Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 1
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fort Niobrara
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
2 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 3
4 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Table of Contents
Summary ........................................................................................................................ .......................7
Introduction / Background ................................................................................................................ 11
Refuge Overview: History of Establishment, Acquisition & Management ................................................................ 11
Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge History ................................................................................................... 11
Habitat Management History ................................................................................................................................ 12
Water Rights/Management History ....................................................................................................................... 12
Wildlife Management History ............................................................................................................................... 12
Bison ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Elk ................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Pronghorn Antelope ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Bighorn Sheep ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Native Birds and Other Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 13
Texas Longhorn Cattle History ........................................................................................................................ 14
Public Use History ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 1. Canoeing - Tubing Visitation 1993-1997 .................................................................................................... 14
Current Refuge Resources Management ............................................................................................................... 15
Grassland/Fenced Animal Management ......................................................................................................... 15
Riparian and Woodland Management ............................................................................................................. 16
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................................. 16
Native Birds and Other Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 16
Exotic and Invading Species ............................................................................................................................ 16
Public Use ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Cultural and Paleontological Resources ......................................................................................................... 18
Purpose of and Need for Comprehensive Conservation Plan ...................................................................................... 18
Figure 2. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................................. 19
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals and Guiding Principles ................................................................. 21
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ....................................................................................................................... 22
Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge Vision Statement ......................................................................................... 23
Legal and Policy Guidance ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Existing Partnerships .................................................................................................................................................... 24
Planning Process .............................................................................................................................. 25
Description of Planning Process .................................................................................................................................. 25
Planning Issues ............................................................................................................................................................. 26
Texas Longhorn Cattle ........................................................................................................................................... 26
Recreational Use and Resources of the Niobrara River ........................................................................................ 27
Habitat and Wildlife Management ........................................................................................................................ 29
Funding and Staffing to Manage the Refuge ........................................................................................................ 30
Other Public Uses and Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 30
Public Involvement Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 31
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 5
Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions ............................................................................ 33
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .................................................................................................................................... 33
Climate ................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Topography ............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Geology ................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Soils ................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses ............................................................................................................... 35
Water Resources and Associated Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 35
Vegetation .............................................................................................................................................................. 35
Grasslands ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
Woodlands ....................................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 3. Wetland Map ................................................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 4. Vegetation Map ............................................................................................................................................ 39
Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Birds ................................................................................................................................................................. 41
Mammals ......................................................................................................................................................... 41
Amphibians and Reptiles ................................................................................................................................ 41
Fishes ............................................................................................................................................................... 42
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................................. 42
Cultural and Paleontological Resources ................................................................................................................ 43
Socio-Economic and Political Environment ........................................................................................................... 43
Public Uses ............................................................................................................................................................. 43
Special Management Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 44
Special Legislated Designations ............................................................................................................................ 44
Wilderness Area .............................................................................................................................................. 44
Definition of Wilderness ........................................................................................................................... 44
Principles Governing the Management of Wilderness Areas ................................................................. 44
Wild and Scenic River ..................................................................................................................................... 45
Congressional Declaration of Policy ........................................................................................................ 45
Designation of Sections of the Niobrara River as Wild and Scenic ...................................................... 45
Review Requirements for Early Designations and Management Plans ................................................. 45
Research Natural Area .................................................................................................................................... 45
National Recreational Trail System ......................................................................................................... 45
National Historic Building ........................................................................................................................ 45
National Register of Historic Places ........................................................................................................ 45
6 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Management Direction ..................................................................................................................... 47
Refuge Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies/Projects ............................................................ 47
Refuge Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 47
Habitat Management ...................................................................................................................................... 48
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................ 49
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................................. 51
Interpretation and Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 51
Ecosystem (Partners) ...................................................................................................................................... 52
Implementation and Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 53
Funding and Personnel ................................................................................................................................................. 53
Staffing Needed to Implement This Plan .............................................................................................................. 53
Funding Needed to Implement This Plan............................................................................................................... 53
CCP Implementation and Step-down Management Plans .......................................................................................... 54
Habitat Management and Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 54
Wildlife Management and Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 55
Threatened and Endangered Species Management and Monitoring ................................................................... 55
Interpretation and Recreation Resources Management and Monitoring ............................................................. 56
Niobrara River Use Management and Monitoring ......................................................................................... 56
Public Use Management and Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 56
Ecosystem (Partners) Management and Monitoring ............................................................................................. 57
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Management and Monitoring ............................................................... 57
Partnership Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................ 58
Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................... 58
Plan Amendment and Revision .................................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix A. Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix B. Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 65
Appendix C. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) List ........................................................... 67
Appendix D. Maintenance Management System (MMS) List ........................................................ 79
Appendix E. Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................... 93
Appendix F. List of Animal and Plant Species at Fort Niobrara NWR ....................................... 103
Appendix G. Compliance Requirements ........................................................................................ 115
Appendix H. NEPA Documentation ............................................................................................... 119
Appendix I. Summary of Public Involvement/Comments and Consultation/Coordination ...... 129
Appendix J. Mailing List ................................................................................................................ 131
Appendix K. List of Preparers ........................................................................................................ 133
Appendix L. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation ...................................................................... 135
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 7
Summary
Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is 19,131
acres in size and located along the Niobrara River in
north-central Nebraska. The Refuge is a unique and
ecologically important component of the National Wildlife
Refuge System (System) which includes over 500 refuges
totaling approximately 93 million acres across the United
States. Fort Niobrara NWR was established by Executive
Order in January, 1912 as a “preserve and breeding ground
for native birds.” Its purpose was expanded later that
same year to include the preservation of bison and elk
herds representative of those that once roamed the Great
Plains. Furthermore, the unusual, and unique assemblage
of plant communities currently present at the Refuge
(Sandhills Prairie, Mixed Prairie, Rocky Mountain
Coniferous Forest, Eastern Deciduous Forest, and Northern
Boreal Forest) support a rich diversity of wildlife
generally unchanged from historic times. Under the
Wilderness Act of 1964, a 4,635-acre portion of Fort
Niobrara was designated a Wilderness Area in 1976; a
portion of the Niobrara River through the Refuge was
designated a National Canoe Trail by Congress in 1982; and,
in 1991, a 76 mile stretch of the Niobrara River including
the River through this Refuge was designated Scenic
under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Plan) for the Fort
Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Cherry
County in north-central Nebraska is an updated and
revised version of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment completed earlier
this year. It has been written to provide continuity of
management of Refuge lands for the benefit of wildlife and
people.
All efforts leading to the preparation of this Plan were
undertaken to provide the Refuge with a vision for the
future, guidelines for wildlife and habitat management
over the next 15 years to ensure progress is made toward
attaining the mission and goals of Fort Niobrara and the
Refuge System, and to comply with Congressional
mandates stated in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997. The planning effort provided
opportunities for interested people, Federal and State
agencies, State and local governments, and private
organizations to give input on future management of the
Refuge. This Plan provides clear goals and objectives for
management of Refuge habitats, wildlife, threatened and
endangered species, cultural and paleontological resources,
compatible public uses, and partnerships, along with
implementation strategies, and recommended staffing and
funding. This Plan meets the planning requirements of the
National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act enacted by
Congress in 1997.
The draft Environmental Assessment considered four
alternatives for management of Fort Niobrara NWR. Each
of the alternatives was evaluated for environmental
consequences in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This Plan, in its
present form, contains the goals, objectives, and strategies
found by the Service to best support purpose of the
Refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.
For a summary of the alternatives considered during the
planning process, see Appendix H. Further information on
alternatives considered can be found in the Fort Niobrara
National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1999).
8 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Clockwise from upper left: Bison have been
managed on Fort Niobrara National Wildlife
Refuge since 1913 to preserve a population
representative of the large herds that once roamed
the Great Plains; Fort Niobrara National Wildlife
Refuge and the surrounding area is the only place
in North America where Rocky Mountain
coniferous forest, northern boreal forest, eastern
deciduous forest, mixed-prairie and sandhill
prairie vegetation communities meet and
intermingle; Longhorm cattle will no longer be
managed by this Refuge; river floating is a popular
recreational activity on Fort Niobrara; the Fort Falls
Nature Trail allows visitors to experience the
habitats and wildlife along theFalls and the
Niobrara River; elk, especially bulls with growing
antlers, can be found near or in Refuge ponds and
streams during the hot days of summer; the loud
rolling “pulip pulip” call of upland sandpipers
signal that spring has come to the prairie; in April,
prairie chicken males display on traditional
breeding grounds on the Refuge; habitat created by
prairie dogs attract a variety of wildlife including
burrowing owls which use the underground
burrows for nesting.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 9
10 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 11
Introduction /
Background
Refuge Overview: History of Establishment,
Acquisition & Management
Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge History
Fort Niobrara NWR was established by Executive Order
1461 on January 11, 1912, which reserved 13,279 acres
from the public domain as a “preserve and breeding
ground for native birds.” The reserve was established at
a time when tremendous concern existed over the
exploitation of birds and near extinction of bison.
Two environmental groups, National Association of
Audubon Societies and American Bison Society, were very
influential in the establishment and determination of
purpose of several Federal parks and refuges including
Fort Niobrara during the first two decades of the 20th
century. The National Association of Audubon Societies
was formed in 1905 and its first president, William
Dutcher, was a friend of U.S. President Theodore
Roosevelt. Numerous correspondence was exchanged
between them regarding over-harvest of birds, funding
for the Bureau of Biological Survey, and protection of
bird sites (refuges), and included a letter dated January
1, 1908, which discussed protection of birds and game on
the Fort Niobrara Military Reservation. The American
Bison Society, headed by Dr. William Hornaday, was
directly responsible for establishing Wichita Mountains
NWR in Oklahoma, National Bison Range in Montana,
and Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota for the
preservation of bison in the early 1900’s and was also
instrumental in bringing bison to Fort Niobrara. Dr.
Palmer, a member of the American Bison Society and 2nd
Vice President of the Audubon Society, states in the 1912
Annual Report of the American Bison Society that “on
January 12, 1912, the Niobrara Bird Reservation was
created by Executive Order. This reservation comprises
some 10,000 or 12,000 acres of land along the Niobrara
River, near Valentine, including some grazing land, and
only needs a fence to make it an ideal reservation for
buffalo and other big game of the Great Plains.”
A 1913 report from the Chief of the Bureau of Biological
Survey to the Secretary of Agriculture summarizes the
events leading up to the addition of the big game purpose
to Fort Niobrara. The following is an excerpt from that
report: “In the early part of the year 1912, Mr. J.W. Gilbert,
owner of a small big-game park at Friend, Nebraska,
generously offered his herd of buffalo, elk, and deer to
the Government for preservation on national territory
within the State of Nebraska. The lack of suitable
quarters caused some delay in accepting the offer, but on
November 14, 1912, an Executive Order was issued
setting aside as a game preserve a tract of land additional
to the Niobrara bird reservation near Valentine, Nebraska.
The herd was then officially accepted by the Secretary of
Agriculture and preparations began for establishing it on
this very favorable location. Through the cooperation of
the National Association of Audubon Societies and the
citizens of Valentine, an enclosure was provided at an
expense of $1,700. Some of the buildings remaining on the
old Fort Niobrara Military Reservation were utilized as
headquarters, and a warden was appointed on December
16, 1912.”
The Refuge was expanded again by Executive Orders in
1920 and 1936, the Resettlement Administration,
subsequent purchases from private individuals, and a
donation from the Nebraska Public Power District
bringing the Refuge’s total acreage to 19,131. Refuge
reports state that the 1920 expansion was for protecting/
providing winter roost sites for sharp-tailed grouse and
prairie chickens, and tracts of land acquired in 1936 were
for various purposes including planting of grain crops for
migratory birds, pronghorn antelope management, and
administrative efficiency (in holdings, straighten
boundaries).
In 1960, a 200 acre stand of Ponderosa pine in the northern
portion of the Refuge was designated as a Research
Natural Area; in 1976, approximately 4,635 acres in the
northern portion of the Refuge, including the Niobrara
River corridor, was designated as Nebraska’s first
Wilderness Area.
In 1982, five miles of the Niobrara River on the Refuge
was designated as a National Canoe Trail, and in 1991, a
total of 76 miles of the Niobrara River including the entire
stretch of River through the Refuge was designated by
Congress as a Scenic River.
12 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Habitat Management History
Management efforts from the Refuge’s establishment
through the early 1940’s considered the needs of both
birds and big game. Initial work involved a general
reconnaissance of the area and its bird life, and a survey
of the boundary and big game enclosure. Construction of
boundary fences of Refuge lands north of the Niobrara
River for use by expanding bison and elk herds was
planned in 1915 with the project completed in the early
1920’s. Earthen dams were built across various tributary
streams beginning in 1922 to improve conditions for
waterfowl. In the 1930’s, the Civilian Conservation Corps
and Work Projects Administration staff rebuilt several
original earthen dams, constructed new dams, planted
various wetland plants, constructed predator fencing
around ponds to improve nesting conditions, and planted
shelterbelts for birds. Corrals, additional fence, and
watering facilities south of the Niobrara River were also
constructed during this time. Approximately 150 acres of
Refuge lands were planted to various grain crops for
grouse and waterfowl in the late 1930’s.
Refuge reports and other correspondence suggest a shift
in management from a dual purpose (birds, big game) to
more of a single purpose (big game) beginning in the early
1940’s, although emphasis varied depending upon the
viewpoint of management. Numbers of bison, elk, and
longhorns maintained on the Refuge fluctuated according to
forage availability and genetic management needs. For
example, during the 1940’s and 1950’s, up to 10,000 acres
of Refuge grasslands were annually hayed or grazed by
permittees and not available for use by big game herds.
Approved winter herd levels during this time period
were 175 bison and 150 longhorns. Following a review of
management programs in the mid-1950’s, permittee
haying and grazing was terminated and more fence and
water facilities were constructed to allow areas to be
rested, encourage recovery of grasses, better distribute
grazing by the bison and longhorns, and enable
management to consider the needs of prairie grouse.
Herd levels following the review in 1956 and until the
mid-1980’s varied with approximately 225 bison, 40 elk,
and 200-300 longhorns maintained under a deferred
grazing rotation. Bison and longhorn herds were allowed
to increase in the late-1980’s to implement high intensity,
short duration grazing, and meet suggested genetic
management recommendations. Longhorn numbers
peaked in 1991 at 370, and the bison herd reached its
Refuge high of 400 animals in 1992-1996. Maintenance of
bison and longhorns at high herd levels limited habitat
management options and raised concern that native bird
populations, especially prairie grouse, were not receiving
adequate management consideration. A review of the
habitat and fenced animal management programs was
initiated and included consultation with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) on grassland condition
assessment and grazing program recommendations,
consultation with geneticists and review of literature
regarding bison and longhorn management, and review of
scientific literature as it relates to native bird
management.
Water Rights/Management History
Fort Niobrara NWR holds no water rights permits with
the State of Nebraska; however, lands reserved from the
public domain for creation of the Fort Niobrara NWR
carry with them a Federal Reserved Water Right that
the United States has not asserted at this time.
The Refuge has 25 windmill driven stock water wells and
six domestic wells which do not require groundwater
permits. Also, the 12 low level spring-fed impoundments
are exempt from special dam construction or water
storage permits because of their size and because
diversion or withdrawal of water from the reservoirs is
nonexistent.
A portion of the Niobrara River was designated as Wild
and Scenic in 1991. The National Park Service has
asserted, as yet unquantified, a Federal Reserve Water
Right to maintain instream flow.
In 1986, the Nebraska Public Power District quitclaimed
land to the United States that included the Cornell Dam
and Power House.
Wildlife Management History
Bison
An estimated 30 million bison once roamed the Great
Plains; however, by the late 1880’s, fewer than 1,000
animals were alive due to loss of habitat and hunting.
Free-ranging bison are believed to have been extirpated
from Nebraska in 1878 (Jones et al. 1983). Bison were
reintroduced to Fort Niobrara in January 1913 as part of
the national effort to preserve this native herbivore with
the donation of six bison (sex unknown) from J.W. Gilbert
of Friend, Nebraska and the transfer of two bulls from
Yellowstone National Park. Additional introductions
were made in 1935 (4 males, Custer State Park), 1937 (4
males, Custer State Park), and 1952 (5 males, National
Bison Range) to minimize inbreeding and maintain the
species as closely genetically as possible to those
surviving the bottleneck of near extinction.
Policy/philosophy implemented over the years has been
to preserve and maintain a representative herd under
reasonably natural conditions in numbers sufficient to
ensure their continued existence. Management actions
have included culling, controlled herd movements,
branding, brucellosis vaccination, disease testing, and
limited genetic monitoring.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 13
Elk
Elk were once abundant in the northern Great Plains,
including the area of Fort Niobrara. Aughey (1880:118)
described the elk herds along the Niobrara River in the
late 1860’s as magnificent; however, by the early 1880’s,
elk were extirpated from Nebraska due to hunting and
loss of habitat (Jones 1964). Elk were reintroduced to
Fort Niobrara in January 1913 with the donation of 17 elk
by J.W. Gilbert of Friend, Nebraska. Management policy/
philosophy implemented over the years has been to
maintain a representative herd under reasonably natural
conditions in numbers sufficient to ensure their continued
existence. Periodic introductions of elk to the Refuge herd
have occurred over the years in an effort to minimize the
negative effects of inbreeding. Elk numbers have varied
with winter population levels exceeding 100 in the early
1930’s and recent population levels averaging 50 to 60.
Pronghorn Antelope
Pronghorn antelope were historically common on the
open prairies of the Sandhills through the late 1800’s;
however, by 1908, they were on the decline and observed
only in the western and northern portions of Nebraska.
Efforts to reintroduce pronghorn antelope to Fort
Niobrara NWR began in 1924 with the transfer of 10
animals from Nevada. The herd gradually increased to
17 animals in 1932, but then steadily decreased in
numbers. Attempts to establish a second herd of
antelope with the transfer of 34 animals in 1936 also
failed. Coyote predation is the primary factor influencing
the survival of pronghorn on Fort Niobrara. Pronghorn
have not been actively managed for in recent years.
Bighorn Sheep
Bighorn sheep formerly occurred in Nebraska on the
Pine Ridge and adjacent badlands in the northwest part
of the State in breaks along the Niobrara River east to
near Long Pine, Wildcat and Bighorn Ridges, and among
the rough buttes and canyons along the North Platte
River (Jones 1964). The species was extirpated on the
northern Great Plains in the 1920’s (Jones et al. 1983).
A feasibility study of reintroducing bighorn sheep to the
Refuge was completed in 1979; however, no action was
taken.
Native Birds and Other Wildlife
Management of native birds and other wildlife has varied
in intensity over the years with the greatest impact
indirectly or directly due to habitat management practices.
Prairie grouse, a term used to describe sharp-tailed
grouse and prairie chicken, were once plentiful on the
Great Plains, but by the late 1800’s, demand for birds in
eastern markets, development of efficient railway
shipping, and willingness of individuals to exploit a
seemingly unlimited resource, combined to dramatically
reduce prairie grouse populations. Extirpated in many
parts of their ranges, remnant populations of sharp-tailed
grouse and prairie chicken populations survived in
the Sandhills of Nebraska due to lack of intensive
agriculture altered habitat (Mitchell and Wolfe 1984).
Prairie grouse were identified in one of the first quarterly
reports of the Refuge as native birds for management
consideration and emphasis. Over the years,
management decisions and actions have addressed
prairie grouse needs to varying degrees and included
enlargement of the Refuge, feeding stations, farming/
food plot program, revision of grassland haying and
grazing programs in 1956, and population monitoring.
Prairie grouse surveys were initiated in 1956 as part of a
multiple Refuge research project that studied prairie
grouse populations in relation to land use. This study
conducted from 1956 to 1965 in grasslands south and east
of the Niobrara River suggested that the combination of
rapidly increasing amounts of idle grassland (one phase
of revised Refuge haying and grazing program) and
favorable conditions for reproduction resulted in a rapid
increase in grouse numbers on Fort Niobrara between
1956 and 1959. The substitution of bison grazing for rest
in approximately 4,200 acres beginning in 1963 did not
depress the grouse population; however, researchers
questioned what levels grouse populations would have
reached if this grassland block had been left idle. They
believed that habitat conditions (structure, species
composition) which is correlated to use (grazing, haying)
determined the average population size, but other factors
(i.e., weather) operated equally in good and poor habitat
to cause similar rates of annual population change.
Annual counts of displaying sharp-tailed grouse and
prairie chicken males conducted since the completion of
this research project support that relationship or effect.
Prairie grouse numbers have cycled with higher average
population levels occurring on the Refuge when forage
utilization [represented by Animal Use Months (AUM)]
by bison, longhorns, and elk was lower.
Other wildlife management activities completed over the
years include reintroduction of Canada geese (1914),
turkey (1925), and bobwhite quail (1956) and predator
control (coyote, raccoon, skunk, mink, bobcat, badger) in
the early years to enhance bird production. Also, periodic
control of prairie dogs was conducted. Descriptions in
Refuge reports suggest prairie dogs were found in the
headquarters area (current location), “east” habitat unit,
the tableland north of the Niobrara River, and south of
the Refuge. Presence/absence and statements of relative
abundance have been made for various groups of wildlife
species beginning with birds in 1913 and species lists
have been compiled and updated as needed.
14 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Texas Longhorn Cattle History
Longhorns have been managed at Fort Niobrara since
1936 to assure perpetuation of a historically significant
animal. The following information, taken from Dobie
(1994) and Halloran (1964), provides insight as to the
historical significance of the longhorn and how the
government became involved in the preservation effort.
Longhorn cattle originate from Spanish cattle
that were brought to the New World in about
1521 by Gregorio Villalobos. Early explorers,
including Coronado, brought these cattle from
Mexico into what is now Arizona, New Mexico,
and Texas. The herds eventually spread from
Louisiana to California. Although utilized by
Native Americans and settlers, the Spanish
cattle roamed more or less uncontrolled for over
300 years gradually evolving into the “longhorn.”
Longhorns were the first major beef supply in
the United States and were the cattle that made
famous the Chisolm, Dodge, and Boseman
Trails. Beginning in the mid-1860’s and ending
by 1895, an estimated five million head of
longhorns were trailed from Texas to Kansas,
Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, and
Colorado, some walking approximately 2,000
miles. The attributes which helped the longhorn
to survive heat, drought, flies, predators, limited
forage, and travel great distances were a liability
in the late 1800’s, and by the early 1920’s, the
longhorn was threatened with extinction. Through
a special Congressional appropriation, funds
were made available to locate and manage
representative, true-to-type longhorns at
Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge.
Over 30,000 head of cattle were inspected, and in
1927, a herd of 20 cows, 3 bulls, 3 steers, and 4
calves were shipped to Wichita Mountains. A
second gene pool of this founding herd was
established at Fort Niobrara with the transfer of
4 cows, 1 bull, and 1 steer in May of 1936.
The decision to establish a second gene pool of this founding
herd at Fort Niobrara is considered departmental or
internal as no record of an Executive Order, Congressional
legislation, or Congressional intent exists. Longhorn
management over the years has attempted to allow
natural factors to influence and maintain historic herd
traits such as foraging ability, milk production, calving
ease, hardiness and protection of young from predators.
In addition, animals selected/perpetuated by management
have exhibited representative conformation, horn
structure, color variability, and genetic diversity.
Public Use History
Since the Refuge’s establishment, recreational
opportunities on the Refuge have centered around
wildlife/wildlands observation and education. Early
management emphasized development of a foot trail and
motorized tour route to allow Refuge visitors the
opportunity to observe bison, elk, and Texas longhorns in
a wild setting. A museum constructed in the 1930’s was a
popular attraction for school groups and Refuge visitors
over the years. It contained information and interesting
photographs about the old military Fort Niobrara, a
collection and explanation of paleontological finds, a
collection of mounted birds and museum skins of
mammals, and a native grass display. The current visitor
center was constructed in the mid-1970’s and contains
various photographs, text, items, and computer/
interactive program interpreting Refuge history, wildlife,
wildlands, management and the military fort. The Fort
Niobrara Natural History Association has various books,
postcards, posters, and miscellaneous wildlife related
items for sale in the center.
Canoeing the Niobrara River was referred to as
“increasing in popularity” in 1972. However, the
estimated 2,960 activity hours reported in 1972 in the
Fort Niobrara Wilderness Study was not considered
excessive to prevent inclusion of the River corridor in the
area to be designated as wilderness pursuant to criteria
under the Wilderness Act. Since then, the number of
people canoeing and tubing down the Niobrara River
within Fort Niobrara NWR has steadily increased.
Beginning in 1993, outfitters and the Service recorded
the number of people canoeing and tubing the River
through the Refuge. This information showing the
increase in floating use is found in Figure 1. Increased
River use has raised concerns about disturbance to
wildlife, impacts on vegetation, the quality of experience
for Refuge visitors, and compatibility with the
Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic River Act.
Management began to address River recreation concerns
through the Environmental Assessment process in 1994
and efforts are ongoing.
Figure 1. Canoeing - Tubing Visitation 1993-1997
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 15
Current Refuge Resources Management
Grassland/Fenced Animal Management
Approximately 350 bison, 70 elk, and 250 Texas longhorns
are managed under reasonably natural conditions to
assure a genetically sound breeding population, provide
appropriate viewing opportunities for public enjoyment,
and support scientific studies that are feasible within the
management of representative herds. Bison and elk herd
structures (sex and age ratios) approximate free ranging
herds. In accordance with Service policy, bison, elk, and
longhorn numbers above sustainable winter population
levels are sold or donated annually. Refuge receipts from
1997 excess bison and longhorn auctions totaled $179,510.
Introductions to the elk and Texas longhorn herds are
accomplished periodically to maintain or improve genetic
diversity.
Maintaining long-term population genetic variability of the
bison, elk, and longhorn herds, which affects population
fitness or health, is addressed through population size,
sex and age ratio, and addition of animals from other
populations. Elk and longhorn herds are maintained
below minimum population levels, therefore, periodic
introductions of animals from other populations are
accomplished to minimize inbreeding. The bison herd at
its current level and sex ratio provides the effective
population size required for maintaining levels of genetic
variability, without induced immigration, that
commensurate with accepted standards of conservation
biology (Berger 1996, Berger and Cunningham 1994).
Biological monitoring of the grasslands and herds is the
minimum required to document current habitat condition
and guide management. Range condition surveys and
suggested initial stocking rates of the Refuge are
completed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service every 5 to 10 years. Visual obstruction reading
transects are accomplished periodically to document
vegetation structure. Fenced animal monitoring includes
monthly population surveys, annual disease testing of
excess animals, and infrequent (7 to 10 years) genetic
testing. Detailed breeding records of longhorns are also
maintained for genetic management purposes.
Grassland habitat management strategies are implemented
that maintain or improve grassland health and provide
forage for bison, elk, and Texas longhorns. Approximately
50 miles of interior fence and 50 miles of boundary fence
(perimeter, River corridor, road right-of-way) are used to
control timing of grazing and access/movement of the
fenced animals. Grazing strategies (time of year, intensity,
length) implemented in the estimated 40 habitat units
vary according to species management needs and
behavior, natural use patterns/seasonal movements of
animals in pre-settlement times, staffing, water, climatic
conditions, available Animal Use Months (AUM), range
site and condition. Large ungulate herds consume and/or
remove by trampling an estimated 8,400 AUMs of forage
a year which is approximately 40 percent of the total
plant production, leaving approximately 60 percent of the
vegetation for plant vigor and use by other wildlife
(Waller et al. 1986, USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service 1996). Texas longhorns, exhibition herds, and
government horses are supplemented during the winter
as conditions warrant with approximately 600 tons of
prairie hay harvested from Valentine NWR. Other
annual management actions include one or more years of
rest on approximately 4 percent of the acreage, no
planned grazing or burning on approximately 30 percent
of the acreage during the native bird breeding season,
prescribed burning of approximately 100 acres to
invigorate native plants or control cedar invasion, and
suppression of all wildfires.
16 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Riparian and Woodland Management
Management of the Niobrara River, numerous streams,
and their associated riparian habitat is minimal and
emphasizes maintenance of current conditions. Nearly
all of the Niobrara River and its associated riparian
habitats are fenced to control access of bison, elk, and
Texas longhorns except the tributary streams in the
wilderness area.
The Cornell Dam is maintained to provide
shallow-braided river and sandbar habitat upstream.
Twelve ponds formed by damming tributary streams are
held at full capacity throughout most of the year for use
by waterfowl and other birds, fenced animals, and fish
rearing under cooperative agreement with the Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission. Periodic drawdowns of
these impoundments are accomplished for aquatic
vegetation control and structure repair. Breached
impoundments in the wilderness area are being allowed
to return to a natural state. Several natural impoundments
have been created by beavers.
Research of historic water rights is ongoing.
Limited monitoring of stream flow and contaminants is
accomplished periodically.
Woodland management is minimal and includes control of
cedars, exclusion of fenced animals, and removal of dead
or downed timber presenting a safety or fire hazard or
threatening facilities. Less than 3 percent of the Refuge is
managed through prescribed burning each year to control
cedars. Other invading and exotic plant species are
controlled with beneficial insects, grazing, and herbicides.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Use by bald eagles, whooping cranes, and other federally
listed species on the Refuge is documented through
periodic surveys. Required habitat conditions are
maintained. Protective actions are implemented as needed.
Native Birds and Other Wildlife
Current management strives to maintain the existing
diversity and abundance of various native birds and other
wildlife by providing a mosaic of habitat conditions.
Biological monitoring of native birds and other wildlife is
carried out to the greatest extent possible with current
staffing and management priorities. Native bird management
actions are accomplished to the extent possible given the
primary consideration currently afforded to large
ungulates in the Refuge. Limited flexibility exits in
habitat management programs with approximately 96
percent of the Refuge being grazed annually.
A 20-acre black-tailed prairie dog colony is maintained
and not allowed to expand in the exhibition habitat unit.
A maternity colony of big brown bats (estimated 200
individuals) inhabits the historic north barn during the
late spring and summer with no management efforts
made to alter their occupancy.
Prairie grouse lek counts are conducted each spring with
data available for comparison dating back to 1956. A
breeding bird survey route established in 1992 is
conducted by staff or volunteers. Refuge staff cooperate
with the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission by
completing the annual Spring Coordinated Sandhill
Crane Survey, Mid-December Goose Survey, Mid-winter
Waterfowl Survey, Winter Turkey Survey, and Summer
Turkey Brood Survey. A general wildlife observation log
is maintained to document presence/absence and relative
numbers of various species.
Exotic and Invading Species
Exotic and invading vegetation species are controlled
through an integrated pest management approach.
Various biological control agents are being used in the
ongoing effort to reduce the occurrence of purple
loosestrife along the Niobrara River. Four small patches
(less than one-eighth acre each) of leafy spurge and two
larger patches (one acre each) are controlled through
mechanical and limited chemical applications. Small
areas of exotic cool season grasses exist at disturbed
sites (i.e., road ditch, old farm ground, cattle feed areas)
and are being controlled with grazing and prescribed
burning. Limited mechanical control and prescribed
burning of eastern red cedar is being implemented. Reed
canary grass is common along the River; however, no
control measures are in place at this time.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 17
Public Use
Visitation: Based on general observations and data
collected in the visitor center and on the River, an estimated
100,000 people visit the Refuge annually for wildlife/
wildland observation, photography, interpretation/
education, picnicking, hiking, fishing, and floating on the
Niobrara River. Recreational use of the Niobrara River
for canoe and tube floating has steadily increased as more
visitors travel to the Refuge to enjoy the riparian-dependent
wildlife as well as the wilderness area of the
Refuge.
Facilities: The visitor center, with a variety of over
20-year-old displays interpreting the history of the
military fort, area wildlife and habitat, and Refuge
management, is open Monday through Friday year-round
and weekends Memorial Day to Labor Day with actual
annual use recorded at approximately 6,000 visits.
Other interpretive facilities under some phase of
development include a kiosk at the canoe launch with
education panels entitled “Niobrara Valley,” “Welcome
to Fort Niobrara,” “Canoeing the Niobrara River”; the
observation deck above Fort Falls includes education
panels titled “Prairie Oasis,” “Fort Falls,” “Sand, Rock
& Water”; and an interpretive panel to be located in the
exhibition habitat unit providing information on elk and
prairie dogs.
The Bur Oak Picnic area is located along the Niobrara
River at the Refuge entrance. Tables and rest rooms are
used mainly by people visiting the Refuge for River
floating or wildlife observation.
Trails & Tour Routes: The Fort Falls nature trail is
approximately one mile long and educates the hiker
through a brochure describing the different vegetation
communities and associated wildlife found in this unique,
biologically diverse area.
The 15-stop self-guiding auto tour route is located in the
exhibition habitat unit and provides information on the
prairie dog town, bison, elk, Texas longhorns, and other
prairie inhabitants.
Environmental Education: Interpretation and
environmental education services are provided when staff
are available and include talks or guided tours for school
groups (elementary through college level), scouts, 4-H
and special projects (i.e., Old West Days Trail Ride). The
public is invited to observe fall roundups and auctions of
bison and longhorns, participate in Migratory Bird day
activities, and other Refuge programs.
River Use: Floating the Niobrara River with canoes or
tubes is a popular recreational activity on the Refuge.
Over 18,000 vessels carrying more than 30,000 people
were put in the Niobrara River from the Refuge launch
facility in 1997. Most of the canoeing and tubing takes
place during June (18 percent), July (37 percent), and
August (40 percent), with Saturday morning being the
most congested period. During an average Saturday in
July 1997, approximately 1,200 people launched 684
vessels into the River from 8-11 a.m. which is one vessel
launch every 16 seconds. Due to the alarming increase of
River use documented in outfitter reports from
1993-1997, crowding and compatibility with wilderness
designation and wildlife needs, Refuge management has
in place a moratorium on new outfitters. Also, the
existing 11 outfitters have been informed that any
expansion of their business on the Refuge is at their own
risk, and River use on the Refuge should be
redistributed to week days.
The Refuge has been selected by the Service as a User
Fee Demonstration Area due to the volume of River use,
increasing cost of maintaining the launch area and public
rest rooms, and the need for additional law enforcement.
After receiving input from canoe and tube outfitters,
National Park Service, Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission, Natural Resources District, and other
interested parties, the Refuge staff set up a fee and
collection system which is thought to be fair and simple.
The first year of the user fee program was 1998. Review
of monitoring protocol for public use levels on the Niobrara
River, effects of use on Refuge wildlife/wildlands and
wilderness, and determination of acceptable use/levels
began in 1998. A social carrying capacity study was
conducted the summer of 1998.
Hunting, Fishing and Trapping: The Refuge is
currently closed to hunting.
The Niobrara River is open to fishing with a Fishing Plan
expected to be completed in the near future. Angler
opportunities are limited with most fishing occurring
immediately below Cornell Dam. Kid’s Fishing Day is
held annually in September and includes trout, catfish,
and bluegill fishing in the corral pond, fish identification
and casting contests, cleaning, and cooking. The event is
a cooperative effort between the Nebraska Game and
Parks Commission (NG&PC), Niobrara Natural History
Association, volunteers, and the Refuge staff.
The Refuge is closed to recreational trapping. Trapping
for depredation or damage control purposes is
accomplished as necessary through force account or a
special use permit in accordance with State and Service
regulations.
18 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Limited cultural resource studies have been conducted
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), National
Park Service, and various research institutions to locate
and describe and evaluate cultural and paleontological
resources (Burgett and Nickel 1999). Less than 1 percent
of the Refuge has been inventoried for these resources.
The remains of old Fort Niobrara, including the north
barn, have been determined eligible for Nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places. Twelve of the 21
Refuge buildings are over 50 years old and need to be
evaluated for historic significance. Minimal
interpretation and protection of the various cultural
resources is available. The remainder of the main
military complex surrounds the present Refuge
headquarters. Virtually all the buildings were sold and
removed between 1906 - 1912; however, foundations,
roads and minor surface features remain.
Purpose of and Need for
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Service has recognized the need for strategic planning
for all the components of its System. The System now
has more than 513 refuges totaling approximately 93
million acres. Fort Niobrara NWR, located in north-central
Nebraska (see Figure 2), is a unique and
ecologically important component of the System. In
September 1996, Executive Order 12996 was enacted
which gave the System guidance on issues of
compatibility and public uses of its land. Congress
passed the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act in October 1997. This “organic act,”
for the first time in the System’s history, required that
comprehensive conservation plans be prepared for all
refuges within 15 years.
The Service was an active participant in this historic
legislation and supported the planning requirement. The
planning effort helped this Refuge (and thus the entire
System) to aid in meeting the changing needs of wildlife
species and the public. The planning effort provided the
opportunity to meet with Refuge neighbors, and
customers, and other agencies to ensure that this Plan
was relevant and truly addressed natural resource
issues and public interests. It is our goal to have the
System be an active and vital part of the United States’
conservation efforts. This Plan explains the planning
process, the Refuge’s characteristics, and the direction
management will take in the next 15 years. It is provided
to give the reader a clear understanding of the purposes
of the Refuge and how the Service will manage it over the
next 15 years to attain the stated purpose of the Refuge.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 19
Figure 2. Vicinity Map
20 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 21
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission,
Goals and Guiding Principles
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s
largest collection of lands set aside specifically for the
protection of fish, wildlife and plant populations and their
habitats. The first unit of the System was created in 1903,
when President Theodore Roosevelt designated 3-acre
Pelican Island, a pelican and heron rookery in Florida, as
a bird sanctuary. Today, more than 500 national wildlife
refuges located in the 50 States and a number of U.S.
Territories exists. Today, the System encompasses more
than 93 million acres.
This System provides important habitat for many native
mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates,
and plants. The System plays a vital role in preserving
endangered and threatened species, and offers a wide
variety of wildlife-dependent public uses; annually,
national wildlife refuges receive 34 million visitors.
However, the System’s importance goes far beyond these
services. It contributes directly and indirectly to human
welfare through a number of ecosystem services and
functions. The section on “Management Direction”
contains a detailed discussion of ecosystem services. For
the entire biosphere, the estimated annual economic
value of all the world’s ecosystem services and functions
is about $33 trillion (Constanza, et al. 1997).
The Mission of this System is “to administer a network
of lands and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations
of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57). The goals
of the System are aimed at fulfilling this mission and are
the following:
Goal 1: To preserve, restore, and enhance in their
natural ecosystems all species of animals and
plants that are endangered or threatened with
becoming endangered;
Goal 2: To perpetuate the migratory bird resource;
Goal 3: To preserve a natural diversity and abundance
of fauna and flora on refuge lands; and
Goal 4: To provide an understanding and appreciation
of fish and wildlife ecology and man’s role in his
environment and provide visitors with high
quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recreation
experiences oriented toward wildlife to the
extent these activities are compatible with the
purposes for which the refuge was established.
National wildlife refuges are acquired under a variety of
legislative acts and administrative orders and authorities.
These orders and authorities usually have one or more
purposes for which land can be transferred or acquired.
Most refuges within the System provide breeding,
migration, or wintering habitat for Federal Trust
Species. Nearly all refuges also supply habitats for big
game species and resident or nonmigratory wildlife as
well.
Individual refuges provide specific requirements for the
preservation of trust resources. For example, waterfowl
breeding refuges in South and North Dakota provide
important wetland and grassland habitat to support
populations of waterfowl as required by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. Valentine NWR supports breeding
populations of migratory birds as well as provides
migration habitat during spring and fall migration
periods for these birds. Sabine NWR and other refuges
in Louisiana and Texas provide wintering habitat for
these populations. The network of lands is critical to
these birds survival. Any deficiency in one location will
affect the species and the entire networks ability to
maintain adequate populations.
Other refuges may provide habitat for threatened and
endangered plants or animals that exist in unique habitats
which occur in only very few locations. Refuges in these
situations ensure that populations are protected and
habitat is suitable for their use. Refuges, by providing a
broad network of lands throughout the United States,
help to prevent species from being listed by providing
secure habitat for their use and provide recovery
habitats in portions or all of a species range.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 amends the Refuge Administration Act’s Section
4(A) with the following additions:
P “each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission
of the System, as well as the specific purposes for
which that refuge was established;
P compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a
legitimate and appropriate general public use of
the System, directly related to the mission of the
System and the purposes of many refuges, and
which generally fosters refuge management and
through which the American public can develop an
appreciation for fish and wildlife;
P compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses
are the priority general public uses of the System
and shall receive priority consideration in refuge
planning and management; and
P when the Secretary determines that a proposed
wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible
use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated,
subject to such restrictions or regulations as may
be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate.
22 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
(4) In administering the System, the Secretary shall—
P provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and
plants, and their habitats within the System;
P ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the System are maintained
for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans;
P plan and direct the continued growth of the System
in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the
mission of the System, to contribute to the conservation of
the ecosystems of the United States, to complement
efforts of States and other Federal agencies to
conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to
increase support for the System and participation
from conservation partners and the public;
P ensure that the mission of the System described in
paragraph (2) and the purposes of each refuge are
carried out, except that if a conflict exists between
the purposes of a refuge and the mission of the
System, the conflict shall be resolved in a manner
that first protects the purposes of the refuge, and, to
the extent practicable, that also achieves the mission
of the System;
P ensure effective coordination, interaction, and
cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges
and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in
which the units of the System are located;
P assist in the maintenance of adequate water
quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of
the System and the purposes of each refuge;
P acquire, under State law, water rights that are
needed for refuge purposes;
P recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
uses as the priority general public uses of the
System through which the American public can
develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;
P ensure that opportunities are provided within the
System for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational
uses;
P ensure that priority general public uses of the
System receive enhanced consideration over other
general public uses in planning and management
within the System;
P provide increased opportunities for families to
experience compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation, particularly opportunities for parents
and their children to safely engage in traditional
outdoor activities, such as fishing and hunting;
P continue, consistent with existing laws and
interagency agreements, authorized or permitted
uses of units of the System by other Federal
agencies, including those necessary to facilitate
military preparedness;”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 further defines the wildlife-dependent recreational
uses as: wildlife observation and photography, environmental
education and interpretation, and fishing and hunting.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
The mission of the Service is to work with others to
conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants,
and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people. To fulfill this mission, Congress has
charged the Service with conserving and managing
migratory birds, endangered species, anadromous and
inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals.
The Service carries out these responsibilities through
several functional entities. The National Wildlife Refuge
System is one of those entities.
Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge Purpose(s)
The Fort Niobrara NWR was created by Executive
Order 1461, January 11, 1912, (with a designated acreage
of 13,279 acres) “...reserved and set apart for the use of
the Department of Agriculture as a preserve and
breeding ground for native birds.” Shortly after the
Refuge’s establishment, J.W. Gilbert, owner of a private
game park at Friend, Nebraska, “offered his buffalo, elk,
and deer to the Federal Government for preservation on
a national reservation, with the understanding that they
would remain in Nebraska. The acceptance of this offer
was delayed through lack of a suitable range in the State.
On November 14, 1912, however, an Executive Order was
issued enlarging the Fort Niobrara Game Preserve (then
known as the Niobrara Reservation) by adding thereto
the area formerly used as the parade grounds and
headquarters for the old military post. This made the
total area of the preserve about 14,200 acres. Mr.
Gilbert’s offer was then formally accepted by the
Secretary of Agriculture, and arrangements were made
to transfer the animals to Fort Niobrara.” (Ruth 1938)
As a result, the Refuge is to be managed (1) as a preserve
and breeding ground for native birds, and (2) for the
preservation of bison and elk herds representative of
those that once roamed the Great Plains.
Furthermore, the Wilderness Act of 1964 calls for
designated wilderness areas within a National Wildlife
Refuge to receive equal consideration in management
decisions and become a supplemental purpose of the
Refuge. Section 4. (a) of this Act reads: “The purposes of
this Act are hereby declared to be within and
supplemental to the purposes for which national forests
and units of the national park and national wildlife
refuge systems are established and administered.”
Thus, the purpose of the designated wilderness area
within this Refuge is to be supplemental and not
subservient to the other purposes of the Refuge.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 23
Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge
Vision Statement
Fort Niobrara NWR will strive to preserve, restore, and
enhance the exceptional diversity of native flora and
fauna and significant historic resources of the Niobrara
River Valley and Sandhills of Nebraska for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.
Fort Niobrara NWR habitat management goals will seek
to maintain a healthy Refuge environment that will provide
opportunities for visitors to enjoy wildlife-dependent
uses of the Refuge in a natural setting. Interpreting a
unique assemblage of habitats, wildlife and the Refuge’s
historical heritage, as well as improving facilities will
enhance the visitor’s experience while protecting the
cultural integrity of the area. To meet these challenges,
the Service will seek partnerships with other agencies,
interest groups, landowners, and local communities.
These efforts will result in greater protection of wildlife,
fish, and plant resources throughout north-central
Nebraska.
Legal and Policy Guidance
National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and
goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System),
the designated purpose of the Refuge unit as described in
the establishing legislation and/or executive orders,
Service laws and policy, and international treaties (for a
complete list see Appendix G).
Key concepts included in laws, regulations, and policies
that guide management of the System include primary
versus multiple-use public lands, compatibility, and
priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities.
Examples of relevant guidance include the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of
1962 (50 CFR), Executive Order 12996 (Management and
General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge
System), and selected portions of the Code of Federal
Regulations, the Refuge Manual, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966, as amended, provided guidelines and directives for
administration and management of all areas in the System,
including wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and
conservation of fish and wildlife threatened with extinction,
wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas,
or waterfowl production areas. Use of any area within the
System was permitted, provided that such uses were
compatible with the major purposes for which such areas
were established.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 amends the Refuge System Administration Act
by including a unifying mission for the System, a new
formal process for determining compatible uses on refuges,
and a requirement that each refuge will be managed
under a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP or
Plan). This Act states that wildlife conservation is the
priority of the System lands and that the Secretary of
the Interior (Secretary) shall ensure that the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge
lands are maintained. Each refuge must be managed to
fulfill the mission of the System and the specific purposes
for which it was established. Additionally, this Act identifies
and establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of
the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These are
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and interpretation. As
priority public uses of the System, these uses will
receive enhanced consideration over other uses in
planning and management. Furthermore, this Act
requires that a CCP be in place for each refuge by the
year 2012 and that the public have an opportunity for
active involvement in Plan development and revision. It is
Service policy that CCPs are developed in an open public
process and that the agency is committed to securing
public input throughout the process. This Act amended
portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.
24 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Lands within the System are different from other,
multiple-use public lands in that they are closed to all
public uses unless specifically and legally opened. Unlike
other Federal lands that are managed under a multiple-use
mandate (i.e., national forests administered by the
U.S. Forest Service and public lands administered by the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management), the System is
managed specifically for the benefit of fish, wildlife, and
plant resources and their habitats. Compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation is a legitimate and appropriate
general public use of the System.
Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and interpretation are
priority public uses of the System. These uses must
receive enhanced consideration over other public uses in
refuge planning and management.
Before any uses, including wildlife-dependent recreational
activities, are allowed on national wildlife refuges,
Federal law requires that they be formally determined
to be “compatible.”
A compatible use is defined as a use that, in the sound
professional judgement of the refuge manager, will not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment
of the mission of the System or the purposes of the Refuge.
Sound professional judgement is further defined as a
finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with
the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and
administration, available science and resources (funding,
personnel, facilities, and other infrastructure), and
adherence with applicable laws. If financial resources are
not available to design, operate, and maintain an activity,
the refuge manager will take reasonable steps to obtain
outside assistance from the State and other conservation
interests. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is
determined to be compatible.
The Service has completed compatibility determinations
for Fort Niobrara NWR (see Appendix E). All six
priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities—
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental
interpretation, environmental education, hunting and
fishing—were determined to be compatible. Hunting
currently is not permitted, but the Refuge may allow
future occasional hunts for the purpose of managing elk
and, if reintroduced, bighorn sheep populations to achieve
habitat management goals.
The Refuge Recreation Act, as amended, authorized the
Secretary to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other
conservation areas for recreational use when such uses
did not interfere with the area’s primary purpose.
Executive Order 12996 (March 23, 1996) identified a new
mission statement for the System; established six priority
public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education and interpretation);
emphasized conservation and enhancement of the quality
and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat; stressed the
importance of partnerships with Federal and State
agencies, Tribes, organizations, industry, and the general
public; mandated public involvement in decisions on the
acquisition and management of refuges; and required
identification, prior to acquisition of new refuge lands, of
existing compatible wildlife-dependent uses that would
be permitted to continue on an interim basis pending
completion of comprehensive planning.
Existing Partnerships
The Refuge works with a variety of organizations and
individuals on natural resource projects including private
landowners (Partners For Wildlife program); Natural
Resources Conservation Service (Refuge grazing
program, Wetland Reserve Program); Farm Service
Agency (easement program); Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission (wildlife surveys, fish rearing in Refuge
ponds); Cherry County Extension Service (youth
programs, research); local law enforcement agencies
(enforcement, youth rehabilitation); Inter Tribal Bison
Cooperative (bison donations and management); zoos,
conservation districts and other non-profit qualifying
entities (bison, elk, and longhorn donations); veterinarians
for the State of Nebraska, other lower 48 states, and U.S.
Department of Agriculture (disease and health issues,
tests, research); Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
(interpretative panels, animal transfers); Fort Niobrara
Natural History Association (Refuge projects, sale of
books, postcards, posters, etc.); Valentine Chamber of
Commerce (community projects); Niobrara Council (River
management); Texas Longhorn Breeders Association of
America and International Texas Longhorn Association
(longhorn pedigree, registration); The Nature
Conservancy (fire management, research); Rural Fire
Protection Districts (wildfire suppression on-and
off-Refuge); and various universities (research).
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 25
Planning Process
Description of Planning Process
The development of this CCP was guided, in the
beginning, by the Refuge Planning Chapter of the Fish
and Wildlife Service Manual (Part 602 FW2.1, November
1996) and later also by the Service’s Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Planning Policy. Key steps included: (1)
preplanning; (2) identifying issues and developing a vision;
(3) gathering information; (4) analyzing resource
relationships; (5) developing alternatives and assessing
environmental effects; (6) identifying a preferred
alternative; (7) publishing the Draft Plan and soliciting
public comments on the Draft Plan (the comment period
for input from the public spanned a total of 105 days); (8)
review of comments and effecting necessary and
appropriate changes to the draft CCP; and, (9) preparation
of the final Plan for approval by the Region 6 Regional
Director, and finally (10) implementation of the Plan.
Comprehensive conservation planning efforts for Fort
Niobrara NWR began in January 1997 with a meeting of
regional management and planning staff and field station
employees at Fort Niobrara NWR. At that meeting a
core planning team was designated with the major
responsibilities of gathering information and writing the
plan. A review team was set up to provide guidance and
direction to the core planning team. A working group was
also organized to provide interchange of information
between Service personnel, outside agencies, and
interested stakeholders of the Refuge.
On March 20, 1997, an open house scoping session was
held in the Cherry County Hall meeting room, Valentine,
Nebraska. The open house provided participants an
opportunity to learn about the Refuge’s purposes, mission
and goals, and issues currently facing management.
People attending were provided the chance to speak with
Service representatives and to share their comments.
A two-day Refuge tour was held with the working group
and Service management and planning staffs in April
1997. The tour gave participants a chance to view fenced
animal management and prominent wildlife species of the
Refuge, discuss management aspects of the Refuge, and
give planning staff ideas for consideration in the planning
process.
On October 28, 1997, a meeting was held with Refuge
permittees that are actively involved with canoeing and
tubing on the Niobrara River through the Fort Niobrara
NWR. The CCP addresses this issue, and the meeting
provided an opportunity for Refuge staff and permittees
to share information concerning this use. This and other
meetings were scheduled to let people know what the
Service was doing to manage the wildlife and habitats of
the Fort Niobrara NWR and to elicit their input on
topics of interest to them.
During the planning process, the review and working
groups had access to information on objectives and
alternatives being considered. Written comments were
exchanged and verbal conversations were held. The
Draft CCP/EA was the first opportunity that these
groups and the public had to review the entire planning
effort and the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan was released
on the last week of April 1999 and distributed in the first
week of May 1999. A 60-day comment period was provided in
which the Service requested information, comments,
concerns, suggestions, and complaints from the public
regarding the Draft CCP/EA. Because of the tremendous
amount of public interest in this Plan, the Service
extended the comment period for an additional 45 days,
for a total of 105 days of public comment. With this
extension, the public comment period did not close until
August 19, 1999.
The voluminous amount of comment letters and electronic
mail communications were reviewed and summarized by
category and subject. After reading and compiling all the
comments received, the review team had a briefing
meeting with the Regional Director and Assistant
Regional Director of the Service’s Region 6, the
Programmatic and Southern Ecosystems Assistant
Regional Directors, the Refuge Supervisor for Fort
Niobrara NWR, the Chief of the Branch of Land
Acquisition and Refuge Planning, and the Regional
Wildlife Biologist. The summary of the comments
received was reviewed at this meeting and appropriate
modifications were made to the Draft CCP/EA in
accordance with scientifically based new information
provided during the comment period and the goals and
objectives of the Refuge. The present Plan contains the
changes made by the Service in accordance to the
recommendations of the directorate and Service
biologists and managers. All the actions undertaken in
the preparation of this Plan satisfy the requirements
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
This Plan will guide the management on the Refuge for
the next 15 years. Plans are ultimately signed by the
Regional Director, Region 6, thus providing regional
direction to the station project leader. A copy of this Plan
will be provided to all those interested. The project
leader of the station will review the Plan every five years
to decide if it needs revision.
26 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Planning Issues
Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified
through discussions with planning team members, key
contacts, and through the public scoping process, which
began with an Open House in March 1997. Comments
were received orally at the meetings, via e-mail messages
and in writing, both before and during the scoping and
the public comment period phases of the comprehensive
conservation planning process. The following issues,
concerns, and comments are a compilation and summary of
those expressed by the public, other Federal and State
agencies, local and county governments, private
organizations and individuals, environmental groups and
persons concerned for the natural resources of the Fort
Niobrara NWR. This section also contains information
developed by the Service throughout the planning
process on the same issues.
Texas Longhorn Cattle
Many people were concerned, for various reasons, about
the Service’s proposal to remove this historic herd from
the Refuge. Some other commentators met this proposal
with approval.
Loss of Revenue to the County: It was speculated that
Cherry County would experience a drastic reduction in
revenue from the loss of monies provided by the receipts
of the sales of Texas longhorn cattle from Fort Niobrara
NWR should this herd be removed from the Refuge.
The Service believes that Cherry County should not see
any drastic reduction of revenue from the relocation of
this herd outside of the Refuge for the following reason:
The annual average of the Refuge Revenue Sharing
receipts, collected, deposited and credited towards the
reserve acres for Fort Niobrara NWR for the past three
years was $43,090 for longhorn cattle and $170,567 for
bison. The average of the percent of these receipts
credited to longhorn cattle for the same years was 20.26
percent. Therefore, if the longhorn cattle sales were no
longer held at Fort Niobrara NWR and no receipts were
collected, Cherry County would lose approximately 20.2
percent in revenue each year from the Refuge Revenue
Share Program (RRSP).
This loss of revenue from the RRSP would generally be
compensated by the Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes payment
(PILT Law, Act of October 20, 1973, PL-94-5a65; 90 Stat
2662; 31 USC-1601) made by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) each year. In the last three years, Cherry County
has received a PILT payment from BLM for the same
reserved acres based on the PILT formula minus the
amounts paid by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Therefore, if the Service were to make a payment under
the RRSP which was less than the average in the last
years because of the lack of revenue from the sale of
longhorn cattle, then the BLM payment would make up
the difference.
Loss of Historically Important Herd: The Service
understands the historical significance and the importance
to local tourism that this herd has for Cherry County
and the City of Valentine. Nevertheless, the Service
believes that given the need to achieve the habitat
management goals of the Refuge to comply with the
stated purpose of Fort Niobrara NWR, the herd must be
removed from the Refuge. However, the Service has
stated, to the City of Valentine, Cherry County officials,
and other groups and individuals concerned about the
removal of this herd from the Refuge, its willingness to
participate in the creation of a non-profit organization
that would receive this herd and manage it, in accordance
with the same practices and standards used by the Service,
within Cherry County, and if at all possible, within the
limits of the City of Valentine. Thus, this herd could
continue to exist within Cherry County and possibly in
the vicinity of the City of Valentine where tourists could
have access to it. Furthermore, the management entity
could directly benefit from 100 percent of the proceeds of
the excess animals from the herd rather than just 25
percent as it does under present conditions.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 27
Recreational Use and Resources
of the Niobrara River
Many people, groups, and agencies were concerned, for
various reasons, about the Service’s current and proposed
policy on access to and management of the Niobrara
River resources for recreational use.
Limiting Access to the Niobrara River: The Service
has grown increasingly concerned over the possible
environmental effects that the current burgeoning use
of the Niobrara River resources by River floaters may
be having on riparian and upland Refuge resources, as
well as on wilderness values.
Recreational canoeing and tubing use of the stretch of
the Niobrara River designated as scenic by Congress has
increased dramatically in the past few years. In response
to this, the Service has attempted to alleviate effects on
Refuge resources (riparian habitats and the wildlife that
depends upon it, wilderness values, etc.) by placing a
temporary limit on the number of outfitter Special Use
Permits issued by the Refuge and a cap on use while the
environmental effects of this use are assessed.
Furthermore, this temporary limit in use is expected to
contain the overcrowding situation that has developed on
this stretch of the Niobrara River and degraded the
quality of wilderness experience. This temporary
measure has been criticized as unfair, inadequate, and
without basis on hard evidence and science. However, the
Service believes that this interim management policy is
better than complete shutdown of River use on this
stretch of the Niobrara River (worst case scenario) as
discontinuing all use would be no more justifiable than
allowing uncontrolled growth of use. At this time, there is
no logic in depriving all visitors of the wilderness
experience.
Management Plan: The Service will prepare a
Management Plan in the next two years dealing
exclusively with the recreational use of the scenic
Niobrara River as it flows through the Refuge. This Plan
will be prepared by the Service with the participation of
all interested parties, such as the National Park Service,
the Niobrara Council, all River outfitters interested in
participating, and any city and county officials interested
in being part of this effort. The Plan will define
acceptable use levels for weekdays and weekends that
meet legal mandates. Also, actions to be taken when uses
exceed threshold levels or negatively impact resources,
and wilderness values will be clearly defined.
In the interim, River use will be capped at the 1998 levels
and the moratorium on new outfitters will continue.
Weekend and weekday use will be monitored along with
habitat, wildlife, erosion, and social parameters to
determine threshold levels.
It is not the intention of the Service to obstruct the
development of a recreational and revenue-producing
enterprise such as River use outfitting, but rather to
ensure that this use continues to be compatible with
Refuge goals and objectives and with the requirements of
the Wild and Scenic River Act and the Wilderness Act
promulgated by Congress for the benefit of the American
people. The Service believes that the wise use of the
River for recreational purposes will, in the end, be
beneficial, not only to wildlife, but to the community as
well. It is our belief that any decrease in use by River
floaters is caused more by a degrading “wilderness” and
“wild and scenic” experience caused by too many visitors
at certain times of the year, rather than by the Service’s
limits on Special Use Permits. Ensuring visitors a
wildlife-oriented as well as a wilderness experience when
using the River would also ensure a healthy tourist
industry for the City of Valentine and Cherry County.
While not presently documented on Fort Niobrara NWR
riparian habitats along the wild and scenic Niobrara
River, a large body of research exists (mostly from studies
conducted in California, Colorado and in eastern states)
on the issue of effects on migratory birds as public use of
rivers increases. Heavy recreation use of riparian areas
during the summer (bird breeding season) can have
devastating effects on the avifauna, during all portions of
their natural history cycle. Riparian habitats are one of
the most important wildlife habitats occurring in the
Service’s Region 6. Seventy-five percent of the terrestrial
species occurring in this Region are dependent on
riparian and adjacent aquatic zones during some portion
of their life cycle. The effects of heavy recreation on the
riparian habitats and its associated wildlife species is
two-fold: disturbance to the individuals, and disturbance
to the vegetation used by wildlife. These effects have not
been fully assessed for the riparian habitats of Fort
Niobrara NWR. The Service, as a precautionary
measure, decided to place limits on recreational use of
the segment of the wild and scenic Niobrara River that
flows through the Refuge until these effects can be
qualified and quantified. The Service’s mission is the
preservation of wildlife and the habitats on which they
depend. Recreational use of Refuge lands must come
second to wildlife and be carried out in a compatible way
with the purposes of the Refuge. Thus, the necessary use
limits at this time until a River Management Plan is
developed and implemented.
28 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Restricted Access and User Fees: Fort Niobrara NWR,
through its land management authority, has restricted
access and use of certain roads and bridges and has
instituted fees for use of public facilities as the need for
these provisions has grown. Changes in the operation of
the Refuge canoe launch have been implemented over the
years as the number of visitors to the area has increased.
Furthermore, Congress directed refuges to implement
fees in areas where collection could be made and used to
pay for the costs of operating the activities for which a fee
is collected. This fee amount was based on fees charged
at other Federal areas. Monies collected from the fee
program have been used to pump rest rooms, for signs, for
costs related to collections, but primarily to pay the
salary of a law enforcement officer to patrol the River in
an attempt to stop certain inappropriate uses of the
River (alcohol consumption, disorderly conduct,
littering, no life jackets, etc.). Access to the River from a
County road had to be stopped for safety reasons
because people were unloading gear and canoes on the
road, on the road shoulder, and crossing the road on foot
to get to the parking area, thus creating a safety hazard.
Cherry County has a right-of-way across the Refuge for
a road. The right-of-way is not for public recreation such
as launching of canoes or tubes.
Authority to Control River Activities: The Department
of Interior Solicitor’s Office provided the Service with an
opinion regarding the Refuge’s authority to control
activities on the surface of the wild and scenic section of
the Niobrara River flowing through the Refuge.
However, some visitors to the Refuge and residents of
Cherry County disagree with the Solicitor’s opinion, and
this continues to be a point of contention. Nevertheless,
the nine miles of the Niobrara River that span the
Refuge are part of the segment designated by Congress
as part of the Wild and Scenic River System in 1991. The
Service was thus accorded exclusive management
authority on this portion and National Park Service on
the remainder of the wild and scenic Niobrara River. The
entire segment is considered a component of the
National Park Service system, and Congress holds the
Service and the National Park Service accountable for
the preservation and management of this National
resource, not subordinate partners that may or may not
exist.
Bridge and Launch Area: Some people launching at the
Refuge are not aware that they are within the boundary
of a National Wildlife Refuge. The Service must educate
the public to the fact that (1) the Niobrara River flowing
through the Refuge is a designated scenic River, (2) five
miles of the Niobrara River is designated as a
Wilderness Area, and (3) the Service must manage these
resources in accordance with these Congressional
designations and the management that they imply. The
Service will require that all future outfitter literature
and public contact refer to the launch site as “Fort
Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge Canoe Launch Site.”
Cornell Dam: Some commented that the Cornell Dam
has outlived its usefulness; that a study weighing its
environmental and cultural values, as well as safety,
should be undertaken directly to determine whether the
Dam should survive. A few commentators recommended
breaching the dam as restoration of natural stream flow
is entirely consistent with Congressional intent of the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act. Furthermore, they added that the
current Nation’s sentiment is for removal of outmoded,
functionless dams, specially if they block otherwise
pristine, natural flowing rivers. They pointed to the need
for an environmental consequences analysis for retaining
this dam.
The Service’s decision to leave Cornell Dam untouched
at this time stems from the Service’s concern and
responsibility towards federally listed species that have
been known to benefit from the habitats created by this
structure. However, the Service is open to further study
this situation, and if warranted in the future, to eliminate
this structure if it is shown to be no longer necessary to
maintain habitats for threatened and endangered species.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 29
Habitat and Wildlife Management
Many people, agencies, and environmental groups were
concerned about the loss of bird habitat due to the priority
given to large ungulate management. They also felt that
protecting and enhancing bird habitats should be a
priority over other wildlife issues. Some felt that other
wildlife species, including butterflies and other insects,
should be considered, and that enhancement of wildlife
off the Refuge should be discussed as well. Concern was
expressed about the design of the perimeter fence,
vegetation management, and any additional structures
and how they would affect the movements of wildlife to
and from the Refuge, as well as the appearance of the
area. A comment was made that current wildlife
management practices should be evaluated before any
changes are made.
Legislation (National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act, as amended) mandates wildlife
conservation as the overriding mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System and, as such, it is the most
important issue at Fort Niobrara NWR. Protection of
wildlife habitat, especially for feeding, resting, and
nesting birds and their young, would define the types of
visitor activities and access allowed at the Refuge.
Another responsibility of this and other national wildlife
refuges will be to preserve, restore, and enhance
threatened and endangered species and migratory birds.
To carry out this responsibility, the Refuge’s flora and
fauna must be protected from human adverse impacts
(i.e., pollution, and disruptive or incompatible activities).
Public use of the scenic section of the Niobrara River, the
Refuge’s Wilderness Area, and the rest of the Refuge
lands must be managed to be compatible with avian and
other wildlife objectives. Nonnative plant species must
be controlled and/or eradicated to restore native plant
communities in upland and wetland areas, thereby
enhancing habitat for migratory birds. How to provide
wildlife-dependent recreation and opportunities for
environmental education, while at the same time ensuring
habitat and wildlife protection, is an issue to be resolved
through the CCP process.
Bison: Some commentators expressed opposition to the
Service’s proposed new strategy to manage bison by
elimination of some interior fencing.
The Service is confident bison, as the major grassland
management tool at the Refuge, can be managed to
attain the proposed habitat goals for avian populations.
The Service will only remove that portion of interior fence
that is not necessary for habitat management and
handling of big game animals. Interior wire will be
removed incrementally (over-time) to ensure appropriate
resource management. Bison can also be managed, as
stated throughout this Plan, through methods other
than fencing, such as prescribed fire, water manipulation
and salt supplements. Also the winter population herd
levels of bison will remain at 350 animals, unless
research regarding habitat, native birds, and bison herd
genetics objectives reveals a need to reduce the bison
herd population levels to a number between 350 and 200
animals.
Bighorn Sheep: Some commentators expressed opposition
to the Service’s proposal to introduce bighorn sheep to the
Refuge (i.e., the species never occurred at the Refuge;
would give Refuge a zoo atmosphere; fenced herd would
not be capable of migrating and this practice contradicts
contemporary wildlife management principles; could lead to
an epizootic disease, etc.). While many expressed support for
this proposal, some opposed the proposed limited hunt to
reduce herd size. The opposition to this proposed hunt
presented more than one facet, but with most opposition
hinging on the premise that the area of the Refuge where
bighorn sheep could be introduced is not large enough to
allow for a “sportsman’s” opportunity to hunt sheep.
The Service believes that the remains of bighorn sheep in
the general vicinity of the Refuge, in areas with similar
habitats as those presently found in parts of this Refuge,
point to the likely prior existence of bighorn sheep in
parts of what is today Fort Niobrara NWR.
After reviewing public comments, and during internal
meetings, the Service has decided to postpone the possible
introduction of this species into the Refuge.
The Service has been invited and will participate in the
preparation of the State of Nebraska’s Bighorn Sheep
Management Plan. This participation will proceed any
introduction attempts of this species at this Refuge. This
Management Plan should address habitat needs that will
be used by the Service to assess the possibility or lack
thereof of any introduction effort. Only after the State’s
Bighorn Sheep Management Plan has been finalized and
the Service has consulted with the State on this issue will
the Service make a determination whether to introduce
this species onto the Refuge. Additionally, should the
proposed introduction take place, no hunting of bighorn
sheep would be allowed if the Service determines that a
fair chase, sporting-type hunt cannot be obtained.
Elk: Some concern has been expressed that Chronic
Wasting Disease (CWD) will become a serious disease in
elk within Nebraska and will contaminate the Refuge elk
herd. Disease is a constant threat to the wildlife
populations within the State and Nation. Elk and elk
management has been a goal and objective of the Refuge
since 1912. During this time the Service has managed the
elk herd without any significant disease related problems.
However, the Service will remain vigilant in its effort to
combat new diseases like CWD. The Service will
participate in the development of an Elk Management
Plan for the State of Nebraska which will address
disease concerns about the State’s population of elk and
methods (i.e. modified fencing, etc.) to reduce the
possibility of the spread of diseases.
Some opposition to the hunting of elk was received
because the Refuge is fenced and only 19,131 acres in size
which would not allow for sufficient space to have a
sporting opportunity to hunt elk. The Service has
decided to delay the hunting of elk until the Nebraska
Elk Management Plan has been completed and the
Service has consulted the State on this issue. The
hunting of elk on the Refuge will only be allowed if the
Service has determined that a fair chase, sporting type
hunt can be obtained.
30 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Black-tailed Prairie Dogs: Many commentators
expressed, with different degrees of intensity, opposition
to the Service’s proposal to allow for the expansion of
black-tailed prairie dogs at the Refuge citing many
reasons: inability of the Service to contain them within
the Refuge; damage to habitats; possibility of prairie
dogs spreading diseases to human beings; too many
prairie dogs already exist, etc. Comments were also
received in support of this proposal.
Black-tailed prairie dogs are an integral part of many
grassland ecosystems in the western states of our Nation.
Many other animal species, some listed as endangered,
other deemed species of special concern (i.e., black-footed
ferrets, bald eagles, burrowing owls, mountain plovers,
swift foxes), and migratory birds (raptors) are either
inextricably dependent on or make common use of
prairie dog colonies to obtain basic food, shelter and/or
habitat for nesting and rearing of their young. Fort
Niobrara NWR is located well within the historical range
of this species and has benefitted from the presence of
black-tailed prairie dogs as an integral part of a healthy
ecosystem and as a tourist attraction.
In this Plan, the Service is proposing to allow for the
expansion of the black-tailed prairie dog colony that
presently exists in the Refuge. This proposed expansion is
in line with the Service’s efforts to protect the ever
decreasing numbers in the number and size of black-tailed
prairie dog colonies nationwide. The Service has
estimated that this species’ range has decreased by an
alarming 95 percent from the time of the European
settlement of the west. The Service has been petitioned
to list this species under the Endangered Species Act
given the precipitous decline in the species populations
and the Service is currently reviewing this listing
petition.
The Service will allow black-tailed prairie dogs to expand
to a manageable population size and control them within
the boundaries of the Refuge.
Funding and Staffing to Manage the Refuge
Managing this Refuge requires adequate funding and
staffing to effectively carry out habitat and population
management activities, as well as to ensure public uses
that are compatible with the System mission. Some
people expressed concern that the Service might not be
allocated sufficient funding to implement all the goals
and objectives stated in this Plan. Some commentators
felt that building partnerships with public agencies,
private organizations, and volunteers would increase the
Refuge’s management ability.
The Service is aware that adequate funding to carry out
all ongoing and proposed management activities may not
be readily available to the Refuge. Nevertheless, this
Plan outlines the recommended course of action for the
Refuge and this Plan may be the best vehicle to obtain
the necessary funding to accomplish the mission for
which Congress designated this area a National Wildlife
Refuge.
Other Public Uses and Recreation
Some commentators expressed opposition to captive
wildlife hunting while requesting the expansion of turkey,
deer, prairie grouse and pronghorn hunting opportunities, if
not with rifles, maybe with archery, shotguns and
muzzle-loading. These commentators argued that the
Refuge can accommodate hunting.
The Refuge is currently closed to hunting. The original
purpose of Fort Niobrara NWR was “a preserve and
breeding ground for native birds.” Later, this purpose
was enlarged and, as a result, the Refuge is to be
managed (1) as a preserve and breeding ground for native
birds and (2) for the preservation of bison and elk herds
representative of those that once roamed the Great
Plains. Hunting for elk and, if reintroduced, bighorn
sheep will to permit the taking of surplus animals
(maybe one or two animals) under a limited, strictly
controlled hunting environment. Unrestricted hunting
for other species of wildlife on the Refuge would be a
disturbance detrimental to bison and elk management.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 31
Public Involvement Methodology
The Service, through this and other planning processes
involving NEPA, finds itself involved in the complex and
essential task of involving the public in the planning process.
The public involvement process is often a difficult
enterprise given the specific time-frames and schedules
that accompany most Service actions, this Plan not being
the exception.
Throughout the process that led to the preparation of
this Plan, the Service complied with NEPA requirements
to involve the public through meetings of different kinds
(i.e., public scoping meetings, open house meetings,
meetings with specific groups), personal communications,
and the disbursement of the Draft CCP/EA that preceded
this final Plan and other kinds of information, and finally,
through a period of time in which all interested parties
had 105 days in which to provide written comments on
the proposed future Refuge goals, objectives, strategies
and actions. The Service effected changes to the Draft
CCP/EA as a consequence of comments and information
received prior and during the public comment period.
The Service, throughout the preparation of the Draft
CCP/EA, attempted to consult with and involve all the
groups, entities, and individuals that expressed interest
in participating. The refuge manager, his staff, and
Region 6 Regional Office personnel conducted various
meetings to disseminate information, address most, if not
all possible issues, and collect all possible relevant data
and comments for the preparation of these Draft Plans.
After these Draft Plans had been prepared, all those
involved had an opportunity to provide written comments
on the Draft CCP/EA. The original public comment
period was open for 60 days, but due to the high volume
of comments, the Service agreed to reopen the comment
period for an additional 45 days. A typical public comment
period is open for 30 days. Thus, the Service gave
commentators a total of 105 days in which to provide
written comments, by letter or electronic mail, to the
Service.
An Open House was held on June 10, 1999, in Valentine,
Nebraska. It was scheduled to take place from 3 to 8
PM; instead it ran from 2:45 until 9:30 PM due to the
interest shown. The purpose of the Open House was to
inform the public as to the major aspects of these Plans.
The public was encouraged to provide their written
comments to the Service. An Open House meeting format
affords the event organizers the opportunity to reach
out to a greater segment of the public and each individual
person from the public to voice their comments and
concerns.
32 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 33
Summary of Refuge and
Resource Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
Fort Niobrara NWR is 19,131 acres in size and located in
north-central Nebraska along the Niobrara River. The
Refuge and surrounding area is recognized by ecologists
for its biogeographic significance due to the co-occurrence
of five distinctly different, major vegetation communities
within and adjacent to the Niobrara River corridor. The
region is the only place in North America where Rocky
Mountain Coniferous Forest (eastern limit), Northern
Boreal Forest (southern limit), Eastern Deciduous
Forest (western limit), Mixed Prairie and Sandhill Prairie
meet and intermingle (Kaul and Rolfsmeier 1993). The
unusually diverse plant and animal assemblages found in
this area are due to unique surface and subsurface
geologic formations, water and soil conditions, current
and past climates, and differential sun exposure
(Churchill et al. 1988). Additional ecological factors that
had significant affect on the biological diversity that
evolved in this region prior to Euro-American settlement
includes wildfire and the use of fire by aboriginal men
(Higgins et al. 1986, Steuter 1991), and the unrestricted
grazing and impacts associated with grazing of bison, elk,
pronghorn antelope, and prairie dogs (Knopf 1994, Bragg
and Steuter 1996). Though changes in composition and
density of native flora and fauna have occurred since
settlement, Bogan (1995) reported that Fort Niobrara is
one of the few areas where the basic components of the
1850 landscape are still present and viable.
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to
national natural resource management and has identified
52 ecosystems within the United States (USFWS, 1994).
The Service has formed teams to address the most
important conservation and restoration issues that each
one of these identified ecosystems faces. Each one of
these teams has advanced, depending on the complexity
of issues within a determined area, at different paces in the
identification and categorization of all of the conservation
issues (Service’s Resource Priorities) and goals for each
of these ecosystems. The area where this Refuge lies has
been difficult to characterize and include into one single
ecosystem given the diversity of habitats and other
natural resources found there.
Fort Niobrara NWR is bisected by the Niobrara River
(which according to early Service watershed-based
ecosystem maps separates two distinct ecosystems) and
thus, theoretically, lies within two different ecosystems
which are the Main Stem Missouri River Ecosystem
(basically the northernmost area of the Refuge
constituted mostly by the designated Wilderness Area
on the northern banks of the Niobrara River) and the
Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem (the largest portion of
the Refuge on the southern banks of the Niobrara River).
The Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem team has been
given the responsibility to address ecosystem issues on
Fort Niobrara NWR. This team has identified the five
main areas of concern that need to be addressed for this
ecosystem.
The Service resource priorities for the Platte/Kansas
Rivers Ecosystem are:
P Prairie Grassland (including the Sandhills region)
restoration and preservation
P Species of Concern (rare species)
P Water quality
P Native fishes, small fishes and mussels
P Water Quantity
The Service believes that the Refuge’s goals and objectives
delineated in this Plan will help the Service attain the
goals and objectives for these resource priorities for the
Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem.
34 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Climate
The climate of the region is highly variable and
characterized by cold winters and hot summers. Total
annual precipitation averages 18 inches with approximately
65 percent occurring during the May-to-September
growing season (NOAA National Climatic Data Center
1996). Winter precipitation is usually in the form of snow
with the annual accumulation averaging 37 inches.
Temperatures range from -39o F to 114o F with July and
August being the warmest months (average high
temperature 85-87o F) and January and February the
coldest months (average low temperature 8-12o F). The
average frost free period is approximately 150 days.
Winds ranging from 5-15 mph are common throughout
the year and are generally out of the north, west, or
northwest direction in the winter and out of the south,
west, or southwest direction during the summer. Low
humidity, high temperatures and moderate to strong
winds cause a rapid loss of soil moisture by
evapo-transpiration during the summer.
Air Quality
Air quality is good due to the absence of significant air
pollution sources. The Fort Niobrara Wilderness is a
Class 2 Status Area under the Clean Air Act.
Topography
The Refuge topography is varied and well-defined. The
Niobrara River valley extends from east to west across
the Refuge and is entrenched 150 to 350 feet below the
general upland level. High terraces, or benches, lie at
different levels from 175 to 275 feet above the present
River channel and from 30 to 250 feet below the general
level of the uplands (Layton 1956). Most benches are
discontinuous strips 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile wide with level to
rolling or hummocky relief. Steep valley sides, or breaks,
are on both sides of the River and along lower courses of
its major tributaries. Table land north of the River valley
is nearly level to gently rolling with several surface
areas modified by narrow, steep-sided and shallow
drainage ways, by small areas of typical sandhills,
numerous hummocks, and low, elongated sandy ridges.
Sandhill terrain south of the River is undulating to hilly
with dune tops 10 to 100 feet higher than the surrounding
area. The range of hills, with alternating pockets or
narrow valleys, usually run parallel in an irregular
northwest-southeast direction. Generally, the southerly
(leeward) sides of the hills are steeper than the northerly
(windward) sides. Elevations on the Refuge range from
2,000 feet above sea level to 2,800 feet.
Geology
The geologic framework of the Refuge, as summarized
by Osborn 1979, consists of six formations and are as
follows (from oldest to youngest): Rosebud Formation
“bedrock” makes up the Niobrara River valley walls and
lower courses of the major tributaries within the Refuge;
Valentine Formation is a sandy, stream-deposited unit
unconformably overlying the Rosebud and forming
gentle slopes; Ash Hollow Formation is a hard, sandy
unit with many ledges and layers of volcanic ash which
forms a “caprock” on the north rim of the Refuge; High
Terrace Deposits are sand and gravel deposits high
above the present Niobrara River that were deposited
during the later part of the Pleistocene Ice Age when the
River was flowing at a higher elevation and forms the
flats upon which the Refuge headquarters is built;
Sandhills are stabilized dune sand of the late Pleistocene
and Holocene age; Low Terrace and Floodplain Deposits
are adjacent to the modern Niobrara River and contain
rocks derived from older formations but are not of
significant age geologically.
Soils
Soil groups and series found on the Refuge are mapped
and described in detail in the 1956 Soil Survey of Cherry
County (Layton 1956). Dominant soils south of the Niobrara
River in the Sandhills portion of the Refuge are Valentine
(fine sand, undulating), Valentine-Rosebud (loamy fine
sands, undulating) and Dune Sand (stabilized, rolling).
Within the Niobrara River valley, Tripp (fine sandy loam)
soils are generally found on terraces above streams,
Sarpy (loamy fine sand) soils occur on bottom land along
the River and streams, and little soil development exists
on rough broken land and steep bluffs. Benchland north
of the Niobrara River and small areas near River
“breaks” consist of mostly Holt (fine sandy loam, gently
undulating) and Rosebud (loamy fine sand, gently
undulating) soils.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 35
Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses
Water Resources and Associated Wetlands
The Niobrara River flows from west to east across the
Refuge for approximately nine miles with the channel
above Cornell Dam braided and shallow with the
downstream portion of the River confined to a single,
narrow channel. The River is laden with sand and silt and
flows swiftly at about 6-8 miles per hour. River flow is
fairly stable throughout the year, averaging close to 1,000
cubic feet per second (Bentall 1990). Numerous streams
and seeps along the Niobrara River valley flow
intermittently or perennially. Several waterfalls exist on
the Refuge where spring creeks flow over hard rock
layers. River and stream flows derive almost entirely
from steady groundwater seepage from the Ogallala or
High Plains aquifer. Floods along the Niobrara River
mostly result from winter ice jams with spring and
summer floods rare. Tributary creeks, especially on the
north bank, flash flood occasionally during severe
summer thunderstorms.
Small areas of palustrine wooded wetlands are situated
alongside the River channel and consist of various tree
species including cottonwood, green ash, peachleaf willow
with an understory of shrubs (sandbar willow, western
snowberry), grasses, grass-like plants and forbs.
Palustrine emergent wetlands vegetated with cattail,
bulrush, phragmites, sandbar willow, prairie cord grass
and various sedges are present on River and tributary
floodplains and channels, isolated catchments and slopes,
and at 12 man-made impoundments near the mouth of
some feeder streams. Total water/wetland acres on the
Refuge are approximately 375. Refuge wetlands are
shown on Figure 3.
Ground and surface water quality are generally good.
The Nebraska Department of Water Quality rated the
Niobrara River as Class A for which quality will be
maintained and protected. Fecal coliform counts are
generally within standards for water contact recreation;
however, samples exceeding health standard levels were
obtained at the confluence of a River tributary on the
Refuge several years ago. A new wastewater treatment
plant for the city of Valentine has improved the quality of
water discharged into a Niobrara River tributary.
Vegetation
Churchill et al. (1988) recorded 581 species of vascular
plants in this area which represents 1/3 of the total
known for Nebraska. Native species equal 519 while 62
are introduced. Preliminary mapping of principal plant
communities of the Refuge is found in Figure 4 with
general descriptions (Churchill 1988, Kaul 1990, Kantak
1995) summarized below.
Grasslands
Sandhills prairie is found atop sand dunes south and
west of the River and is dominated by a mixture of tall-,
mid- and short-grasses with their relative abundance
differing according to variation in water holding capacity
of the sandy soil as influenced by topography. Common
grass species include sand and little bluestems, sand
lovegrass, prairie sandreed, switchgrass, blue and hairy
grama, sand dropseed, sandhill muhly, needle-and-thread,
prairie junegrass and western wheatgrass. Shrubs
include leadplant, prairie rose, sand cherry, poison ivy,
buckbrush, and yucca. Typical forbs are hoary vetchling,
purple and silky prairie clovers, sand milkweed,
spiderwort, bush morning glory, prairie coneflower,
lemon scurfpea and several penstemon species.
Mixed prairie is located most extensively on the flat
tableland above the pine-covered slopes north of the
Niobrara River where drier, sandy loam soils support
shallow-rooted, drought-tolerant species. This vegetation
type also occurs south of the River where appropriate
soil moisture characteristics exist. Dominant grass
species include little bluestem, blue grama, side oats
grama, needle and thread grass, and threadleaf sedge.
Silver-leaf scurf pea, prickly-pear cactus, yucca,
leadplant, prairie rose, and several other forbs and
shrubs are present.
Total grassland acreage on the Refuge is approximately
14,264 acres. Included in this total is an estimated 148
acres of restored native prairie.
36 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Woodlands
Ponderosa pine savanna and forest, the eastern extension
of Rocky Mountain Coniferous Forest, is located on
rocky soils and steep eroding cliffs of the north wall of
the River valley and upper slopes of canyons on the
south side where there is no shading by deciduous trees.
Other native woody species found on these xeric sites
include choke cherry, fragrant sumac, prairie rose, sand
cherry, and yucca. Herbaceous understory species are
typical of adjacent prairie. Total acreage on the Refuge is
approximately 3,022 acres.
Eastern Deciduous Forest covers much of the River
floodplain, south wall of the River valley, and canyons of
larger tributaries where a permanent water supply is
accessible via the shallow floodplain water table or from
permanent spring seeps. This woodland type is also
found in moist slopes and draws. Bur oak are common
with ironwood, American elm, green ash, basswood, and
hackberry present. The understory is varied and
comprised of typical mesic, shade-tolerant species. Paper
birch, a characteristic species of the Northern Boreal
Forest community, is restricted and clustered around
cold springs in sheltered spring branch canyons, or near
spring-fed seeps along the steep canyon walls of the
south side of the River valley. Understory consists of
boreal-type (cold water marsh or bog habitats) grasses,
sedges and mosses. Eastern red cedar has invaded these
woodland communities and is dominant in some areas.
Total Refuge acreage is approximately 1,296 acres.
Tree Plantations established in the 1930’s by the
Civilian Conservation Corps and later by Refuge staff are
located mostly in administrative areas and consist of
Eastern red cedar, black and honey locusts, American
elm, green and white ash, and/or ponderosa pine totaling
approximately 59 acres.
Exotic and Invading vegetation found on or near the
Refuge includes leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, Canada
thistle, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, downy
brome, sweet clover, reed canary grass, phragmites,
Eastern red cedar, Russian olive, black and honey
locusts.
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 37
Figure 3. Wet.and Map
38 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 39
Figure 4. Vegetation Map
40 Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fort Niobrara Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September1999 41
Wildlife
A rich and significant diversity of wildlife species with
eastern, western, northern and southern affinities as well
as niches specific to the northern Great Plains inhabit
the Refuge and surrounding area (Armstrong et al. 1986,
Labedz 1990, Freeman 1990, Hrabik 1990). Population
numbers vary according to amount of suitable habitat
and other factors. Species lists for birds, mammals,
amphibians, and reptiles are found in Appendix F.
Birds
A tremendous diversity of native birds inhabit Fort
Niobrara NWR seasonally or year-round with a total of
227 species recorded since the Refuge’s establishment.
Approximately 48 percent of avian species have ecological
affinities with the woodlands in and adjacent to the
Niobrara River valley due to complex and varied habitat
stratification. Dominant breeding species in the woody
habitats include ovenbird, great crested flycatcher,
black-and-white warbler, American redstart,
black-capped chickadee, red-eyed vireo, house wren,
eastern kingbird, orchard oriole, common yellowthroat,
brown thrasher, and rufous-sided towhee (Sedgwick
1995). Wild turkey are common year-round residents of
the woodlands while bobwhite quail are rare. Raptors
likely to be seen in suitable woody habitat include
Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, merlin, kestrel, and
rough-legged hawk. Bird species that evolved with
ecological niches in grasslands comprise 11 percent of
total Refuge species which is typical of the Great Plains.
Species that are relatively abundant on Fort Niobrara NWR
include grasshopper sparrow, western meadowlark,
sharp-tailed grouse, greater prairie chicken, and upland
sandpiper. Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, prairie
falcon, and ferruginous hawk have grassland affinities and
are present periodically in low numbers. Approximately
four pair