Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 1
U. S. F sh and W ldl fe Serv ce
Valentine
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
2 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 3
4 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 5
Table of Contents
Summary............................................................................................................................................. 9
Introduction/Background ............................................................................................................. 13
Refuge Overview: History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition and Management ..................................... 13
Valentine National Wildlife Refuge History ..................................................................................................... 13
Wetland Management History ........................................................................................................................... 14
Gordon Creek Diversion History ........................................................................................................................ 14
Wildlife Management History ............................................................................................................................ 15
Waterfowl....................................................................................................................................................... 15
Native Birds and Other Wildlife .................................................................................................................. 16
Grassland Management History ........................................................................................................................ 17
Public Use History ............................................................................................................................................... 17
Current Refuge Resources Management......................................................................................................... 17
Grassland Management ............................................................................................................................... 17
Wetlands Management ............................................................................................................................... 19
Threatened and Endangered Species Management .............................................................................. 19
Indigenous Wildlife Management .............................................................................................................. 19
Exotic and Invading Species Management.............................................................................................. 19
Proposed Wilderness Area.......................................................................................................................... 20
Public Use ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
Cultural and Paleontological Resources .................................................................................................. 21
Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Purpose of and Need for a Comprehensive Conservation Plan ......................................................................... 22
Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ........................................................................................................................... 26
Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Purpose ......................................................................................................... 26
Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Vision Statement ......................................................................................... 26
Legal and Policy Guidance ...................................................................................................................................... 26
Existing Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................. 27
Planning Process ............................................................................................................................ 29
Description of the Planning Process ....................................................................................................................... 29
Planning Issues .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Bison Reintroduction .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Introduction ............................................................................................................. 32
Prescribed Burns ................................................................................................................................................. 33
Habitat, Human Structures, and Wildlife Protection ..................................................................................... 33
Hunting, Recreation, and Other Public Uses ......................................................................................................... 34
Management of the Refuge’s Fisheries Resources .............................................................................................. 34
Funding and Staffing to Manage the Refuge ......................................................................................................... 34
Public Involvement Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 35
6 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Summary of Refuge and Resource Descriptions .................................................................... 37
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ............................................................................................................................... 37
Climate .................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................. 38
Geology ................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Soils ................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses ....................................................................................................... 39
Water Resources and Associated Wetlands .................................................................................................. 39
Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................................. 39
Grasslands ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
Woodlands ..................................................................................................................................................... 40
Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Birds ................................................................................................................................................................ 40
Mammals ....................................................................................................................................................... 45
Fishes .............................................................................................................................................................. 45
Insects............................................................................................................................................................. 45
Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................................................... 46
Federally Listed Animals ....................................................................................................................... 46
Federally Listed Plants ........................................................................................................................... 46
Cultural and Paleontological Resources ......................................................................................................... 47
Socio-Economic and Political Environment ................................................................................................... 47
Public Uses........................................................................................................................................................... 47
Special Management Areas .................................................................................................................................... 48
Special Legislated Designations ....................................................................................................................... 48
Wilderness Area ........................................................................................................................................... 48
Definition of Wilderness ........................................................................................................................ 48
Research Natural Areas ............................................................................................................................... 48
National Landmark ....................................................................................................................................... 48
Management Direction ................................................................................................................ 49
Refuge Management Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies / Projects ............................................... 49
Refuge Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 49
Habitat Management ................................................................................................................................... 50
Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................................... 52
Threatened, Endangered, and Management Concern Species ........................................................... 53
Interpretation and Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 54
Ecosystem (Partner) ..................................................................................................................................... 54
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 7
Implementation and Monitoring ................................................................................................. 55
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................................................. 55
Staffing Needed to Implement This Plan ......................................................................................................... 55
Funding Needed to Implement This Plan ........................................................................................................ 55
CCP Implementation and Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................. 56
Habitat Management and Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 56
Proposed Wilderness Area ............................................................................................................................... 57
Grasslands ............................................................................................................................................................ 58
Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................................ 58
Habitat Acquisition ....................................................................................................................................... 58
Wildlife Management and Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 58
Public Use Management and Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 59
Ecosystem (Partners) Management and Monitoring ..................................................................................... 60
Management of Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................................... 60
Partnership Opportunities ......................................................................................................................................... 60
Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 61
Plan Amendment and Revision ............................................................................................................................... 62
Wilderness Management ......................................................................................................................................... 62
Appendix A. Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix B. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 67
Appendix C. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) List............................................................................... 69
Appendix D. Maintenance Management System (MMS) List ........................................................................... 81
Appendix E. Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................................................ 99
Appendix F. List of Animal Species at Valentine NWR ..................................................................................... 115
Appendix G. Compliance Requirements .............................................................................................................. 119
Appendix H. NEPA Documentation ....................................................................................................................... 123
Appendix I. Summary of Public Involvement/ Comments and Consultation/ Coordination ........................ 133
Appendix J. Mailing List ......................................................................................................................................... 135
Appendix K. List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................ 137
Appendix L. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation .............................................................................................. 139
Tables
Table 1. Annual Precipitation 1945-1997 ................................................................................................................. 14
Table 2. Historic Nest Cover Treatment .................................................................................................................. 15
Table 3. Grassland Treatment .................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 4. Hatching Chronology .................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 5. Prairie Chickens.......................................................................................................................................... 16
Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 2. Wetland Map .............................................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 3. Vegetation Map .......................................................................................................................................... 43
8 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 9
Summary
The 71,516-acre Valentine National Wildlife Refuge is
located in the Sandhills of north-central Nebraska. The
Refuge is a unique and ecologically important component
of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) which
includes over 500 refuges totaling approximately 93
million acres across the United States. The native grass
prairie and wetlands found here support a diversity of
wildlife. Little has changed from historic times. The
Refuge was established by Congress in 1935 “as a
breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”
The Refuge is home to 270 species of birds, 59 species of
mammals, and 22 species of reptiles and amphibians.
Several threatened and endangered plants, birds, and
one insect are found here. The 180-acre Holt Creek and
480-acre Yellowthroat Wildlife Management Areas in
Keya Paha and Brown Counties are also included in this
Plan.
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Plan) was
prepared for the Refuge and its Wildlife Management
Areas to guide their management for the next 10 to 15
year period. It is an updated and revised version of a
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment completed earlier this year.
It has been written to provide continuity of management
of Refuge lands for the benefit of wildlife and people.
All efforts leading to the preparation of this Plan were
undertaken to provide the Refuge with a vision for the
future, guidelines for wildlife and habitat management
over the next 15 years to ensure progress is made
toward attaining the mission and goals of Valentine
NWR and the Refuge System, and to comply with
Congressional mandates stated in the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The planning
effort provided opportunities for interested people,
Federal and State agencies, State and local
governments, and private organizations to give input on
future management of the Refuge. This Plan provides
clear goals and objectives for management of Refuge
habitats, wildlife, threatened and endangered species,
cultural and paleontological resources, other compatible
public uses, and partnerships, along with
implementation strategies, and recommended staffing
and funding for these areas. This Plan also meets the
planning requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge
Improvement Act enacted by Congress in 1997.
The Draft Plan considered four alternatives for
management of Valentine NWR. Each of the
alternatives was evaluated for environmental
consequences in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Plan, in its
present form, contains the goals, objectives, and
strategies found by the Service to best aid the Refuge
and the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) to
attain their specific goals.
For a summary of the alternatives considered during the
planning process see Appendix H. Further information
on alternatives considered can be found in the Valentine
National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999).
10 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Several of the alternatives for manage-ment
of Valentine National Wildlife
Refuge call for the return of bison to
Refuge grasslands; Native grasses
growing on Refuge meadows provide
excellent nesting habitat for ducks,
prairie chickens, and birds which pre-fer
tall dense cover; The endangered
plant, blowout penstemon, grows in the
sandy dunes where wind erosion cre-ates
areas of open sand;Money from
the sale of Duck Stamps was used to
purchase most of the lands that now
make up Valentine National Wildlife
Refuge; in April prairie chicken males
display on traditional breeding
grounds throughout the Refuge.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 11
12 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 13
Introduction /
Background
RefugeOverview: HistoryofRefugeEstablishment,
Acquisition and Management
Valentine National Wildlife Refuge History
Valentine NWR was established on August 14, 1935, by
Executive Order No. 7142 “as a breeding ground for
migratory birds and other wildlife.” Lands for the
Refuge were purchased from private ranches,
recreational land, resort clubs, and corporations with
investment interests. Funding for acquisition came
from the Emergency Conservation Fund of 1933. The
dust bowl period of the 1930’s created concern among
conservationists for the survival of waterfowl species.
Many refuges were set-aside during this period to help
in meeting the goals of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
of 1918. Since the 1940’s, additional lands have been
purchased and traded to straighten Refuge boundaries
and improve Refuge administration. In 1992, the Fort
Niobrara-Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Complex
acquired the Yellowthroat Wildlife Management Area,
a 920-acre fee title/easement area in Brown County,
and in 1995, the 180-acre fee title Holt Creek Wildlife
Management Area in Keya Paha County through the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farmers
Home Administration, under provisions of the 1990
Farm Bill.
A Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Camp of 200
enrollees was established on Valentine NWR in 1935
and was operational until 1939. The CCC enrollees
constructed fences, roads, buildings, fire towers,
planted trees and shrubs, developed ponds and water
control structures, and built a diversion ditch from
Gordon Creek. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
(NG&PC) acquired a water right for the Gordon Creek
Diversion. In the early 1980’s, this water right was
relinquished for lack of use and also because it was not
in the best interest of the Refuge. Surface water
management has been facilitated by subsequent
construction of seven water control structures and
records of lake elevations are available since the
1950’s.
The Refuge was opened to fishing when water
returned to the lakes following the drought of the
1930’s. The Refuge was opened for the following
hunting seasons: deer in 1964, pheasant and grouse in
1965, waterfowl in 1977, dove in 1983, and coyotes in
1986.
From 1935 through 1972, Valentine NWR was
managed by an on-site refuge manager in charge of
only Valentine NWR. In 1973, the Refuge was joined
with Fort Niobrara NWR to form a Complex with one
manager in charge.
The Refuge has two Research Natural Areas closed to
public entry, a 15,809-acre proposed wilderness area
designated in 1973 and located in the southwest part of
the Refuge, and was recognized as a Registered
National Landmark in 1979.
14 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Wetland Management History
Thirty-seven major wetland areas exist on Valentine
NWR comprised of approximately 13,000 acres of
semipermanent and permanent wetlands which
historically have operated as a closed system except
for periods of high precipitation. Historic data
regarding surface and groundwater elevations are
available for the Refuge; however, the most consistent
data records available are since 1985.
Since establishment of the Refuge, various attempts
have been made to manage the water elevations of six
lakes by water control structures. However, water
elevations are dependent upon precipitation. Since
1981, above average annual precipitation has
complicated attempts of managing lake elevations
beyond diminishing the adverse effects of the
extremely high wetland levels experienced since the
mid-1980’s (See Table 1).
Table 1
Approximately 40 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
wells have been established on and adjacent to the
Refuge in which groundwater elevations have been
monitored by Refuge staff since the 1950’s. This
information is part of the monitoring program carried
out by USGS Water Resources Division. Groundwater
elevations are presently 4-7 feet above the elevations
recorded during the period 1950 to 1985.
Gordon Creek Diversion History
In the 1930’s, the CCC’s constructed a diversion on
Gordon Creek to divert water through the Refuge.
Considerable resources were allocated to the
construction of the diversion dam and ditch to
Hackberry Lake. However, the project was
“piecemealed” beyond Hackberry Lake through the
remainder of the Refuge (Dewey, Clear, and Willow
Lakes) and north through Trout and Big Alkali Lakes
via Slagel Creek and east through Ballard Marsh and
Red Deer Lake via East Plum Creek.
In 1952, a District Count Decree (Young, Harse and
Harms vs State of Nebraska) successfully challenged
the construction of a larger water control structure on
Willow Lake by Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission (Commission); set a maximum elevation
that water could be held in Willow Lake; and the
defendants were “permanently restrained and
enjoined from causing or permitting any interference
... and from by any act or in any manner causing or
contributing to causing the water in the natural water
course below and to the north of the outlet of Willow
Lake to flow in any different manner or at any
different time or season of the year than in the
manner and at times and seasons in which they are
wont to flow.” In 1997, the Willow Lake water control
structure washed out and the Commission has elected
not to replace the structure and to allow water levels in
Willow Lake to fluctuate naturally.
The water right for the Gordon Creek diversion was
acquired by the Commission, but the water right was
relinquished in the early 1980’s because it was not of
benefit to the management of the Refuge. This
diversion was the original source of carp infestation for
the Refuge. Wetland management subsequent to the
construction of the diversion has focused on controlling
carp populations and the adverse effects of carp on
habitat and food resources of waterfowl and sport fish.
Over the years, water control structures were
constructed and reconstructed in an attempt to
prevent the movement of carp. However, by the 1940’s,
carp had spread throughout the wetlands in the
northwest area of the Refuge as well as the
downstream wetlands under the management of the
Commission and private landowners. Various attempts
to control carp with chemical treatment were carried
out in the 1950’s and 1960’s to control carp populations
on the Refuge. The most effective control technique
was initiated in 1975 and, during the period 1975-82,
seven lakes were mechanically pumped and chemically
treated with rotenone to reduce the carp populations.
To date, only two of the renovated lakes have remained
carp-free. However, in the remaining five lakes, carp
populations have remained at moderate levels with the
implementation of biological control. Biological control
was accomplished by modifying northern pike size
limits to enhance the populations of larger northern
pike and subsequently reduce carp recruitment.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 15
Wildlife Management History
Wildlife populations have been affected by both the
management of wetland and grassland resources on
Valentine NWR. Grazing practices increased as a
result of increased demand for beef during World War
II and remained in excess of 50,000 AUMs until the
mid-1960’s. Indigenous wildlife species with specific
habitat requirements (which are not achieved under
the widespread grazing/mowing regimes of that time)
did not fare very well. By the mid-1950’s, considerable
criticism was leveled against the management of the
Refuge both from within and outside the Service. In
the early 1970’s, a grassland management team was
formed to develop recommendations regarding the
management of Refuge grasslands. Wildlife populations,
for which monitoring data are available, have
responded positively to the spirit and intent of these
recommendations; specifically, the enhancement of
native Sandhill Prairie through the termination of
widespread, season-long grazing, annual mowing
practices, and the implementation of planned
grassland management treatments (See Table 2).
These provide optimum acreage of vegetative
composition, structure, and undisturbed nesting cover
for wildlife.
Table 2.
Waterfowl
The annual acreage of undisturbed cover for upland
nesting birds increased from less than 5 percent in
1969 to greater than 50 percent by 1985 (See Table 3).
The increase in undisturbed nesting cover acreage has
resulted in greater productivity and population levels
particularly for upland nesting waterfowl. Specifically,
a significant improvement has occurred in the hatching
chronology of blue-winged teal and mallards with the
increased acreage of undisturbed cover. The earlier
hatching peaks since 1978 have ultimately resulted in
greater recruitment rates (See Table 4) and
subsequently greater breeding populations and
composition of dabbling ducks. In particular, mallard
breeding pairs have increased dramatically with the
increased acreage of cover that received rest
treatment for two or more growing seasons, and this
increase occurred during a period of extremely low
continental duck breeding populations.
Table 3.
Table 4.
16 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Native Birds and Other Wildlife
Management of native birds and other wildlife has
varied in intensity over the years with the greatest
impact indirectly or directly due to habitat management
practices. Prairie grouse, a term used to describe
sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie chicken, were
once plentiful on the Great Plains, but by the late
1800’s, demand for birds in eastern markets,
development of efficient railway shipping, and
willingness of individuals to exploit a seemingly
unlimited resource, combined to dramatically reduce
prairie grouse populations. Extirpated in many parts
of their ranges, remnant populations of sharp-tailed
grouse and prairie chicken populations survived in the
Sandhills of Nebraska due to lack of intensive
agriculture- altered habitat (Mitchell et al. 1984).
Prairie grouse were identified in one of the first
quarterly reports of the Refuge as native birds for
management consideration and emphasis. Over the
years, management decisions and actions have
addressed prairie grouse needs to varying degrees.
Researchers believe that habitat conditions (structure,
species composition) which are correlated to use
(grazing, haying) has determined the average
population size, but other factors (i.e., weather)
operated equally in good and poor habitat to cause
similar rates of annual gallinaceous birds population
changes. Annual counts of displaying sharp-tailed
grouse and prairie chicken males support that
relationship or effect. Prairie grouse numbers have
cycled with higher average population levels occurring
on the Refuge when forage availability was higher.
Statistical analysis indicates that a significant inverse
relationship exists between the level of AUM
utilization and the breeding population of prairie
chickens on Valentine NWR (See Table 5).
Additionally, Hughes and McDaniel (unpublished 1998)
developed linear regression models for the Refuge to
determine relationships between cover treatment and
the number of male prairie chickens surveyed during
the period 1969-1996. The best fit model indicated an
inverse significant relationship between the
percentage of disturbed cover throughout the year
prior to the breeding population survey period;
indicating the importance of undisturbed cover for
prairie chickens throughout the year for nesting, brood
rearing, and winter survival.
Table 5.
The greater prairie chicken is an “indicator species” of
the health and vigor of native grasslands and is a
reflection of the management of native grasslands. In
the 1930’s, 21 refuges existed with breeding populations
of greater prairie chickens and, by 1963, the only
remaining breeding populations existed on Ft.
Niobrara-Valentine NWRs. Since the 1980’s, a
considerable effort has been put forth within the Ft.
Niobrara-Valentine NWR Complex to increase the
health, vigor, and residual cover amounts of native
grasslands for upland nesting birds by controlling the
timing of grazing and rest treatments.
Pronghorn antelope were historically common on the
open prairies of the Sandhills through the late 1800’s;
however, by 1908, they were on the decline and
observed only in the western and northern portions of
Nebraska. The Service has never attempted to
reintroduce pronghorn antelope to this Refuge. Coyote
predation is the primary factor influencing the survival
of pronghorn on the Refuge.
Other wildlife have undoubtedly benefitted from the
enhancement of Sandhill Prairie; however, specific
surveys have not been carried out to document
changes in the numerous species present on Valentine
NWR.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 17
Grassland Management History
Livestock grazing has occurred on Valentine NWR
since establishment. However, the level of grazing
dramatically increased during the early 1950’s, and by
the early 1960’s, annual grazing use exceeded 50,000
animal unit months (AUM). Virtually the entire Refuge
grassland acreage was grazed or hayed. The two
Natural Research Areas, totaling 1,381 acres, were not
grazed. This level of grazing had a negative impact on
wildlife and vegetation on the Refuge.
In 1971, a grassland management study team was
formed to look into the situation and recommend
appropriate corrective actions. The major management
recommendations of the team were:
P Zone all meadows based on their value for nesting
waterfowl.
P Stop annual mowing of meadows.
P Improve native plant vigor and composition by
prescribed burning, mowing, and grazing with
alternating periods of rest.
P Maintain nesting cover by providing 40- to 100-acre
undisturbed blocks for three to eight years.
P Hold units in reserve through normal attrition of
permittees to allow for flexible and intensive
manipulation.
P Initiate restoration of native vegetation on priority
meadows beginning in 1972.
P Develop small food plots (i.e., weed patches) to
promote greater diversity and abundance of
wildlife species.
P Stop season-long grazing and promote restoration
and maintenance of range condition by use of rest,
fall-deferment, deferred-rotation, and rest-rotation
systems.
P Establish wilderness area; remove grazing
facilities and possibly employ summer grazing.
P Initiate adequate monitoring techniques to
evaluate qualitative and quantitative changes in
vegetation and response by wildlife.
Recommendations of the team have generally been
implemented except that the Wilderness proposal has
not received Congressional approval; mowing has been
reduced by approximately 85 percent; and maintaining
cover in undisturbed condition, for periods of three to
eight years, has annually involved less than 20 percent
of the total grassland acreage of Valentine NWR.
In 1986, rotational grazing was phased out and
short-duration grazing initiated. Use allowed by
permittees was retained, but as permittees dropped
out of the program, they were not replaced. Between
1986 and 1997, permittees went from 13 to 9 and use
from approximately 9,000 to 6,000 AUMs.
Public Use History
Since the Refuge’s establishment, public use has been
mostly limited to recreational opportunities centered
around wildlife/wildlands observation and education,
as well as hunting and fishing.
Current Refuge Resources Management
Grassland Management
Cattle grazing, rest, and prescribed fire are used to
manage grasslands on the Refuge. The 61,861 acres of
grassland on the Refuge are divided into 327 habitat
units by barbed wire and electric fences. Of this
acreage, 48,755 is in hills and 13,106 in meadows. Plans
are made each year to either graze, rest, or prescribe
burn grasslands on the Refuge.
In 1997, 34,789 acres (56 percent) of Refuge grasslands
were rested. Rested grasslands are those that are not
grazed by cattle or burned by prescribed fire. Refuge
studies have documented that rested grasslands are
preferred nesting cover for waterfowl and grouse.
Grassland management is designed to maximize
undisturbed cover. Undisturbed cover is grassland that
is not grazed, burned by either wild or prescribed fire,
or effected by hail for the preceding year’s growing
season and the current year’s nesting season. In 1997,
56 percent of the Refuge grasslands were in
undisturbed cover through June 30.
In 1997, a total of 388 acres (less than 1 percent) of
grassland in seven habitat units were burned using
prescribed fire. Prescribed fire is used to invigorate
native grasses, reduce cedar trees in grasslands, and
control invader grasses such as brome and Kentucky
bluegrass. Prescribed fires are planned and conducted
by a fire crew from the Fort Niobrara/Valentine NWR
Complex. Wildfires on the Refuge are aggressively
suppressed by the same fire crew and local fire
departments under cooperative agreements.
Nine permittees held annual permits to graze
approximately 6,600 animal use months (AUMs) over
the period April 1, 1997, through March 30, 1998. The
permittees have held permits for many years and all
own land either adjacent to or near the Refuge. Refuge
staff plans a grazing program for each permittee to
maintain and improve the condition of Refuge
grassland for wildlife. Grazing permittees are charged
at market rate for use. Improvements and repairs to
wells, fences, tanks, and other facilities needed for the
program are paid for by the permittees, and the cost
deducted from their final bill. In 1997, $26,759 was
spent on improvements and deducted from final
billings. Deductions are also made from billings for
frequent moves of cattle and grazing treatments that
differ from normal ranching practices. In 1997, $46,203
was collected and deposited in the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Account.
18 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
The methods and expected results for the different
grazing strategies used are explained below.
Spring grazing treatment is done before the end of
May on sub-irrigated meadow sites. The cattle are in
the unit for more than two weeks. Cattle eat or
trample most of the residual cover. They also over
graze and thus reduce undesirable cool season exotic
grasses (Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome).
Meadows hayed are also sometimes given this
treatment to add fertilizer. Dramatic results occur with
this treatment. Exotic cool season grasses are
suppressed and native warm seasons (switchgrass and
others) increase in vigor and density. The disadvantage
is the loss of the unit for nesting in the year of treatment
and a lower waterfowl nesting density in the following
year. Often the unit can, however, be rested for up to
five years following treatment. In 1997, 30 habitat
units totaling 6,099 acres (9 percent of grassland)
received a spring grazing treatment and included some
areas that were later hayed.
Spring short-duration grazing is grazing a unit for less
than two weeks during May. Generally the cattle are in
the unit for only 3 to 5 days. This type of grazing is
limited to hill units to stimulate growth of grasses,
especially cool seasons. The short exposure times
eliminate overgrazing. In 1997, ten habitat units
totaling 3,280 acres (5 percent of grassland) had spring
short-duration grazing treatments. Where possible,
units grazed later in summer the previous year are
grazed using this treatment. This both varies
treatment and reduces disturbance to nesting cover.
Most units grazed with spring short-duration grazing
show excellent growth of native vegetation by fall.
Short-duration summer grazing is done from June 1
through September 1. Cattle are in a unit for less than
two weeks. Most units are grazed only 3 to 5 days and
the cattle moved onto the next unit. Electric fences are
used to break up larger units and increase stock
density. Most short-duration summer grazing is
completed by mid-July. In 1997, 79 habitat units
totaling 19,723 acres (32 percent of grassland) were
short-duration summer grazed. Units grazed by this
method show good growth by fall if adequate moisture
is received. If little or no late summer rainfall is
received, regrowth is less, especially in those units
grazed in late July or August.
Summer grazing is done from June 1 through
September 1, and cattle are in the unit for two weeks
or longer. In 1997, no acres were summer grazed. If
done, this is in larger units that have not been cross
fenced.
Fall grazing is done from September through
November. Fall grazing can reduce mulch
accumulations and add fertilization. If done at the
proper time, cattle will also graze out small wetlands
dominated by prairie cordgrass and leave the
surrounding upland vegetation alone. Generally the
wetlands have green vegetation in them while the
uplands have only cured grasses. Grazing in the
wetlands recycles nutrients and provides pair habitat
for ducks in the spring. Most units that are fall grazed
are then given a spring grazing treatment the
following year. In 1997, six habitat units totaling 1,446
acres (2 percent of grassland) were fall grazed.
Winter grazing is done from November through April.
In winter grazing, cattle are fed hay on a feed ground
in a unit. The hay comes from the Refuge. Winter
feeding creates dense weed patches for several years
following the treatment. These weed patches provide
winter food for deer, pheasants, and other resident
wildlife. Units with a history of winter grazing
combined with feeding also have excellent growth of
vegetation. Resident wildlife also use waste grain from
the feeding operation. In 1997, three habitat units
totaling 1,167 acres (2 percent of grassland) were
winter grazed.
Haying was done on 714 acres (1 percent of grassland)
of sand, sub-irrigated, and wetland range sites and
yielded 1,520 tons of hay in 1997. Haying is done on a
share-basis with three permittees receiving 60 percent
and the Refuge receiving 40 percent of the hay
harvested. Some hay is also put up on a contract with
the cost deducted from permittees grazing bills. Most
of the meadows hayed are also grazed either in the fall
or spring. This adds fertilization to the meadows and
improves the quality and quantity of hay produced.
Haying is used to provide browse areas for Canada
geese, prairie grouse, and deer, and for winter feed for
the Texas Longhorn herd at Fort Niobrara NWR. In
some years, part of the Refuge share of hay is used for
road repair and maintenance. This was not done in
1997.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 19
Wetlands Management
Most of the lakes, marshes, and wetlands on the
Refuge are natural and have no structures for water
level management. Drainage ditches put in before the
area was a Refuge can still be found in several
locations. These ditches are only active in high-water
periods and are generally not effective in draining the
Refuge wetlands.
Several of the nine lakes open to sport fishing have
dikes and structures that offer limited water
management capabilities. On four lakes, water levels
are generally held at a level higher than the natural
level to reduce the possibility of a winter-kill of sport
fish. In normal water years, the Refuge staff releases
water from these lakes at such a time as to not impact
downstream landowners’ haying operations. In recent
high-water years, water has run continuously from
these lakes. These lakes also have fish barriers to keep
the carp from migrating between lakes and infesting
new waters. The lakes open to sport fishing were
pumped and treated with rotenone to kill the carp
between 1975 and 1982. Following treatment, they
were restocked with sport fish and have been managed
as sport fisheries. Sport fish are stocked frequently,
and on occasion, moved between lakes.
Threatened and Endangered Species Management
Threatened and endangered species recorded on the
Refuge are blowout penstemon, western prairie
fringed orchid, American burying beetle, bald eagle,
whooping crane, and least tern. Managing and
maintaining prairie habitat by using rest, fire, and
grazing will benefit these species.
Surveys for blowout penstemon have been conducted
on the Refuge and only several naturally occurring
plants found each year. Nine areas of blowout
penstemon have been transplanted onto the Refuge
during the past three years under a University of
Nebraska cooperative program. About 2,000 seedlings
per year were raised and transplanted in suitable
habitat during 1996 to 1998.
Western prairie fringed orchids are surveyed in July
when in bloom. They grow in some areas mowed for
hay. In these areas, the plants are marked with stakes
so they are not cut. Areas where the orchids grow are
not grazed during the flowering season. The Service
assists the Task Force for Population Habitat Viability
Analysis for the orchid.
American burying beetles have been documented on
the Refuge.
Bald eagles are common winter residents on the
Refuge. Whooping cranes, and least terns are only
rarely seen. No special management is conducted.
Occasionally, in the past, areas of the Refuge were
closed to the public when whooping cranes were
present on Refuge meadows. This closure is repeated
when whooping cranes use the Refuge during
migration.
Indigenous Wildlife Management
Wildlife diversity, with the exception of large ungulates
and their predators, is relatively unchanged in the
Nebraska Sandhills as compared to most areas of the
United States. Moreover, since the 1980’s, the
ecological integrity of Sandhill Prairie on Valentine
NWR has been enhanced by planned treatments of
grazing, prescribed fire, and rest. These planned
treatments have resulted in a tremendous
improvement in the vigor and composition of native
vegetation, natural aesthetics, and simultaneously
provided greater amounts of residual vegetation for
indigenous grassland wildlife than is available
throughout the remainder of the 19,000 square miles of
the Nebraska Sandhills.
Long-term monitoring of key indicator species has
documented that waterfowl (particularly mallard) and
prairie grouse (particularly prairie chicken)
populations have benefitted from the greater amounts
of residual and/or undisturbed vegetative cover. In
fact, the Fort Niobrara and Valentine NWR’s are the
only Refuges that have retained historic populations of
greater prairie chickens in the System; and in both
cases, these populations have increased since the
mid-1980’s.
Positive effects on other indigenous wildlife species
that require greater amounts of vegetative cover
undoubtedly exist; however, specific documentation is
not available for Valentine NWR.
The Service conducts very limited trapping of
mammalian predators and snakes on a nesting island
in the Marsh Lakes to benefit nesting waterfowl. The
Refuge has a trapping plan targeted to predator
control and muskrat disease outbreaks. No trapping by
the public took place on the Refuge in 1997.
Exotic and Invading Species Management
Exotic and invading plant species are controlled
through an integrated pest management approach.
Prescribed fire, rest, and grazing are the main tools
used for controlling exotic and invading plants to
maintain healthy prairies. Spring grazing treatments
are especially effective in reducing Kentucky
bluegrass, the most widespread invader on the Refuge.
Spring grazing treatments and fire are also being used
to reduce smooth brome grass. Fire is also used to
remove cedar trees invading native prairies. The
acreage for these treatments are listed under the
grassland section.
Leafy spurge is present in several locations covering
less than ten acres. Insect releases for biological
control have been made in some patches of spurge and
several patches have been sprayed with herbicide.
Canada thistle is also present in small amounts in
meadows and along the edges of wetlands. High water
has reduced the range of this plant on the Refuge.
Insect releases for its control have also been made.
Reed canary grass and Russian olive are present in
small areas but have not been treated.
20 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Proposed Wilderness Area
Habitat management in the proposed wilderness area is
accomplished with grazing as described previously in the
Grassland Management section. Improvements include
windmills and tanks, barbed and electric wire fences.
These improvements are maintained by permittees,
Refuge staff, and a contractor with the use of the current
tools of less habitat impact (motorized vehicles -
primarily pickup trucks and small ATVs). Permittees
use horses, pick-up trucks, and ATVs to move livestock
within the area being proposed as wilderness. No roads
or trails are maintained. Old trail roads are becoming
less obvious or disappearing altogether as use,
especially by pickup trucks is declining. Some haying
operations, with the use of mechanized equipment,
take place in the proposed wilderness area.
Wildfires occurring in the proposed wilderness area
are extinguished using fire engines. No prescribed
fires have been effectuated in the area. Refuge staff
use pickup and small ATVs on occasion to access the
area for biological surveys, search and rescue, and
maintenance. Currently, no known infestations of
noxious weeds occur in the proposed wilderness area;
thus, no control activities have been conducted.
Current public use of the proposed wilderness area is
mainly for hunting and by a small number of hikers.
Access is by foot or horseback. No use of motor
vehicles is permitted for hunting or game retrieval
activities. Hunters use wheeled carts to transport deer
out of the area. None of the lakes in the proposed
wilderness area are open to fishing.
Public Use
Valentine NWR has no accurate counts of the Refuge’s
visitors; thus, the quality of information on public use
on the Refuge is poor. For calendar year 1997, visitations
to Valentine NWR were estimated at 9,500 visits with
approximately 90 percent made up of anglers. Fishing
visits were lower in 1997 due to poor ice conditions
during the winter fishing season. The remaining 10
percent of visitors were mostly hunters. Increasing
numbers of people are visiting Valentine NWR for the
purpose of bird and other wildlife observation.
News releases on Refuge events are written and
distributed to area television and radio stations, as well
as to newspaper outlets. The Fort Niobrara/Valentine
NWR Complex also hosts special events including the
Nebraska Federal Junior Duck Stamp Contest, a kids
fishing day, a steel shot clinic, and a nature fest.
Currently, some requests for tours and educational
programs are denied due to staffing shortages.
Valentine NWR is outfitted with three information
kiosks at major entry points to the Refuge. The kiosks
have general information on the Refuge, a map,
information on management of grasslands for wildlife,
and leaflet dispensers.
Blinds for observing prairie grouse displays are set up
in the spring and receive plenty of use. People come to
the Refuge to birdwatch and enjoy the prairie. No
counts are made for this type of visitation, but Refuge
staff believe that it may be increasing.
Hunting: Waterfowl hunting is permitted only in the
Watts, Rice, and Duck Lakes areas of the Refuge
according to the State’s seasons and limits. No counts
were made, but it is estimated that about 75 visits were
made by duck hunters.
The Refuge is open to hunting of sharp-tailed grouse
and prairie chickens during the State set season that
runs from mid-September through December. The
Refuge is a popular place for out-of-state, as well as
Nebraska, hunters to pursue prairie grouse. Grouse
hunters are surveyed via wing collection boxes placed
around the Refuge. In 1997, 258 hunter days were
recorded through the collection boxes. However, not all
hunters participate in the voluntary collection program.
The Refuge is also open to pheasant hunting during
the State set season that runs from the first weekend
of November through the end of January. Pheasant
hunters made an estimated 100 visits to the Refuge in
1997. This is a large number of hunters considering
that bird numbers remain very low.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 21
The Refuge is open to deer hunting during the
Nebraska rifle deer season in November. Most of the
deer hunting takes place on opening weekend. In 1997,
a total of 88 deer were harvested including both
white-tailed and mule deer. These figures come from
deer checked by Refuge law enforcement officers and
records obtained at Nebraska Game and Parks check
stations. The Refuge probably receives the heaviest
hunting pressure of any location within the State
hunting units. A higher quality hunt is possible if
opening day is avoided.
The Refuge is also open for muzzle loader deer
hunting. The season runs for two weeks in December.
Hunting pressure is light and only seven muzzle loader
hunters were known to hunt on Valentine NWR in
1997. This form of hunting is, however, becoming more
popular. Permits are unlimited and statewide; either
sex.
The Refuge is also open to archery deer hunting which
runs from mid-September through the end of
December. Only a few hunters were known to have
visited the Refuge to archery hunt in 1997.
Coyotes can be hunted on the Refuge from December
1 through March 15. A free permit is required and can
be obtained in person or by mail. The permit is a
postcard that the hunter returns at the end of the
season and includes harvest information. For the
1996-1997 season, 37 permits were issued.
Fishing: Nine Refuge lakes (Watts, Rice, Duck, West
Long, Pelican, Hackberry, Dewey, Clear, and Willow)
are open to fishing year round. Fishing, especially ice
fishing, accounts for most visits to Valentine NWR. An
estimated 7,900 visits were made for fishing in 1997.
This figure is based on very limited counts of anglers
throughout the year. In 1997, ice was on the lakes for
fewer days than average resulting in lower visits for
ice fishing. In some heavy use years, up to 17,000
anglers have been counted.
Bass, perch, bluegill, muskie, saugeye, and northern
pike are present in the fishing lakes. Size limits are in
effect to protect larger pike needed for carp control,
and minnows are prohibited on Refuge lakes to
prevent introduction of exotic fish. Gas powered boats
are not allowed. Catch-and-release for bass and muskie
is in effect on Watts Lake. The Refuge lakes are most
noted for large bass, catch-and-release northern pike
fishing, and large bluegills. Many Master Angler
(trophy) fish are caught each year.
The Fort Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex has one
seasonal and four collateral duty law enforcement
officers.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Limited cultural resource studies have been conducted
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), or any
other groups to locate and describe and evaluate
cultural and paleontological resources (Burgett and
Nickel 1999). Current protection and interpretation of
cultural and paleontological resources is minimal as
well.
Monitoring
The Refuge has one full-time biologist who conducts
biological monitoring on the Refuge with occasional
assistance from other staff. The main emphasis is on
grassland monitoring. Grassland transects are run
each year to evaluate cover, composition, and grassland
health. More than 100 photo points are taken to
document long-term changes to the grassland.
Techniques and information are shared with the Forest
Service.
Refuge staff completes segments of statewide surveys
in cooperation with the Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission including sandhill crane, goose, waterfowl,
turkey, deer, wintering eagle, pheasant brood, grouse
brood, and prairie grouse breeding and productivity.
The Refuge staff maintains a weather station in
cooperation with the National Weather Service at
Hackberry Lake. Refuge staff read and report on U.S.
Geological Survey groundwater wells at more than 30
locations on the Refuge. Both these efforts have been
conducted for 60 years and yields long-term trend
information. Surface water levels are also recorded for
some Refuge lakes.
Surveys for sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chicken
are performed and used as an indicator of grassland
health. In the spring, lek counts are conducted; in the
fall, wing collection boxes are maintained. Part of the
lek count is a State count block and this information is
passed on to the Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission. Wing collection from hunters is done in
cooperation with the Forest Service and the Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission.
Pair and brood counts for waterfowl are done on the
Marsh Lakes to assess waterfowl production. Nesting
success of ducks is monitored on an island in the
Marsh Lakes as part of a long-term study. Colonial and
marsh nesting birds are also counted in some areas of
the Refuge. Monitoring for avian botulism is conducted
in late summer on Refuge lakes and wetlands. An
annual count of muskrat houses is done.
Fishery surveys using electrofiishing, gill, and trap
nets are done on Refuge lakes open to fishing on a
regular basis by USFWS Fisheries Assistance Office
biologists.
Surveys of the threatened western prairie fringed
orchid and endangered blowout penstemon are
conducted. When orchids are found they are marked to
prevent mowing them during haying operations.
22 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Purpose of and Need for a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Service has recognized the need for strategic
planning for all the components of its System. The
System now has more than 513 refuges totaling
approximately 93 million acres. Valentine NWR,
located in north-central Nebraska (see Figure 1), is a
unique and ecologically important component of the
System. In September 1996, Executive Order 12996
was enacted which gave the System guidance on issues
of compatibility and public uses of its land. Congress
passed the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act in October 1997. This “organic act,”
for the first time in the System’s history, required that
Comprehensive Conservation Plans be prepared for all
refuges within 15 years.
The Service was an active participant in this historic
legislation and supported the planning requirement.
The planning effort helped this Refuge (and thus the
entire System) meet the changing needs of wildlife
species and the public. The planning effort provided
the opportunity to meet with Refuge neighbors, and
customers, and other agencies to ensure that this Plan
was relevant and truly addressed natural resource
issues and public interests. It is the Service’s goal to
have the System be an active and vital part of the
United States’ conservation efforts. This Plan explains
the planning process, the Refuge’s characteristics, and
the direction management will take in the next 15
years. It is provided to give the reader a clear
understanding of the purposes of the Refuge and how
the Service will manage it over the next 15 years to
attain the stated purpose of the Refuge.
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission,
Goals, and Guiding Principles
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s
largest collection of lands set aside specifically for the
protection of fish, wildlife, and plant populations and
their habitats. The first unit of the System was created
in 1903, when President Theodore Roosevelt
designated 3-acre Pelican Island, a pelican and heron
rookery in Florida, as a bird sanctuary. Today, over 500
national wildlife refuges located in the 50 States and a
number of U.S. Territories exist. Today, the System
encompasses more than 93 million acres.
This System provides important habitat for many
native mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes,
invertebrates, and plants; “trust resources” for which
the Federal government is ultimately responsible. The
System plays a vital role in preserving endangered and
threatened species, and offers a wide variety of
wildlife-dependent public uses; annually, national
wildlife refuges receive 34 million visitors.
However, the System’s importance goes far beyond
these services. It contributes directly and indirectly to
human welfare through a number of ecosystem
services and functions. Chapter IV contains a detailed
discussion of ecosystem services. For the entire
biosphere, the estimated annual economic value of all
the world’s ecosystem services and functions is about
$33 trillion (Constanza, et al. 1997).
The Mission of this System is “to administer a network
of lands and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57).
The goals of the System are aimed at fulfilling this
mission and are the following:
Goal 1: To preserve, restore, and enhance in their
natural ecosystems all species of animals and
plants that are endangered or threatened with
becoming endangered;
Goal 2: To perpetuate the migratory bird resource;
Goal 3: To preserve a natural diversity and
abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands;
and
Goal 4: To provide an understanding and
appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and
man’s role in his environment and provide
visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome,
and enjoyable recreation experiences oriented
toward wildlife to the extent these activities
are compatible with the purposes for which the
refuge was established.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 23
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
24 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 25
National wildlife refuges are acquired under a variety
of legislative acts and administrative orders and
authorities. These orders and authorities usually have
one or more purposes for which land can be
transferred or acquired. Many refuges within the
System provide breeding, migration, or wintering
habitats for federally listed species. Nearly all refuges
also supply habitats for big game species and resident
or nonmigratory wildlife as well.
Individual refuges provide specific requirements for
the preservation of trust resources. For example,
waterfowl breeding refuges in South and North
Dakota provide important wetland and grassland
habitats to support populations of waterfowl as
required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Valentine NWR also supports breeding populations as
well as providing migration habitat during spring and
fall periods. Sabine NWR and other refuges in
Louisiana and Texas provide wintering habitat for
these populations. The network of lands is critical to
these birds survival. Any deficiency in one location will
affect the species and the entire networks ability to
maintain adequate populations.
Other refuges may provide habitat for threatened and
endangered plants or animals that exist in unique
habitats which occur in only very few locations.
Refuges in these situations ensure that populations are
protected and habitat is suitable for their use. Refuges,
by providing a broad network of lands throughout the
United States, help to prevent species from being
listed by providing secure habitat for their use and
provide recovery habitats in portions or all of a species
range.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 amends the Refuge Administration Act’s
Section 4(A) with the following additions:
P “each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the
mission of the System, as well as the specific
purposes for which that refuge was established;
P compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a
legitimate and appropriate general public use of
the System, directly related to the mission of the
System and the purposes of many refuges, and
which generally fosters refuge management and
through which the American public can develop
an appreciation for fish and wildlife;
P compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses
are the priority general public uses of the System
and shall receive priority consideration in refuge
planning and management; and
P when the Secretary determines that a proposed
wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible
use within a refuge, that activity should be
facilitated, subject to such restrictions or
regulations as may be necessary, reasonable, and
appropriate.
(4) In administering the System, the Secretary shall—
P provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and
plants, and their habitats within the System;
P ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the System are
maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans;
P plan and direct the continued growth of the
System in a manner that is best designed to
accomplish the mission of the System, to
contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of
the United States, to complement efforts of States
and other Federal agencies to conserve fish and
wildlife and their habitats, and to increase
support for the System and participation from
conservation partners and the public;
P ensure that the mission of the System described in
paragraph (2) and the purposes of each refuge are
carried out, except that if a conflict exists between
the purposes of a refuge and the mission of the
System, the conflict shall be resolved in a manner
that first protects the purposes of the refuge, and,
to the extent practicable, that also achieves the
mission of the System;
P ensure effective coordination, interaction, and
cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges
and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in
which the units of the System are located;
P assist in the maintenance of adequate water
quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission
of the System and the purposes of each refuge;
P acquire, under State law, water rights that are
needed for refuge purposes;
P recognize compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational uses as the priority general public
uses of the System through which the American
public can develop an appreciation for fish and
wildlife;
P ensure that opportunities are provided within the
System for compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational uses;
P ensure that priority general public uses of the
System receive enhanced consideration over other
general public uses in planning and management
within the System;
P provide increased opportunities for families to
experience compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation, particularly opportunities for parents
and their children to safely engage in traditional
outdoor activities, such as fishing and hunting;
P continue, consistent with existing laws and
interagency agreements, authorized or permitted
uses of units of the System by other Federal
agencies, including those necessary to facilitate
military preparedness;”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 further defines the wildlife-dependent recreational uses
as: wildlife observation and photography, environmental
education and interpretation, and fishing and hunting.
26 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Fish and Wildlife Service Mission
The mission of the Service is to work with others to
conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and
plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of
the American people. To fulfill this mission, Congress
has charged the Service with conserving and managing
migratory birds, endangered species, anadromous and
inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals.
The Service carries out these responsibilities through
several functional entities. The National Wildlife
Refuge System is one of those entities.
Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Purpose
Valentine NWR was established by Executive Order
No. 7142, August 14, 1935, “. . . reserved and set apart
. . . as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory
birds and other wildlife.”
Valentine National Wildlife Refuge
Vision Statement
Valentine NWR will strive to preserve, restore, and
enhance the ecological integrity of Nebraska Sandhill
uplands and associated wetlands as habitat for
migratory birds and other indigenous wildlife for the
benefit of present and future generations of
Americans.
Valentine NWR habitat management goals will seek to
maintain a healthy Refuge environment that will
provide opportunities for visitors to enjoy wildlife-dependent
uses of the Refuge in a natural setting.
Interpreting a unique habitat, wildlife and the
Refuge’s historical heritage, as well as improving
facilities will enhance the visitor’s experience while
protecting the cultural integrity of the area. To meet
these challenges, the Service will seek partnerships
with other agencies, interest groups, landowners, and
local communities. These efforts will result in greater
protection of wildlife, fish and plant resources
throughout north-central Nebraska.
Legal and Policy Guidance
National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission
and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(System), the designated purpose of the Refuge unit as
described in the establishing legislation and/or executive
orders, Service laws and policy, and international
treaties (for a complete list see Appendix G).
Key concepts included in laws, regulations, and policies
that guide management of the System include primary
versus multiple-use public lands, compatibility, and
priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities.
Examples of relevant guidance include the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act
of 1962 (50 CFR), Executive Order 12996 (Management
and General Public Use of the National Wildlife
Refuge System), and selected portions of the Code of
Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
Act of 1966, as amended, provided guidelines and
directives for administration and management of all
areas in the System, including wildlife refuges, areas
for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife
threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game
ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl
production areas. Use of any area within the System
was permitted, provided that such uses were
compatible with the major purposes for which such
areas were established.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 amends the Refuge System Administration
Act by including a unifying mission for the System, a
new formal process for determining compatible uses on
refuges, and a requirement that each refuge will be
managed under a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP or Plan). This Act states that wildlife
conservation is the priority of the System lands and
that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall
ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of refuge lands are maintained.
Each refuge must be managed to fulfill the mission of
the System and the specific purposes for which it was
established. Additionally, this Act identifies and
establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the
six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These are
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
environmental education and interpretation. As
priority public uses of the System, they uses will
receive enhanced consideration over other uses in
planning and management. Furthermore, this Act
requires that a CCP be in place for each refuge by the
year 2012 and that the public have an opportunity for
active involvement in plan development and revision. It
is Service policy that CCPs are developed in an open
public process and that the agency is committed to
securing public input throughout the process. This Act
amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 27
Lands within the System are different from other,
multiple-use public lands in that they are closed to all
public uses unless specifically and legally opened.
Unlike other Federal lands that are managed under a
multiple-use mandate (e.g., national forests
administered by the U.S. Forest Service and public
lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management), the System is managed specifically for
the benefit of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and
their habitats. Compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general
public use of the System.
Executive Order 12996 (March 23, 1996) identified a
new mission statement for the System; established six
priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, environmental education
and interpretation); emphasized conservation and
enhancement of the quality and diversity of fish and
wildlife habitat; stressed the importance of partnerships
with Federal and State agencies, Tribes, organizations,
industry, and the general public; mandated public
involvement in decisions on the acquisition and
management of refuges; and required identification,
prior to acquisition of new refuge lands, of existing
compatible wildlife-dependent uses that would be
permitted to continue on an interim basis pending
completion of comprehensive planning.
Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses
involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and
interpretation are priority public uses of the System.
These uses must receive enhanced consideration over
other public uses in refuge planning and management.
Before any uses, including wildlife-dependent
recreational activities, are allowed on national wildlife
refuges, Federal law requires that they be formally
determined to be “compatible.”
A compatible use is defined as a use that, in the sound
professional judgement of the refuge manager, will not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment
of the mission of the System or the purposes of the
Refuge. Sound professional judgement is further
defined as a finding, determination, or decision that is
consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife
management and administration, available science and
resources (funding, personnel, facilities, and other
infrastructure), and adherence with applicable laws. If
financial resources are not available to design, operate,
and maintain an activity, the refuge manager will take
reasonable steps to obtain outside assistance from the
State and other conservation interests. No refuge use
may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible.
The Service has completed compatibility
determinations for Valentine NWR (see Appendix E).
All six priority wildlife-dependent recreational
activities—wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental interpretation, environmental
education, hunting and fishing—were determined to be
compatible and thus will continue to be allowed and
encouraged in this Refuge, with the exception of
certain designated areas.
The Refuge Recreation Act, as amended, authorized
the Secretary to administer refuges, hatcheries, and
other conservation areas for recreational use when
such uses did not interfere with the area’s primary
purpose.
Existing Partnerships
The Refuge works with organizations and individuals
in a variety of areas but mostly in monitoring.
Cooperative efforts in monitoring are listed in the next
section. Fort Niobrara/Valentine NWR Complex staff
works with the following groups: with private
landowners through the Partners in Wildlife Program;
with the Natural Resource Conservation Service in the
Wetland Reserve Program; with Farmers Service
Agency in the easement program; with Cherry County
Extension in educational programs; with local law
enforcement; with the Niobrara Council on wild and
scenic river management; State, Federal, and local
agricultural agencies in weed control; U.S. Forest
Service; and U.S. Geological Survey.
The Refuge has formal agreements with rural fire
protection districts to suppress wildfires both on and
off the Refuge. Biologists from four universities
regularly study reptile physiology at the Refuge. The
Refuge plans grazing for, maintains the fence on, and
patrols the Willow Lake Game Management Area
adjacent to the Refuge. The Service works with
Nebraska Game and Parks in fish stocking, fish egg
collection and law enforcement. The Refuge staff
works with the eight Refuge grazing permittees to
manage grasslands on the Refuge using cattle.
28 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 29
Planning Process
Description of the Planning Process
The development of this CCP was guided, in the
beginning, by the Refuge Planning Chapter of the Fish
and Wildlife Service Manual (Part 602 FW2.1,
November 1996) and later also by the Service’s Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Planning Policy. Key
steps included: (1) preplanning; (2) identifying issues
and developing a vision; (3) gathering information; (4)
analyzing resource relationships; (5) developing
alternatives and assessing their environmental effects;
(6) identifying a preferred alternative; (7) publishing
the Draft Plan and soliciting public comments on the
Draft Plan (the comment period for input from the
public spanned for a total of 105 days); (8) review of
comments and effecting necessary and appropriate
changes to the Draft CCP; and, (9) preparation of the
final Plan for approval by the Region 6 Regional
Director, and finally (10) implementation of the Plan.
Valentine NWR is located 20 miles south of Valentine,
Nebraska, along Highway 83 (see Figure 1). The
Refuge is administered as part of the Fort
Niobrara-Valentine NWR Complex with the main
office located five miles east of the city of Valentine.
The Hackberry Headquarters on Valentine NWR is
located along State Spur 16B.
Comprehensive conservation planning efforts for
Valentine NWR began in January 1997 with a meeting
of regional management and planning staff and field
station employees at Fort Niobrara NWR. At that
meeting, a core planning team was designated with the
major responsibilities of gathering information and
writing the Draft Plan. A review team was set up to
provide guidance and direction to the core planning
team. A working group was also organized to provide
interchange of information between Service personnel,
outside agencies, and interested stakeholders of the
Refuge.
On March 20, 1997, an open house scoping session was
held in the Cherry County Hall meeting room,
Valentine, Nebraska. The open house provided
participants an opportunity to learn about the Refuge’s
purposes, mission, and goals, and issues currently
facing management. People attending were provided
the opportunity to speak with Service representatives
and to share their comments, issues, and concerns.
The working group and the Service’s management and
planning staff participated in a two-day tour of the
Fort Niobrara NWR and Valentine NWR Complex in
April 1997. The tour gave participants an opportunity
to view the habitats, the fenced animal management
and the prominent wildlife species of these Refuges,
discuss management aspects of these Refuges, and
give planning staff ideas for consideration in the
planning process.
During the planning process, the review and working
groups had access to information on objectives and
alternatives that were considered. Since then and
throughout the planning process, written comments
have been exchanged and verbal conversations have
been held among members of these groups and other
stakeholders of this Refuge. The Draft CCP/EA was
the first opportunity that these groups and the public
have had to review the entire planning effort and the
Plan.
The Draft Plan (and Environmental Assessment) was
released on the last week of April 1999 and distributed
in the first week of May 1999. A 60-day comment
period was provided in which the Service requested
information, comments, concerns, suggestions and
complaints from the public regarding the Draft CCP/
EA. Because of the tremendous amount of public
interest in this Plan, the Service extended the
comment period for 45 more days, for a total of 105
days of public comment period. With this extension,
the public comment period did not close until August
19, 1999.
The voluminous amount of comment letters and
electronic mail communications were reviewed and
summarized by category and subject. After reading
and compiling all the comments received, the review
team prepared a meeting to brief the Regional Director
and Assistant Regional Director of the Service’s
Region 6, the Programmatic and Southern Ecosystems
Assistant Regional Directors, the Refuge Supervisor
for Valentine NWR, the Chief of the Branch of Land
Acquisition and Refuge Planning, and the Regional
Wildlife Biologist. The summary of the comments
received was reviewed at this meeting and appropriate
modifications were made to the Draft CCP/EA in
accordance with scientifically based new information
provided during the comment period and the goals and
objectives of the Refuge. The present Plan contains
the changes made by the Service in accordance to the
recommendations of the directorate and Service
biologists and managers. All the actions undertaken in
the preparation of this Plan satisfy the requirements
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
This Plan will guide the management on the Refuge
for the next 15 years. Plans are ultimately signed by
the Regional Director, Region 6, thus providing
Regional direction to the station project leader. A copy
of this Plan will be provided to all those interested.
The project leader of the station will review the Plan
every five years to decide if it needs revision.
30 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Planning Issues
Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified
through discussions with planning team members and
key contacts and through the public scoping process,
which began with an open house scoping session in
March 1997. Comments were received orally at the
meetings, via e-mail messages and in writing, both
before and during the scoping and the public comment
period phases of the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The following issues, concerns, and
comments are a compilation and summary of the those
expressed by the public, other Federal and State
agencies, local and county governments, private
organizations and individuals, environmental groups
and persons concerned for the natural resources of the
Valentine NWR. This section also contains information
developed by the Service throughout the planning
process on the same issues.
The Draft CCP/EA for Valentine NWR had proposed
to reintroduce into the Refuge an important ecological
factor currently missing from the Sandhills habitats.
The Service believes that the historical grassland
management setting and species that contributed to
that setting were important. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is focused on preserving wildlife
species and wildlands and strongly believes in
maintaining ecological relationships. A major
herbivore, the bison, is missing from Valentine NWR.
Although bison have been as close as the Fort
Niobrara NWR, the Service has substituted domestic
cattle throughout the years in an attempt to achieve
the overall habitat objective of the Refuge. It is
believed that this was an appropriate time to begin to
phase into this change and return the species and, with
that, put a major species back into the ecological
setting of the proposed Wilderness Area of the Refuge.
Another ecological force, fire, is also believed to be
important. Obviously, concerns with the safety of this
tool exist. Recent increases in the Service’s funding for
prescribed fire and increased ability to use the tool
safely, make it an appropriate time to expand the use of
this tool and expand the benefit it provides to
grassland ecology.
The Service will use an adaptive management strategy
to implement this Plan. The primary focus will be to
achieve the habitat objectives defined for migratory
birds and other wildlife with domestic cattle and
prescribed fires being the most significant habitat
management tools.
Other aspects of the Plan are similar to the current
management regime of the Refuge. These programs
are largely successful, well received by the public, and
no reasons exist to change them significantly. Some
additional discussion on this issue is found in the
Environmental Assessment in Appendix H.
Bison Reintroduction
The Refuge’s Draft CCP/EA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1999) had proposed the introduction of bison
into sections of the area of the Refuge being
considered for designation as wilderness. The purposes
of this introduction would have been: a) to return the
most important large ungulate of the western plains to
part of its former range and b) to utilize bison as a
grazing “tool” to manage grassland habitats on this
sector of the Refuge. The bison would come preferably
from excess stock at Fort Niobrara NWR. The habitat
is currently manipulated by domestic cattle from
neighboring landowners who have a Special Use
Permit from the Service.
Many people were concerned, for various reasons,
about the Service’s proposal to reintroduce this
historic and important herbivore, that once roamed
freely through the western plains, to a portion of the
area under consideration for designation as a
wilderness area. Many other commentators, however,
met this proposal with approval and encouraged the
Service to pursue this introduction.
After considering the many comments received on this
issue, the Service has decided to modify how and
where the bison will roam on Valentine NWR. The
Service will reintroduce bison, preferably surplus
bison from Fort Niobrara NWR, only to that area of
Valentine NWR that is proposed as a Wilderness Area
and only as funding becomes available (i.e.,
partnerships, grants, cooperative agreements,
appropriations, etc.) to support the infrastructure
costs and management of this reintroduction. Bison is
one option, along with permittee grazing, that the
Service could use to manage habitat in the proposed
Wilderness Area. The Service will monitor and
evaluate the affects of bison on this area to ensure that
bison contribute to the goals and objectives of the
Refuge.
Loss of Permittees’ Privileges and Possible Adverse
Impact to the Sandhills Habitat: Many of the
comments opposing the reintroduction of bison into
Valentine NWR came from neighboring landowners
holding permits to graze the area where bison could
have been reintroduced. Reintroduction of this large
ungulate would have resulted in the loss of these
special permits for these ranchers and, consequently, a
modification of their ranching practices and the income
they derive from it. This was also a source of concern
for the local city and county governments as they could
have also seen their revenue decrease accordingly.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 31
Other concerns expressed by commentators regarding
the Service’s proposed bison reintroduction hinged on
the possibility that free-roaming bison could not be
handled as readily as domestic cattle to care for
Sandhills habitats to attain the stated goals of this
Plan (both for habitat and, consequently, species
dependent on it such as the federally listed western
prairie fringed orchid and blowout penstemon, and
bird species, such as prairie chickens). Free-roaming
ungulates would change the current grazing pattern of
high-impact, short-duration to year-long grazing.
As a result of public comment and additional
consideration of the various alternatives, the Service
will continue to use domestic cattle as an effective tool
to maintain and improve habitat for wildlife. The
Service has developed and maintained a very effective
habitat program for wildlife with the cooperation and
participation of the current permittees. This will
remain. The Service will continue to use the services of
the current permittees subject to Service policy. The
Service will not discontinue the Special Use Permits of
the current permittees after ten years. Rather, Special
Use Permits with current permittees to achieve certain
grazing prescriptions will continue. Domestic cattle
will be utilized as the major grazing tool to achieve the
overall habitat objectives for wildlife on Refuge
grasslands.
Economic Considerations of the Proposed
Reintroduction of Bison: Some commentators
expressed reservations about the proposed reintroduction of
bison due to negative economic implications. Many
commentators found the cost of reintroduction and
management of bison in Valentine to be unjustified
given the fact that habitat management using domestic
cattle is already in place, has demonstrated to be
practical and successful, and continuation of this
practice would not incur further expenses for the
Refuge, and ultimately, for the taxpayer. As stated in
the Planning Issues Section of this document, the
Service believed that the historic grassland
management setting and species that contributed to
that setting were important. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is focused on preserving wildlife
species and wildlands and strongly believes in
maintaining interrelationship of organisms and their
environment. A major herbivore, the bison, is missing
from Valentine NWR. Bison and permittee cattle can
be used to manage the health and vigor of the Refuge
grasslands.
Finally, other economic concerns expressed by some
commentators (mostly from landowners neighboring
the Refuge) was the possibility of bison roaming
outside of the Refuge and damaging private property
and the possible infection of their cattle with brucellosis
from bison reintroduced to adjacent Valentine NWR
lands. This concern with brucellosis infecting domestic
cattle is unfounded given the fact that the bison for the
proposed reintroduction would have come from excess
animals at Fort Niobrara NWR, or another Service
owned herd, which are constantly monitored and
vaccinated, and are certified to be free of brucellosis.
Genetic Diversity and Pool Preservation: Some
commentators expressed their belief that it was totally
unnecessary to reintroduce bison into Valentine NWR
for the sake of having more bison present and
protected within Federal lands given the fact that
many herds of bison already exist not only under
Federal jurisdiction but on private property as well.
Nevertheless, it is important for the Service to point
out that, according to several researchers and
geneticists (some of which provided the Service with
written comments and scientific information in support
for bison reintroduction into Valentine NWR) it would
be good to expand the Fort Niobrara NWR bison herd,
possibly into Valentine NWR or other Federal lands
because of the unique and genetically pure bison herd
at Fort Niobrara NWR. Genetically pure bison is of
tremendous importance to the continued existence and
survival of this species, one of symbols of our Nation.
Some geneticists that have performed research on
bison herds would like to see the Fort Niobrara NWR
bison herd extend into other sites to prevent a possible
catastrophic epizootic event. Thus, the proposed
reintroduction into Valentine NWR will serve the
purpose of enlarging the nationwide population of true
bison, with all the characteristics that have allowed
this wild ungulate to survive in the wild in the harsh
environment of the American West.
Human Safety: A few other commentators expressed
concern over the proposed reintroduction of bison from
the standpoint of safety for hikers, hunters, anglers,
bird watchers, and other visitors to the proposed
wilderness area of the Refuge where the bison had
been proposed for reintroduction. The problem,
according to these commentators, would have been
that some areas would not have been readily available
to outdoor recreation as once were if the bison were
introduced into the Refuge. However, visitors to the
Refuge can enjoy a safe wildlife-dependent recreation
experience on the Refuge. The proposed Wilderness
Area on the Refuge will be the only area inhabited by
bison, which leave approximately 56,000 acres of the
Refuge without bison. Bison will provide an important
wilderness experience for those that choose to recreate
in this portion of the Refuge. Appropriate safety
messages, educational efforts and perhaps at times,
temporary closure of certain areas of the Wilderness
Area will be part of the bison management program.
32 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Introduction
Prairie Dogs and The Sandhills Habitat: Many
commentators, most of which appeared to be adjacent
landowners to the Refuge and cattlemen expressed
vigorous opposition to the Service’s proposal to
introduce this species into the habitats of the Refuge
classifying this animal as a pest that damages the
habitat, whose burrows represent a hazard to domestic
cattle and horses, and who are potential threats to
human health. Some also pointed out that the Sandhills
are not adequate habitat for this species, otherwise the
animal would already be present there.
However, prairie dogs are an integral part of many
grassland ecosystems in the western states of our
Nation. Many other animal species, some listed as
endangered, other deemed species of special concern
(i.e., black-footed ferrets, bald eagles, burrowing owls,
mountain plovers, swift foxes), and migratory birds
(i.e., raptors) are either inextricably dependent on or
make common use of prairie dog colonies to obtain
basic food, shelter and/or habitat for nesting and
rearing of their young. Valentine NWR, which was set-aside
by Congress as a reservation for migratory birds
and other wildlife, is located well within the historical
range of this species even though considerable
controversy exists as to whether this species ever
inhabited the Sandhills region and whether it could
survive in this area. Given the purpose for establishing
this Refuge, prairie dog colonies would enhance the
diversity of habitats used by local and migratory
avifauna, which would in turn be in compliance with the
stated purpose of the Refuge, and aid in the
preservation efforts of federally listed species dependent
on prairie dogs and the habitats they help shape.
The Service is interested in creating a diverse mosaic
of habitats in the System that are conducive to a wide
range of indigenous and migratory wildlife, especially
bird species. An important component of the western
plains that is currently missing from this Refuge are
black-tailed prairie dogs. As noted earlier in this Plan,
this species is responsible for the creation of a unique
habitat that is not only conducive but essential to
certain migratory birds, but to a variety of mammals
and reptiles as well. The Service had proposed to allow
this species gather and grow into a colony
encompassing approximately 400 acres within suitable
habitat in the Refuge. However, the Service decided to
postpone the implementation of this habitat
management strategy until sufficient research and
studies have performed and the data studied to
determine if any of the Refuge’s habitats are conducive
to a successful introduction of this species. Should
adequate and suitable habitats for prairie dog
introduction be found in the Refuge, the Service would
prepare a step-down management plan to deal with all
aspects of this introduction and management of this
species, including the exclusion of this species where
their presence represents a safety hazard to Refuge
staff, neighbors and visitors.
Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Populations and Private
Lands: Basically, the same commentators that
expressed opposition to the introduction of prairie dogs
into Refuge habitats shared views that black-tailed
prairie dogs are very common and widespread, and
seemed to also share the notion that prairie dogs are a
pest to be rid off rather than a species to protect; an
enemy of the cattle industry and farming some added.
The Service will conduct research in the interior of the
Refuge to determine if suitable black-tailed prairie dog
habitat exists. If suitable habitat is found in the
interior of this 71,516 acre Refuge, the Service will
release this species, allow them to expand to a
manageable population size, and control them within
the boundaries of the Refuge.
This proposed expansion is in line with the Service’s
efforts to protect the ever decreasing numbers and size
of black-tailed prairie dog colonies nationwide. The
Service has estimated that this species’ range has
decreased by an alarming 95 percent from the time of
the European settlement of the western United States.
As a matter of fact, one subspecies, the Utah prairie
dog, is already a federally listed and protected species
under the Endangered Species Act, and lately, the
Service has been petitioned to list the black-tailed
prairie dog as well, given the precipitous decline in the
species populations. Most researchers attribute this
alarming population decline to human activities, specially
past and ongoing prairie dog eradication efforts. The
same highly effective eradication efforts that led to the
precipitous decline in prairie dog populations are believed
to have caused the disastrous decline in population and
near extinction of the federally listed black-footed
ferret. The Service is currently reviewing the petition
to list the black-tailed prairie dog and is concerned with
populations of other species that depend on prairie dogs,
such as the ferruginous hawk and other raptors.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 33
Prescribed Burns
Some commentators expressed concern and scepticism
to the Service’s proposal to utilize prescribed burns as
habitat management tools on the Refuge. Some
commentators wrote that prescribed burns are not a
viable grassland management tool in the Sandhills
habitats of Nebraska and that this practice could ruin
the fragile Sandhills ecosystem. But the Service
believes that, properly done (as proposed), this tool is
not only viable but of tremendous value to reinvigorate
and maintain the health of the Sandhills habitats. The
Service bases this assertion on the voluminous body of
evidence that research and data analysis has yielded
for many years not only on Service lands, but on
Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and some private lands as well. Fire
ecology is an established and well grounded science.
The Service personnel that participate in prescribed
burns must always prepare a “burn plan” that has to
be reviewed and approved by the Service’s regional
fire ecologists prior to any prescribed burn taking
place. Furthermore, these plans must take into
consideration the possibility of a escaped fire (wildfire)
and have safety features to deal with eventualities such
as this.
Habitat, HumanStructures, andWildlifeProtection
Many people, agencies, and environmental groups felt
that protecting and enhancing bird habitats should be
a priority over other management issues, followed by
protection and enhancement of other trust species and
trust resources. Some commented that inconspicuous
wildlife species, including reptiles (such as turtles),
butterflies and other insects, should also be considered
in the management objectives and goals of this Refuge
especially in relation to the Service’s proposal to
improve the Refuge’s road network. Some
commentators believe that improved Refuge road
conditions would automatically translate into higher
driving speeds by Refuge visitors; thus, higher risk of
cars and trucks running over some wildlife species,
specially slow-moving species such as turtles,
amphibians, and insects. Blanding’s and yellow mud
turtles are considered species of management concern
that the Refuge will take into consideration in the
management of Refuge resources.
Legislation (National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act, as amended) mandates wildlife
conservation as the overriding mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System and, as such, it is the most
important issue at Valentine NWR. Protection of
wildlife habitat, especially for feeding, resting, and
nesting birds and their young, would define the types
of visitor activities and access allowed at the Refuge.
Another responsibility of this and any other national
wildlife refuge will be to preserve, restore, and enhance
threatened and endangered species and migratory
birds, as well as species of management concern. To
carry out this responsibility, the Refuge’s flora and
fauna must be protected from human adverse impacts
(i.e., overgrazing, overburning, pollution, and disruptive
or incompatible activities). Public use of the Refuge’s
proposed Wilderness Area, and the rest of the Refuge
lands must be managed to prevent disturbance of
nesting birds. Nonnative plant species must be
controlled and/or eradicated to restore native plant
communities in upland and wetland areas, thereby
enhancing habitat for migratory birds. How to provide
wildlife-dependent recreation and opportunities for
environmental education, while at the same time
ensuring wildlife protection, is an issue to be resolved
through effective adaptive management.
The Refuge will consider and implement safeguards for
wildlife species in conjunction with road rehabilitation
and enhancement, which might include: road design
that slows vehicular speeds, signaling (i.e., speed
signals, wildlife crossing signals, etc.), speed bumps, etc.
The Service received a few comments comparing the
wildlife diversity and rangeland health of private lands
adjoining Service lands to that of the Refuge, and
arguing that the range management techniques and
the history of domestic cattle grazing on their
properties had led to better wildlife habitats than those
present at the Refuge.
Those comments came mostly from landowners
adjacent to or in the general vicinity of the Refuge.
However, none of these commentators provided data
and thus, the Service believes these comments were
based solely on anecdotal observation or are a matter
of opinion. Wildlife biologists on Valentine NWR have
gathered data and information for many years
indicating substantial improvement in wildlife habitat
since 1972. This fact also has been acknowledged by
the State’s wildlife management agency, the Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission.
34 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Hunting, Recreation, and Other Public Uses
Some commentators expressed desire to see an
expansion of hunting opportunities at the Refuge,
opposition to the proposed closing of hunting
opportunities in the area of the Fire Tower, and
opposition to maintaining the hunting closure of the
Hackberry area of the Refuge. Some of the same
commentators also expressed opposition to any
introduction of elk to the Refuge, primarily due to the
possibility of transmission of chronic wasting disease
that these large ungulates can carry.
The Refuge is currently open to waterfowl, pheasant,
dove, prairie grouse, deer, and coyote hunting
throughout most of the Refuge. The Service considered
introducing elk to the Refuge, as a logical extension of
the proposed bison reintroduction to the Refuge.
However, the Service will not introduce elk at this
time.
The Hackberry CCC area and the Fire Tower area will
be closed to hunting due to safety concerns. The
Hackberry CCC area was and will continue to be
closed to hunting because State hunting regulations
ban this activity in close proximity to housing or
residential areas and buildings. The Fire Tower area
will be the site of a nature trail and visitor observation
deck. In order to ensure safety, quality of the
experience, and to avoid conflicts between hunters and
other visitors to the Refuge, the Service has decided to
close the Fire Tower area to any hunting activities.
ManagementoftheRefuge’sFisheriesResources
Some commentators expressed desire to see the
Service expand the sport fishing opportunities at the
Refuge and opposition towards the Service’s proposal
to continue with the current level of angling
opportunities. Some other commentators, who
apparently must have lacked, or misinterpreting the
information provided in the Draft CCP/EA, expressed
concern over the purported proposal by the Service to
decrease the level of fishing opportunities at the
Refuge. We are not sure why some commentators
believed this. The Refuge’s Draft CCP/EA preferred
alternative did not mention nor imply any decreased
sport fishing opportunities.
The Service intends to maintain the current level of
sport fishing opportunities at the Refuge. The nine
lakes on the Refuge open to fishing provide ample
opportunity for sport fishing. The lakes are seldom
crowded and produce many master angler bluegill,
northern pike, and bass. The Refuge staff will strive to
improve access to the fishing lakes by upgrading roads
and boat ramps. Fisheries surveys will be conducted
and stocking used to both improve and maintain sport
fishing in all Refuge lakes open to fishing. Other lakes
on the Refuge will be managed for migratory birds and
remain closed to sport fishing.
Funding and Staffing to Manage the Refuge
Managing this Refuge requires adequate funding and
staffing to effectively carry out habitat and wildlife
population management activities, as well as to ensure
public uses that are compatible with the System
mission, environmental interpretation, and education.
Some people expressed concern that the Service might
not be allocated sufficient funding to implement all the
goals and objectives stated in this Plan. Some
commentators felt that building partnerships with
public agencies, private organizations, and volunteers
would increase the Refuge’s management ability.
As with all activities of the Service, the implementation
of the proposals of this Plan are subject to availability
of adequate funding and personnel. Congress has
instructed the Service to assess current management
conditions of the National Wildlife Refuge System and
to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan to
guide the activities of each refuge in the Nation for the
next 15 years. The Service intends to fulfill the goals
and objectives of each refuge as funding and personnel
become available to each refuge, and appropriation of
the funding must come from Congress in order for
these plans to come to fruition. If adequate funding
and personnel do not materialize, perhaps some of the
proposed activities will not take place and,
consequently, some of the goals and objectives stated
in the draft plans will not be attained. Nevertheless,
this Plan outlines the recommended course of action
for the Refuge and this Plan may be the best vehicle to
obtain the necessary funding to accomplish the mission
for which Congress designated this area a National
Wildlife Refuge.
Some of the same commentators expressed reservations
or outright opposition to the need for the Service’s
proposal to construct and relocate an interpretive
center and office to a location near U.S. Highway 83
citing concerns for the total cost of such an enterprise
and questioning its real need. The Service believes
that an environmental education facility that is more
visible and accessible to the public will yield far more
benefits than the cost attached with building, staffing,
and maintaining it. Thus the Service’s intention to
increase its emphasis on environmental education by
creating a place where this important wildlife-dependent
use of the Refuge can better be attained.
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 35
Public Involvement Methodology
The Service, through this and other planning processes
involving NEPA, finds itself involved in the complex
and essential task of involving the public in the planning
process. The public involvement process is often a
difficult enterprise given the specific time-frames and
schedules that accompany most Service actions, this
Plan not being the exception.
Throughout the process that led to the preparation of
this Plan, the Service complied with NEPA requirements
to involve the public through meetings of different
kinds (i.e., public scoping meetings, open house meetings,
meetings with specific groups), personal communications,
and the disbursement of the Draft CCP/EA that
preceded this final Plan and other kinds of information,
and finally, through a period of time in which all
interested parties had 105 days in which to provide
written comments on the proposed future Refuge
goals, objectives, strategies and actions. The Service
effected changes to the Draft CCP/EA as a consequence
of comments and information received prior and
during the public comment period.
The Service, throughout the preparation of the Draft
CCP/EA, attempted to consult with and involve all the
groups, entities, and individuals that expressed interest
in participating. The refuge manager, his staff, and
Region 6 Regional Office personnel conducted various
meetings to disseminate information, and collect all
possible relevant data and comments for the
preparation of these Plans.
After these Draft Plans had been prepared, all those
involved had an opportunity to provide written comments
on the Draft CCP/EA. The original public comment
period was open for 60 days, but due to the high
volume of comments, the Service agreed to reopen the
comment period for an additional 45 days. A typical
public comment period is open for 30 days. Thus, the
Service gave commentators a total of 105 days in which
to provide written comments, by letter or electronic
mail, to the Service.
An Open House was held on June 10, 1999, in Valentine,
Nebraska. It was scheduled to take place from 3 to 8
PM; instead it ran from 2:45 until 9:30 PM due to the
interest shown. The purpose of the Open House was to
inform the public as to the major aspects of these
Plans. The public was encouraged to provide their
written comments to the Service. An Open House
meeting format affords the event organizers the
opportunity to reach out to a greater segment of the
public and each individual person from the public to
voice their comments and concerns.
36 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 37
Summary of Refuge and
Resource Descriptions
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
Valentine NWR is 71,516 acres in size and lies in the
heart of the Nebraska Sandhills, the largest sand dune
area in he Western Hemisphere and one of the largest
grass-stabilized regions in the world (Bleed and
Flowerday, 1989). The Sandhills are characterized by
rolling, vegetated sand dunes and interdunal valleys
which spread over the landscape from a northwest to
southeasterly direction. Native grasses predominate.
Many shallow lakes and wetlands are interspersed in
the lower valleys. Wildlife diversity, except large
ungulates and their predators, is relatively unchanged
since early settlement in the Sandhills.
Grassland comprises 90 percent of the 19,300 square
mile region with nearly 97 percent of the total acreage
being in private ownership (Bleed and Flowerday
1989). The predominant land-use of the Sandhills is
beef cattle production which can have significant
impact upon the biological diversity of native flora and
fauna. Management of lands adjacent to the Refuge
and throughout the Sandhills employ a combination of
grazing and haying to support the ranching economy.
A variety of grazing treatments and rotations are used.
Most meadows are mowed or hayed annually. Prescribed
fire is used very rarely. Grasslands seldom receive a
prolonged rest treatment.
In the Sandhills, habitat is not a limiting factor for
those species of wildlife that rely on, or are tolerant of,
disturbed cover (i.e., mowed and/or grazed grasslands).
Valentine NWR is one of the few areas in the Sandhills
where management can be dedicated to enhancing
those species of flora and fauna that do not thrive
under management strategies emphasizing economic
return.
An estimated 177,000 acres of open water and marsh
and 1,130,000 acres of wet meadows remain in the
Sandhills. These are mostly freshwater wetlands and
include wet meadows, shallow marshes, fens, alkaline
wetlands, and range in size from 1 to 2,300 acres with
80 percent of them less than 10 acres in size
(LaGrange 1997). Many Sandhills wetlands have been
drained in attempts to increase hay production.
Estimates of the amount drained range from 15
percent (McMurtry et al. 1972) to 46 percent (USFWS
1986). Wetland drainage continues to this day. On
Valentine NWR, drainage ditches were dug before the
area became a Refuge. Most do not carry water except
in very high water years.
An Atlas of the Sandhills, 1989, by Bleed and
Flowerday, is an excellent reference for those wanting
more in-depth information on the Sandhills of
Nebraska.
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to
national natural resource management and has
identified 52 ecosystems within the United States
(USFWS, 1994). The Service has formed teams to
address the most important conservation and
restoration issues that each one of these identified
ecosystems faces. Each one of these teams has
advanced, depending on the complexity of issues within
a determined area, at different paces in the identification
and categorization of all of the conservation issues
(Service’s Resource Priorities) and goals for each of
these ecosystems. Valentine NWR, according to early
Service watershed-based ecosystem maps, lies within
the Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem.
The Service’s Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem team
has identified the five main areas of concern that need
to be addressed for this ecosystem, and they are:
P Prairie Grassland (including the Sandhills region)
restoration and preservation
P Species of Concern (rare species)
P Water quality
P Native fishes, small fishes and mussels
P Water Quantity
The Service believes that the Refuge’s goals and
objectives delineated in this Plan will help the Service
attain the goals and objectives for these resource
priorities for the Platte/Kansas Rivers Ecosystem.
38 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Climate
The climatic patterns of the Nebraska Sandhills are
characteristic of the Central Great Plains: highly
variable climate characterized by cold winters and hot
summers, with frequent thunderstorms occurring from
the spring to late summer. Annual precipitation
averages 17 to 23 inches from the western to the
eastern portion of the Sandhills (Wilhite and Hubbard
1989) with approximately 65 percent occurring during
the May-to-September growing season (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National
Climatic Data Center 1996) which, coupled with high
evapotranspiration rates, has significant ecological
effect on the region. Valentine NWR has been an
official weather station since 1935. Annual precipitation
since 1945 has averaged 21.6 inches. Temperature
extremes range from -38oF in the winter to 111oF
during the summer with July and August being the
warmest months (average high temperature 85-87o F)
and January and February the coldest months
(average low temperature 8-12o F). The average frost
free period is approximately 150 days. Winds ranging
from 5-15 mph are common throughout the year and
are generally out of the north, west, or northwest
direction in the winter and out of the south, west, or
southwest direction during the summer. Climatological
conditions have generally been favorable since the
mid-1970’s and relatively high annual precipitation
levels have resulted in positive net moisture balances
(annual precipitation minus open pan evaporation)
during most years since 1976.
Air Quality
Air quality is good thanks to the absence of significant
air pollution sources due to the distance to any urban
or industrial areas from the Refuge. The proposed
Valentine Wilderness is a Class 2 Status Area under
the Clean Air Act.
Geology
The geologic framework of the Refuge consists of
formations related to the Valentine Formation which is
a sandy, stream-deposited unit unconformably
overlying Rosebud formations and forming gentle
slopes; Sandhills are stabilized dune sand of the late
Pleistocene and Holocene age.
Soils
Soil groups and series found on the Refuge are mapped
and described in detail in the 1956 Soil Survey of
Cherry County. In 1997 and 1998, the soils of the
Refuge were surveyed for mapping by the Natural
Resource Conservation Service.
Most of the soils are wind-laid sand that has not been
held in place long by vegetation. They are light colored
and have little organic matter. The soils in basins,
valleys, and wet meadows have thicker and darker
surface layers and more organic matter than soils
found in the hills. Rainfall is quickly absorbed by the
sandy soils and causes little erosion and low evaporation
rates. Native grasses grow well in these conditions.
Soil exposed by overgrazing or plowing is subject to
wind erosion (Layton et al 1956). The main soil types
are the Valentine-Els-Tryon, Valentine-Thurman
Associations (Kuzila 1989), Valentine (fine sand,
undulating), Valentine-Rosebud (loamy fine sands,
undulating) and Dune Sand (stabilized, rolling).
Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999 39
Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses
Water Resources and Associated Wetlands
The Nebraska Sandhills overlay the High Plains
Aquifer - commonly referred to as the Ogallala
Aquifer. This groundwater resource creates an
interspersion of shallow lakes, semipermanent, and
temporary wetlands in the lower elevations and valleys
where the groundwater level is exposed. Water
resources are the driving force supporting the
ecological diversity and integrity of the Nebraska
Sandhills.
Thirty-seven major wetland complexes are on
Valentine NWR totaling approximately 13,000 acres.
These wetlands are a mix of shallow lakes, marshes,
seasonal wetlands, wet meadows, fens, and small
streams that run during high water periods. Wetlands
are well dispersed throughout the Refuge grasslands.
Submergent and emergent vegetation in lakes and
marshes range from very sparse to dense depending
on soils and alkalinity. Emergents include cattail,
bulrush, wild rice, and phragmites. Vegetation
bordering wetlands is primarily grasses. Some lakes
are bordered by trees on the south shores.
Water control structures have been installed on six
lakes, however, only four can increase water elevations
significantly above the maximum, naturally functioning
level. Several Refuge lakes have water level gauges
where records of lake levels are recorded. Refuge staff
also record water levels in U.S. Geological Survey
groundwater survey wells. Some old drainage ditches
dug before the Refuge was established remain. These
ditches are only partially functional due to siltation
and perhaps poor design. In several areas, wetlands
have been dug out in wet meadows and fens to produce
open water areas.
Most of the wetlands on the Refuge rise and fall
depending on precipitation and groundwater levels.
Precipitation for the past 17 years has been high
resulting in record levels for lakes. The Marsh Lakes,
historically a very large cattail marsh with three areas
of open water and a closed basin, is now one large lake
with water flowing out of the basin. Refuge wetlands
normally function as a closed system and only during
high precipitation periods does excess surface water exit
the Refuge. Refuge wetlands are shown in Figure 2.
Vegetation
Grasslands
Sandhill Prairie is within the wide transitional zone of
the Mixed Grass Prairie between Tallgrass Prairie and
the Short Grass Plains. Annual precipitation is typical
of the semiarid Mixed Grass Prairie; however, the
Nebraska Sandhills is characterized by a predominance
of post climax tallgrass species typical of a greater
moisture regime (Oosting 1948, Keeler et al. 1980).
This mixture and general dominance by Tallgrass
Prairie species is locally influenced by topography (i.e.,
the soil moisture holding capacities and soil moisture
penetration in different textures of the sand soil range
sites and the root structures and the photosynthetic
strategies of cool and warm season plants) (Tolstead
1942, Barnes 1984). Refuge vegetation is shown on
Figure 3. Four basic range sites are located within the
Sandhills.
Wetland range sites are the low meadow sites
dominated by grass species that thrive in a moisture
saturated soil profile (i.e., prairie cordgrass, blue-joint
reedgrass, sedge species, and non-grass species such
as golden rods, saw-toothed sunflower and willows). A
federally threatened species, western prairie fringed
orchid, is found within the wetland range site.
Sub-irrigated range sites are meadows that are very
close to the groundwater level. Sub-irrigated range
sites are dominated by Tallgrass Prairie species such
as big bluestem and Indian grass. Soil moisture in the
sub-irrigated range site is adequate to support the
deep rooted warm season native grasses even during
periods of drought. Sub-irrigated range sites are
commonly invaded by exotic species such as Kentucky
bluegrass, smooth brome, and red top.
Sand range sites comprise the dry meadows (low sand
sites) and the gently undulating Sandhills. Native
vegetative species common to the sand range sites are
cool season grasses: needle-and-thread, porcupine
grass, prairie June grass and western wheat grass; and
warm season grasses typical of the Tallgrass Prairie:
prairie sandreed, sand bluestem, sand love grass, little
bluestem, and switchgrass. Typical non-grass species
of the sand range site include stiff sunflower, yucca,
lead plant, and prairie rose. Exotic smooth brome and
Kentucky bluegrass tend also to invade the lower
elevations of the sand range sites.
40 Valentine Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 1999
Choppy sand range sites are the characteristic sand
dunes for which the Nebraska Sandhills is named.
Many vegetational characteristics are common to the
sand range sites, but there is a greater proportion of
unvegetated sand soil surface that is subject to wind
and water erosion. Typical perennial grasses include:
blue grama, sand bluestem, prairie sandreed, blowout
grass, sand love grass, little bluestem, spiny muhly;
and non-grass species include yucca, prairie rose and
sunflowers. The federally endangered species, blowout
penstemon, is endemic to the Nebraska Sandhills and
its characteristic habitat includes the blowouts and
open sand areas of the choppy sand range sites.
Native perennial and annual flowering forbs adorn the
various range sites on Valentine NWR; some of which
are only found on native grasslands that have not been
degraded by the impact of modern man (i.e., conversion
of grassland to farm land, use of herbicides, and chronic
overgrazing of livestock) (Weaver 1961, Farrar 1990).
Woodlands
Approximately 45 species of native and introduced
trees and shrubs exist in the Sandhills. Native willows
are found around wetlands as are occasional cottonwoods.
Hackberry, choke cherry and American plum are
found on the north slopes usually adjacent to the south
sides of lakes. The abundance of woody cover has
drastically changed since Valentine NWR was
established. Many shrub and tree species, including
nonnatives, were planted by the Civil Conservation
Corps during the 1930’s. Since then cedar and Russian
olive trees have been expanding and invading
grassland and are beginning to jeopardize the floral
and faunal integrity of native Sandhills Prairie.
Exotic and Invading vegetation found on or near the
Refuge includes leafy spurge, purple loosestrife,
Canada thistle, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome,
downy brome, sweet clover, reed canary grass,
phragmites, Eastern red cedar, Russian olive