical 

Alternative C. Intensive Wildlife Management 

AM 

Habitat and Wildlife Management cont’d. 

Concern that Management would be minimum Cornell Dam and man-made Cornell Dam and functional C

Niobrara River and necessary to maintain current impoundments on tributaries tributary impoundments would t

associated riparian water quality, flow, and other would be removed returning these be maintained and breached m

habitat be maintained parameters and shoreline areas to a natural state. 

Water impoundments restored based on m

or improved. vegetation protected or enhanced. quality, flow, and other parameters would be maintained and shoreline 

vegetation protected or enhanced. 

their value to native birds and fish. 

Water quality, flow, and 

other parameters would be maintained and shoreline vegetation protected or enhanced. 

Wpao

Public Use 

Concern that River River floating would continue River floating would be reduced by River floating would be reduced R

floating may be with number of outfitters approximately 26 percent to 1993 after the Service determines a

curtailed or changed maintained at current level (11) levels. acceptable peak use levels and a

because not compat­ and no restriction on number of management strategies for fair m

ible with Refuge launches per outfitter. distribution of use among d

purpose and Wilder- outfitters and the general public. tness designation. During the interim, River use would be capped at 1998 levels 

and current restrictions on outfitters continued. 

Dwcc

Increase opportuni- Current wildlife/wildland Wildlife/wildland oriented opportu­ Wildlife/wildland oriented W

ties for wildlife/ oriented opportunities including nities would be similar to current opportunities would be expanded n

wildland oriented nature trail, auto tour route, management. to include a wilderness area i

educational and picnic area, and special events access for hiking and horseback f

interpretive uses of would continue. riding, guided bison herd tours, g

the Refuge. and a scenic overlook. aOpportunity to Environmental education/ 

Funds would be sought to conFunds would be sought to 

F

expand environmental interpretation opportunities struct a new environmental construct a new environmental s

education/interpreta­ would not be expanded. education / interpretive center, education / interpretive center, e

tion capabilities. develop new displays, and expand hours of operation. develop new displays, and expand hours of operation. d

h

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 62 
Issues, Concerns, and 

Opportunities 

Alternative A. Current Management (No Action) 

Alternative B. Historical 

Alternative C. Intensive Wildlife Management 

AM (

Public Use cont’d 

Opportunity to Current fishing opportunities on Current fishing opportunities on Current fishing opportunities on C

provide hunting and the Niobrara river and the Niobrara River and the Niobrara River and t

fishing on the Refuge. Minnichaduza Creek would 

continue. The Refuge would 

remain closed to hunting. 

Minnichaduza Creek would continue. Limited hunting opportunities for bison, elk, and bighorn sheep would be provided. 

Minnichaduza Creek would continue. Limited hunting opportunities for elk, deer, and bighorn sheep would be provided. 

Mctw

Cultural And Paleontological Resources 

Concern that preser- Protection and interpretation of Management efforts would expand Management efforts would M

vation and interpreta­ cultural and paleontological to include completion of a Refuge- expand to include completion of a t

tion of cultural and resources would continue to be wide cultural resource survey, Refuge-wide cultural resource w

paleontological minimal. paleontological inventor

y, develop- survey, paleontological inventor

y, p

resources needs to be ment of a management plan, development of a management mimproved. relocation of big brown bat colony 

from designated historic site, and increased interpretation and display of resources. 

plan, relocation of big brown bat colony from designated historic site, and increased interpretation and display of resources. 

rfind

Ecosystem (Partnerships) 

Opportunity to work Cooperative agreements and Cooperative agreements and Cooperative agreements and C

with general public, partnerships in place would partnerships in place would partnerships in place would p

private, and other continue. continue with exception of fish continue and additional ones c

government organiza­ rearing in impounded tributaries sought such as bison manage- stions on natural as they would no longer be ment, paleontological resource presource manage- impounded. Additional ones will be inventor

y, and research. a

ment issues. sought such as bison management, 

paleontological resource inventor

y, 

and research. 

Concern over develop- Current management would not Purchase of nondevelopment Purchase of nondevelopment P

ment adjacent to address this concern. easements from willing sellers easements from willing sellers e

Refuge boundaries. would be considered. would be considered. w

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 63
64 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B.
 

Fort Niobrara NWR Species List
 

(* = Species known to nest on the Refuge) 

Birds 

Grebes 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus 

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis 

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis 

Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii 

Pelicans 

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

Cormorants 

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Bitterns, Herons 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 

Green Heron Butorides virescens 

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

Vultures 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 

Geese 

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 

Canada Goose* Branta canadensis 

Swans 

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator 

Ducks 

Wood Duck* Aix sponsa 

Gadwall* Anas strepera 

American Wigeon Anas americana 

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos 

Blue-winged Teal* Anas discors 

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera 

Northern Shoveler* Anas clypeata 

Northern Pintail* Anas acuta 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Redhead* Aythya americana 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

Hawks, Kites, Eagles 

Osprey

Bald Eagle 

Northern Harrier 

Sharp-shinned Hawk 

Cooper’s Hawk

Northern Goshawk 

Red-shouldered Hawk

Broad-winged Hawk 

Swainson’s Hawk*

Red-tailed Hawk* 

Ferruginous Hawk

Rough-legged Hawk

Golden Eagle 

Pandion haliaetus 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Circus cyaneus 

Accipiter striatus 

Accipiter cooperii 

Accipiter gentilis 

Buteo lineatus 

Buteo platypterus 

Buteo swainsoni 

Buteo jamaicensis 

Buteo regalis 

Buteo lagopus 

Aquila chrysaetos 

Falcons 

American Kestrel*

Merlin

Peregrine Falcon

Prairie Falcon

 Falco sparverius 

Falco columbarius 

Falco peregrinus 

Falco mexicanus 

Gallinaceous Birds 

Gray Partridge

Ring-necked Pheasant* 

Ruffed Grouse

Sharp-tailed Grouse* 

Greater Prairie-Chicken* 

Wild Turkey* 

Northern Bobwhite* 

Perdix perdix 

Phasianus colchicus 

Bonasa umbellus 

Tympanuchus phasianellus 

Tympanuchus cupido 

Meleagris gallopavo 

Colinus virginianus 

Rails 

Virginia Rail

Sora 

American Coot

 Rallus limicola 

Porzana carolina 

Fulica americana 

Cranes 

Sandhill Crane

Whooping Crane

 Grus canadensis 

Grus americana 

Plovers 

Semipalmated Plover 

Piping Plover 

Killdeer*

Charadrius semipalmatus 

Charadrius melodus 

Charadrius vociferus 

Stilt, Avocet 

American Avocet Recurvirostra american 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sandpipers 

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 

Upland Sandpiper* Bartramia longicauda 

Long-billed Curlew* Numenius americanus 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla 

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis 

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii 

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos 

Dunlin Calidris alphina 

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus 

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 

Phalaropes 

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 

Gulls 

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 

California Gull Larus californicus 

Terns 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri 

Black Tern Chlidonias niger 

Pigeons, Doves, Parakeet 

Mourning Dove* Zenaida macroura 

Cuckoos 

Black-billed Cuckoo* Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

Owls 

Eastern Screech Owl* Otus asio 

Great Horned Owl* Bubo virginianus 

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca 

Burrowing Owl* Athene cunicularia 

Long-eared Owl Asio otus 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 

Goatsuckers 

Common Nighthawk* Chordeiles minor 

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii 

Swifts 

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica 

Hummingbirds 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris 

Kingfisher 

Belted Kingfisher* Ceryle alcyon 

Woodpeckers 

Red-headed Woodpecker* Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens 

Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus 

Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus 

Flycatchers 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi 

Western Wood-Pewee* Contopus sordidulus 

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens 

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Eastern Phoebe* Sayornis phoebe 

Say’s Phoebe* Sayornis saya 

Great Crested Flycatcher* Myiarchus crinitus 

Western Kingbird* Tyrannus verticalis 

Eastern Kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus 

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus 

Shrikes 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor 

Vireo 

Bell’s Vireo* Vireo bellii 

Warbling Vireo* Vireo gilvus 

Red-eyed Vireo* Vireo olivaceus 

Jays, Magpies, Crows, Ravens 

Steller’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri 

Blue Jay* Cyanocitta cristata 

Clark’s Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana 

Black-billed Magpie* Pica pica 

American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Lark 

Horned Lark* Eremophila alpestris 

Swallows 

Purple Martin Progne subis 

Tree Swallow* Tachycineta bicolor 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow*

 Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 

Cliff Swallow* Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

Barn Swallow* Hirundo rustica 

Chickadees, Titmice, Verdin, Bushtit 

Black-capped Chickadee* Poecile atricapillus 

Nuthatches 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 

White-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta carolinensis 

Creeper 

Brown Creeper Certhia americana 

Wrens, Dipper 

Rock Wren* Salpinctes obsoletus 

House Wren* Troglodytes aedon 

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 

66 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kinglets 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet 

Thrushes, Bluebirds 

Eastern Bluebird*

Mountain Bluebird 

Townsend’s Solitaire 

Gray-cheeked Thrush 

Swainson’s Thrush 

Wood Thrush 

American Robin* 

Thrashers 

Gray Catbird* 

Northern Mockingbird* 

Brown Thrasher* 

Starling 

European Starling*

Pipits 

American (Water) Pipit 

Waxwings 

Bohemian Waxwing 

Cedar Waxwing 

Warblers 

Golden-winged Warbler 

Tennessee Warbler 

Orange-crowned Warbler

Yellow Warbler* 

Chestnut-sided Warbler 

Yellow-rumped Warbler 

Blackburnian Warbler

Palm Warbler 

Blackpoll Warbler 

Black-and-white Warbler*

American Redstart* 

Prothonotary Warbler 

Ovenbird* 

Connecticut Warbler 

Common Yellowthroat* 

Wilson’s Warbler 

Yellow-breasted Chat*

Tanagers 

Scarlet Tanager* 

Western Tanager 

Regulus calendula 

Sialia sialis 

Sialia currucoides 

Myadestes townsendi 

Catharus minimus 

Catharus ustulatus 

Hylocichla mustelina 

Turdus migratorius 

Dumetella carolinensis 

Mimus polyglottos 

Toxostoma rufum 

Sturnus vulgaris 

Anthus rubescens 

Bombycilla garrulus 

Bombycilla cedrorum 

Vermivora chrysoptera 

Vermivora peregrina 

Vermivora celata 

Dendrocia petechia 

Dendroica pensylvanica 

Dendrocia coronata 

Dendrocia fusca 

Dendrocia palmarum 

Dendrocia striata 

Mniotilta varia 

Setophaga ruticilla 

Protonotaria citrea 

Seiurus aurocapillus 

Oporornis agilis 

Geothlypis trichas 

Wilsonia pusilla 

Icteria virens 

Piranga olivacea 

Piranga ludoviciana 

Towhee, Sparrows 

Eastern Towhee* Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea 

Chipping Sparrow* Spizella passerina 

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida 

Field Sparrow* Spizella pusilla 

Vesper Sparrow* Pooecetes gramineus 

Lark Sparrow* Chondestes grammacus 

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys 

Savannah Sparrow* Passerculus sandwichensis 

Grasshopper Sparrow* Ammodramus savannarum 

Baird’s Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii 

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 

Harris’ Sparrow Zonotrichia querula 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 

McCown’s Longspur Calcarius mccownii 

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus 

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus 

Grosbeaks, Buntings 

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 

Black-headed Grosbeak* Pheucticus melanocephalus 

Blue Grosbeak* Guiraca caerulea 

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena 

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 

Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Blackbirds, Orioles 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus 

Eastern Meadowlark* Sturnella magna 

Western Meadowlark* Sturnella neglecta 

Yellow-headed Blackbird 

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Brewer’s Blackbird* Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Common Grackle* Quiscalus quiscula 

Brown-headed Cowbird* Molothrus ater 

Orchard Oriole* Icterus spurius 

Baltimore Oriole* Icterus galbula 

Finches 

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra 

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea 

Pine Siskin* Carduelis pinus 

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Old World Sparrow 

House Sparrow* Passer domesticus 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mammals 

Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana 

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus 

Northern Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda 

Least Shrew Cryptotis parva 

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus 

Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis 

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii 

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus californicus 

White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii 

Spotted Ground Squirrel Spermophilus spilosoma 

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel 

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus 

Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger 

Plains Pocket Gopher Geomys bursarius 

Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Perognathus fasciatus 

Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens 

Hispid Pocket Mouse Chaetodipus hispidus 

Ord’s Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ordii 

Beaver Castor canadensis 

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis 

Plains Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys montanus 

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus 

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster 

Eastern Woodrat Neotoma floridana 

House Mouse Mus musculus 

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster 

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi 

Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius 

Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Common Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata 

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis 

Mink Mustela vison 

American Badger Taxidea taxus 

Eastern Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius 

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Northern River Otter Lutra canadensis 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Elk Cervus elaphus 

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus 

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana 

American Bison Bison bison 

Texas Longhorn Bos indicus 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum 

Woodhouse’s Toad Bufo woodhousii 

Plains Spadefoot Spea bombifrons 

Blanchard’s Cricket Frog Acris crepitans 

Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens 

Western Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera 

Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina 

Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta 

Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii 

Yellow Mud Turtle Kinosternon flavescens 

Ornate Box Turtle Terrapene ornata 

Prairie Racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 

Lesser Earless Lizard Holbrookia maculata 

Northern Prairie Lizard Sceloporus undulatus 

Eastern Yellow-bellied Racer Coluber constrictor 

Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platyrhinos 

Pale milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum 

Northern Water Snake Nerodia sipedon 

Bullsnake Pituophis catenifer 

Plains Garter Snake Thamnophis radix 

Red-sided Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Prairie Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis 

68 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Appendix C. 

References 

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

Distributional patterns of mammals in the plains 

states. Occasional Papers of Museum of Texas Tech 

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

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

geology of Nebraska. Daily Republican Book and 

Job Office, Omaha. 346 pp. 

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

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

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

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

pp. 

Berger, J. 1996. Scenarios involving genetics and 

population size of bison in Jackson Hole. 

Unpublished report to Grand Teton National Park, 

Moose, Wyoming. 21 pp. 

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

conservation in small populations. Columbia Univ. 

Press, New York. 330 pp. 

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

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

Fort Niobrara and Valentine National Wildlife 

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

Cen. 193 pp. 

_____.1995. A Biological Survey of Fort Niobrara and 

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

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

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

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

Knopf, editors. Prairie conservation: preserving 

North America’s most endangered ecosystem. 

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

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

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

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

The vascular flora of the Niobrara Valley Preserve 

and adjacent areas in Nebraska. Trans. Nebr. Acad. 

Sci., XVI:1-15. 

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

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

Bogan, editor. A biological survey of Fort Niobrara 

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

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

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

Parks Commission. Personal communication. 

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

Austin. 388 pp. 

Farrar, J. 1983. Nebraska Rivers. NEBRASKALand 

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

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

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

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

Insti. Agr. Nat. Resour., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln. 

265 pp. 

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

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

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

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

265 pp. 

Greenhall, A.M. 1982. House bat management. USDI, 

Fish and Wildl. Serv. Res. Publ. 143. 33 pp. 

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

Oklahoma Cowman 7(9):18 & 38. 

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

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

EC 761. 47pp. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nat. Hist. 16:1-356. 

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

1983. Mammals of the northern Great Plains. Univ. 

Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 379 pp. 

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

Middle Niobrara Valley, Nebraska. Southwest. Nat. 

40 (2):129-138. 

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

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

Lincoln. (map 1:1,000,000). 

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

Flowerday, editors. An atlas of the Sand Hills. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 69 
Leenhouts, B. 1995. Presettlement fire and emission 

production estimates: a framework for understanding 

potential system change. Poster session paper 

presented at the Environmental Regulation and 

Prescribed Fire Conference, March 14-17, 1995, 

Tampa, Florida. 

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

Nebraska. NEBRASKAland Magazine, Nebr. G & P 

Comm. 15 pp. 

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. 

NOAA National Climatic Data Center. 1996. Local 

climatological data - annual summary with 

comparative data for Valentine, Nebraska. 8 pp. 

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

assessment for selected areas within the Fort 

Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge, Valentine, 

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

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

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

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

Rep. 82 (10.126). 

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

Greater prairie chicken (multiple levels of 

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

82(10.102). 33 pp. 

_____. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: plains 

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

82(10.142). 31 pp. 

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

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

pp. 

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

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

the Great Plains: Great Plains vegetation 

classification. Supplemental Document I in W.R. 

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

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

biodiversity in the Great Plains. The Nature 

Conservancy. Arlington, VA. 

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

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

editor. A biological survey of Fort Niobrara and 

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

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

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

America: Thoughts from the grassland biome. J. 

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

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. 

Range Inventory Summary and Suggestive Initial 

Stocking Rates Based on Present Range Condition 

for Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge. 8 pp. 

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Nebraska range 

site descriptions and guide for determining range 

condition and suggested initial stocking rates. 

Lincoln, Nebraska. 

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

for planning and analyzing a year-round forage 

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

113. 19 pp. 

70 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Appendix D. 

Section 7 

Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation has been initiated 

with the Grand Island Field Office and will be completed 

prior to final approval of this Plan. 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 71 
72 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Appendix E. 

Glossary 

AUM: animal unit month, forage sufficient to sustain a 

1,000 pound cow for one month during the normal range 

season 

Prairie Grouse: both sharp-tailed grouse and prairie 

chickens 

Wetland: includes lakes, marshes, temporary wetlands, 

fens, rivers, and creeks but not subirrigated meadows 

Wildland: lands characterized by natural vegetation and 

landscapes where man-made structures and alterations 

are not evident 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 73 
74 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Appendix F.
 

Key Legislation/Policies
 

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific 

investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides 

penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or 

collected without a permit. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (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. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (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. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a 

comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development 

of refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the 

Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements with 

private landowners for wildlife management purposes. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): 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. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (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. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966 as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

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

National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the 

Secretary to permit any use of a refuge provided such 

use is compatible with the major purposes for which the 

refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act 

clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six 

priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining compatibility; established the responsibilities 

of the Secretary of Interior for managing and protecting 

the System; and requires 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. 

National Historic Preservation Act (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. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires 

the disclosure of the environmental impacts of any major 

Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. 

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal 

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species. 

Rehabilitation Act (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. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): 

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological 

data in Federal construction projects. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the 

Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland 

modifications. 

Executive Order 11988 (1977): 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. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (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. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (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. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (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.” 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 75 
Federal Noxious Weed Act (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. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (1990): Requires Federal agencies and museums to 

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. 

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

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. 

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. 

76 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Appendix G.
 

Mailing List of Agencies and Individuals
 

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/Natural Resource Conservation Service 

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; Ecological Services, Grand 

Island, NE 

P USDI/ NPS, Niobrara/Missouri Natl. Scenic River, 

Paul Hedren 

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, Bill Vodehnal 

P NE Game & Parks Commission, Joel Klammer 

P NE Game & Parks, Valentine Fish Hatchery 

P Smith Falls State Park, Sparks, NE 

P State Historic Preservation Officer, Lawrence 

Sommer, 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 Commmissioners 

P Cherry County Commissioners 

Libraries 

P Valentine Public Library 

P Ainsworth Public Library 

Organizations 

P Audubon Society, Dave Sands 

P Central Mountain and Plains Section of the 

Wildlife Society:
 

Jeff Nichols, Ogallala, NE
 

Dr. Pat Reece, Scottsbluff, NE
 

Tom Rider, Lander, WY
 

Dr. Terry Riley, Aberdeen, SD
 

P Cherry County Pheasants Forever, Valentine, NE 

P Coooperative Allicance for Refuge Enhancement 

(CARE), Washington, D.C. 

P Fort Niobrara Natural History Association, 

Valentine, NE 

P Great Plains Buffalo Association 

P Intertribal Bison Cooperative, Tony Willman 

P Midcontinent Eco. Science Center, Fritz Knopf 

P National Bison Association 

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

P The Nature Conservancy, Al Steuter 

P Nebraska Branch for Holistic Management 

P Nebraska Cattleman, Troy Bredenkamp 

P Nebraska Chapter of the American Fisheries 

Society, Lincoln, NE 

P Nebraska Chapter TWS, Carl Wolfe 

P Nebraska State Buffalo Assoc, Dave Hutchinson 

P Nebraska State Buffalo Assoc, Larry Mason 

P Nebraska Wildlife Federation, Lincoln, NE 

P Niobrara Canoe Outfitters Assoc., Roy Breuklander 

P Niobrara Council: 

Nola Moosman, Recreation Rep, Valentine, NE 

Dwight Sawle, Forestry Rep, Springview, NE 

Brad Arrowsmith, Keya Paha, Bassett, NE 

Harlin Welch, Brown County, Ainsworth, NE 

Paul L. Hedren, National Park Service, O’Neill, 

NE 

Tom Higgins, Newport, NE 

Warren Arganbright, Valentine, NE 

Jim Van Winkle, Cherry County Commissioner, 

Valentine, NE 

Bill Mulligan, Middle Niobrara NRD, Valentine, 

NE 

Jim Harlin, Rock County, Bassett, NE 

Betty Palmer, Keya Paha County 

Commissioner, Springview, NE 

Lloyd Alderman, Rock County Commiossioner, 

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 Texas Longhorn Breeders Assoc, Tim Miller 

P Texas Longhorn Trails, Carolyn Hunter 

P Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C. 

P Wilderness Watch, Missoula, MT 

Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 77 
Newspapers 

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 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	 Dr. James Derr, Dept. of Veterinary Pathobiology, 

Texas A&M 

P	 Ken Higgins, SD Coop Unit, SDSU, Brookings 

P	 Mark Morgan, KSU, Dept of Horticulture, 

Forestry, & Recreation, Manhattan, KS 

P	 Dr. James Shaw, Dept. of Zoology, Oklahoma State 

University 

P	 Dr. Curtis Strobeck, Dept. of Biological Sciences, 

University of Alberta 

P	 Dr. James Stubbendieck, Dept. of Agronomy, 

University of NE 

P	 Dr. Joe Templeton, Dept. of Veterinary 

Pathobiology, Texas A&M 

Individuals 

Adamson, Mark 

Allen, Dave 

Badura, Laurel 

Ballard, Doug 

Ballard, Richard and Jeri 

Bennett, Dennis 

Bennett, Shane 

Birger, Dick 

Blome, George 

Bredthauer, Marty 

Breuklander, Steve 

Brown, Greg 

Bullock, Ronald 

Burge, Russell 

Carter, Wayne 

Christiansen, Lou 

Churchill, Dean 

Colburn, Dean 

Cook, Georgia 

Cornelius, Bob 

Coyle, Joseph F. 

Crawford, Mary 

Damrow, Roger 

Davenport, John 

Davis, Debbie 

Davis, John 

DeOrnellas, George 

Ducey, Jim 

Ellis, Bob 

Equhoff , Richard 

Fields, Robert 

Fishell, Ralph 

Frick, Carl 

Gallino, Orville 

Gass, Bob 

Geiger, Steve 

Getusan, Bob 

Grabher, Bob 

Graham, Doug 

Graham, Twyla 

Graves, Leroy 

Grooms, Jerry 

Gudden, Andrew 

Gunnty, Kent 

Hanna, Jeff 

Hanson, John 

Hartman, Darrel 

Hellmund, Paul Cawood 

Henry, Dale 

Higgins, Tom 

Hoehne, Paul 

Hollenbeck, Rex 

Hunter, Carolyn 

Huscher, Nora 

Hutchinson, Dave 

Isom, Stephen 

Jarvi, Guy 

Jeffers, Dick 

Kasselder, Charles 

Kerr, Steve 

Kramer, Kaye 

Kuhre, Beryl 

Kutilek, William R. 

Lee, Jim 

Leeper, Rick 

Lintz, Tom 

Lord, Elver 

Mathey, Kevin 

Mason, Larry 

Mattson, Dr. Neil 

McPeak, Janet 

Mecure, Randy 

Mecure, Rich 

Metschke, Corey 

Miller, Randy 

Muller, Gretchen 

Murphy, John 

Olsen, Dr. Steven 

Olson, Ole 

Perrett, Brian 

Peterson, Kent 

Peterson, Sheila 

Pierce, Roger 

Reimann, K.F. 

Robbins, Jr., Dick 

Roberts, Jerome 

Rogers, Ron 

Rosfeld, Otto 

Rutten, Ben 

Ryschon, Jerry 

Scheffler, Delbert 

Schneider, Julie 

Schroeder, Mr. & Mrs. Don 

Searle, Charles 

Segar, John 

Sharp, Wayne 

Sherwood, Greg 

Simmons, Carl 

Smith, Neil 

Soper, Don 

Stach, Taylor & Linda 

Sterry, Rich 

Stoeger, Doug 

Stokes, Alan 

Stroup, William 

Stump, Dr. Bill 

Suhr, Jenny 

Tegtmeier, Jim 

Thortall, Vic 

Torgerson 

Turner, Bill 

VanDerPloegh, Marvin 

Vosicky, George 

Walkling, Al 

Waln, Bill 

Walton, Judy 

Wescott, Mike 

Witthuhn, John 

Young, Cork and Mary 

Young, Mike 

78 Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 
Fort Niobrara Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - April 1999 79

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 

April 1999 

Bison, Ft. Niobrara NWR, USFWS