Valentine National Wildlife Refuge - Comments on Proposal to Revise Area Management Regulations

April 14, 2020. Email sent to three staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including Steve Hicks, project leader.

Valentine NWR was established decades ago in the 1930s for the conservation and management of migratory birds and other wildlife. It was not established so taking can occur associated with killing hunts. It is supposed to be a refuge. The proposed change in regulations is a direct attack on the purpose for refuge establishment and continues a trending diminution of the value of these lands for many essential natural resources.

Preferential regulations seem to be more important to the USFWS than the need to make certain that native flora and fauna continue to occur now and into the future for many generations of enthusiasts of the outdoor sandhills.

Conservation of wildlife should be the primary goal so any decision to increase the taking of wildbirds and furbearers needs to be vehemently opposed. This is a decision that should be derived from local conditions, not the spewing of national statistics as indicated in the federal government documents done by federales that do not even reside in Nebraska making forceful decisions. Quit dealing in the need for shootists to wreak death to native wildlife.

Draft Compatibility Determination for Recreational Hunting

Sustainable management and recreational hunting are two sordid twists in language being used by so-called staff responsible for management while promoting a single intent purpose.

“Refuge Purpose(s): The refuge 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.”

Refuge is not a concept. It is the reality as firmly established when the government pushed to acquire multiple private ranch properties for an indicated purpose. It was not created to provide a place where hunting is a primary promotion.

“This plan proposes to open or expand existing migratory bird hunting from 2,721 acres to 28,918 acres.” [page 1]

How was the proposed increase in acres of area of intent determined? How the need determined? Why was not the entire refuge opened? What were the criteria? No information is given on how this was done with public input. It is very noticeable that most of the areas to be opened are readily accessible highways or improved road, thus making access the easiest of many places. Let them hunt, you will not even have to walk very far. Just stop on the road, hop out and shoot!

“Small Game, Upland Game Bird, and Big Game Hunting Plan” [page 1]

Where is this document, apparently issued in 2019, available? What were the USFWS actions to make certain the public was aware of this plan? How was it implemented? This is public information which should be readily available upon request.

“The NWRSAA mandates” [page 2]

So a national federal bureaucrat decides and local USFWS staff just respond to conform to the demand. Any recent decision is superseded by the original documents that indicate the reason why the refuge was established. The original intent is what is most important and essential to direct management efforts.

“Public Review and Comment:” [page 3]

There have been no public meetings on this matter. The public was given only 22 days to deal with the issued documentation. Also, the USFWS has already issued their pending decision in the Federal Register as of April 8. How sordid that the agency cannot wait until comments were received from the public and suitably considered. This whole effort is a perfect example of federales shoving a decision upon the people of the sandhills and area community that enjoy natural resources without taking by hunting.
“Justification: Based on the anticipated biological impacts above and in the Environmental Assessment, it is determined that hunting of resident game and migratory birds on the refuge will not interfere with the wildlife or habitat goals and objectives or purposes for which the refuge was established.”

How was this determination made based upon facts? Not interference! Interference will occur because of the taking by shootists intent on killing wild life for their so-called sport and all of its associated disturbances. Changes with hugely interfere? Present the facts not opinion. Because one dead snipe interferes with its life. Same for waterfowl and prairie chickens. Let the birds die seems to be a mantra of the USFWS. Protection of the refuge birds should reign supreme on a refuge created for their protection.

This document indicates a preference to allow killing of so many special birds!

Draft Environmental Assessment for Small Game, Upland Game Bird and Big Game Hunting

Please explain how a refuge prepared a document because a refuge does not know how to write? This is the attribution indicated on the title page. Who is responsible for the words? Project leader without any attribution is also not suitably proper! Please explain this obvious lack of a local name!

“1.1 Proposed Action The Service is proposing to expand hunting opportunities across the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The refuge consists of 72,350 acres total (67,828 open for hunting, 2,721 open to waterfowl hunting, 1,801 closed to hunting [see Figure 1]).” [page 3]

Why is the majority of a national refuge proposed to not be not a refuge? Is there not a limitation of place where wildlife can be taken. Refuge indicates safety. To think that this is actually a refuge is erroneous in multiple ways. Some many birds can appreciate a haven but the managing federales agency has decided that shootists will have their way so they can kill and kill anytime during a “season”, but of course they say it is being done in accordance with state regulations.

“Hunting would be expanded for upland game, big game, and migratory birds on the refuge in accordance with the 1999 Valentine NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).”

These are details from that plan.

“Hunting Objective:

“Provide quality hunting opportunities for waterfowl, deer, prairie grouse, pheasants, dove, and coyote on portions of the Refuge. Limited controlled hunting opportunities for elk will be available if elk are reintroduced to the Refuge.”

“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.”

There is no indication in the wrongly directed guiding document during historic times that hunting would be permissible for rail, snipe and woodcock. How about partridge? Where are the facts?

Rail occur very rarely in the multitude of bird occurrence report at this publicly owned refuge. Will shootists be allowed to kill King Rail, which are very rare on this land space? Why is that an agency which conveys a mission statement to conserve wildlife resources for citizens of our nation and state is pushing forth a missive of destruction? Virginia Rail, which are regulars on this refuge land, are now facing a visit that can lead to their destruction. How about the ultra rare Black Rail. The same applies to Wilson’s Snipe!

As for the American Woodcock, there is no known record for this species at VNWR. Yet the federal documents issued indicate a season should be opened. Where is the basis of real occurrence for this species’ conservation instead of some decision being made to allow them to be shot? Obviously a decision is being made to kill a rare or phantom species of no known occurrence.

“The primary non-consumptive public use areas of the refuge remain within the Little Hay Wildlife Drive, Fire Tower overlook, and Refuge Kiosks.” [page 7]

How is a kiosk a “non-comsumptive public use” since it is signage. Associated ground is maybe an acre or two.

“We expect the harvest of each of these species to be between 0 to 2 animals per season given the limited suitable habitat or low population numbers within the refuge hunt area. This level of harvest should not have negative effects on the local or the statewide populations of these species.” [table 1]

Rare occurrence is conveyed by findings yet hunters would be allowed to kill any of them during a sanctioned season.

“Given the low number of northern bobwhite quail and gray partridge on the refuge, the number of hunters pursuing these species would be low (less than ten hunters). Incidental take of these birds while hunting other upland game would be estimated at less than one daily bag limit for these species for the year (less than six and less than three, respectively)." [page 13]

What is the population of the so-called "northern bobwhite quail" as derived from facts? Is this some new subspecies that you are indicating as occuring. Having following bird taxonomy for decades, this is a faux indication not based in a reality. There are a very few known occurrences for the area of specificity based upon my bird database for the region. Yet the agency will allow the very few numbers to be killed by shootists.

There is no known record for Gray Partridge in the Valentine Lake District. Yet the regs of some inane fedarales want to open a season. There is absolutely no basis for any decision regarding this species.

“Refuge staff would work in close cooperation with the NGPC in sharing/evaluating/discussing available population and harvest data, making recommendations for regulation changes, and any other actions necessary to ensure that viable populations of resident birds are supported.” [page 13]

How and when and by whom? This is a vague statement with no indication of any reality of agreement or expectation to meet the stated intent.

It needs to be noted that the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission will most likely be supportive of the regulation revisions because they could probably sell more hunting licenses as the state agency can convey there will be a notable increase in hunting opportunities.

“Harvest


The estimated harvest during the 2017/2018 season was lower compared with the five-year average. Mink, raccoon, and opossum showed the greatest decrease (down 64 percent, 36 percent, and 20 percent, respectively). Coyote, muskrat, and bobcat showed an increase compared to the five-year average (up 27 percent, 10 percent, and 7 percent respectively).” [page 14]

What is the basis for these estimated details? Facts are given but there is no attribution. Does it pertain to the world, or maybe just Nebraska, but it is blatantly obvious it does not apply to VNWR since no site specific details are given. Estimates do not suffice.

“Regulated harvest through hunting and trapping seasons is an important management tool needed to control populations and damage that these species can cause.” [page 14]

Has there been any documented damage due to any of these species at VNWR? Indicate the local facts. Estimates convey nothing of any reality.

“Areas of the refuge open to hunting would be increased by about 26,000 acres. Under this alternative, approximately 40 percent of the refuge would be open to hunting with 60 percent of the refuge closed to hunting. The latter would provide 40,000 acres of the refuge where migratory waterfowl would continue to be protected from any hunting pressure and disturbance. This complies with provisions of the refuge’s establishing legislation.” [page 15]

The establishing legislation indicated that the entire refuge be a haven for birds. Now there is an effort to reduce that extent by a rather significant amount. It is absurd how federales twist language. The entire refuge is an inviolate place no matter what some perp in Washington decides. Indicate the language in the original "establishing legislation" that proves it was establishing for any sort of hunting related reason!

“We expect that the harvest of American crows and woodcock would be between zero and two birds due to low interest from hunters (in the case of crows) and low population numbers (in the case of woodcocks). For coots, sora and Virginia rails, common snipe, and American woodcock, we expect that the harvest would be less than the bag limit for each species (15, 10, 8, and 3, respectively).” [page 16]

These are expectations of delusion. The USFWS has no information to provide actual facts whether or not there is even a huntable population. There is no record known that American Woodcock have ever been seen at VNWR.

“Additional hunting opportunities would disperse hunters over a larger portion of the refuge and provide enhanced hunting opportunities. We anticipate that there would be only a small increase in the number of hunters visiting the refuge (two or fewer additional hunters) due to the low population density of north-central Nebraska and abundant public hunting land near the refuge.“ [page 16]

Another statement based upon conjecture not fact. Spread the hunters upon more refuge lands and that means further impacts. Anticipate is an opinion not fact.

“We anticipate minor to moderate beneficial impacts with respect to slight declines in predators of many non-game species; and increased exposure to outdoor experiences that potentially would include observations and educational opportunities related to non-game species.” [page 17]

Anticipation does not convey any sort of reality, but is a vague word being used to promote an agenda. Predators of nongame species? What are they? Perhaps there are predators of non-game species but the given language is tepid at best. The killing of predators will in no way increase the exposure to outdoor experiences. More worthless verbiage. Kill some species and then indicate how that is beneficial to outdoor experiences. Have you heard of the term "balance of nature"?

“Impacts of hunting on listed species, especially using the refuge from September through February, could increase with increased hunting opportunities under the proposed action. However, we would apply mitigation measures mentioned above under this alternative and expect to limit the effects of hunting to acceptable risk levels (minor).” [page 19]

What would be the mitigation measures? When would they be implemented? By whom?

Why wasn’t the very important and iconic Blandings Turtle considered in the EA? More road traffic when the turtles are traveling across the land during autumn movements to find a winter haven might result in greater mortality by these critters getting crushed beneath truck or car wheels. Any lack of consideration for this species is indicative on how this EA is lacking.

“The refuge would continue to engage in habitat management activities during the hunting season to ensure that the refuge meets its other management objective...” [page 25]

What are the management activities that occur during the hunting season? Please indicate the specifics.

“Expanded hunting opportunities could provide improved benefits to the local, regional, and state economy compared to current conditions.” [page 26]

What is the basis for this statement that is given as a fact? This statement needs to be based upon real data not opinion.

“The Service believes that hunting on the refuge would not add significantly to the cumulative impacts of migratory bird management on local, regional, or Central Flyway populations because the percentage likely to be taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to existing hunting takes, would be a very small fraction of the estimated populations.” [page 30]

No decisions should be based upon beliefs. The reality is how the change in regulations will impact local populations which are essential for the overall populations so details need to be specific to VNWR.

Why isn’t the Trumpeter Swan not being considered in the EA? A great expanse of wetland which should be suitable for this species. Few of them are known to occur. This is a species of concern which deserves attention as is has for decades. Will an increase in hunting possibly result in mistaken identity and subsequent deaths? This is an important item which has seemingly been ignored.

Summary

The planned implementation of the indicated regulatory changes is some misdirected missive not based upon any sort of reality and needs to be rejected, now. Make decisions based upon facts not delusional and preferential political actions. The natural resources need to be Number One in importance! There is not even any real indication how management changes might be adapted to nurture populations that will be impacted by further, so supposedly regulated killing. There will be several months during each year when wildlife will be chased so they can be killed for so-called sport.

That a decision has basically already been made with a readily apparent biased view does not respect the input of the public in the process. Any legal maneuver on a federal level should not occur until there is proper consideration given to any public comments. As federales, the USFWS is trampling on the resource and very ready to ignore public comment. There was not even any consideration given to postpone any decisions until a public meeting is properly held at a later time because of this troubling pandemic.

It is very obvious that the measures to be enacted will not be beneficial to the refuge and the reasons for which it was established. For the service to claim it is being done for the sustainability of wildlife populations is a bunch of bureaucratic propaganda. This is simply a ploy to benefit a single group, shootists, some who are like fleas on a hound, pests both not welcomed and not wanted. The preferential attention and consideration being given shows how prejudice is blatantly obvious.

Some associated with a federal whatever service are not focused on sustainable conservation management but will open more lands to the taking of wildlife from refuges that myriads of conservationists consider to be havens for all sorts of flora and fauna. The FWS is absconding the public trust in changing the regulations and simply should not have any role in caring for refuges because of their ignoring the inviolate mandate to ensure an essential resource legacy of all American citizens.

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge - Comments on Proposal to Revise Area Management Regulations

April 14, 2020. Email sent to three staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service including Steve Hicks, project leader.

Number one is the fact that Fort Niobrara as it is now called was established as a bird refuge more than one century ago. This was the single primary mandate. Refuge indicates it was a safe haven for many sorts of wildbirds including prominent game birds. It is very rare in North America to have a refuge place with such a legacy.

To revise management practices to allow the taking of many birds shows an obvious disrespect to the many people that have worked during the past century to protect the site’s natural values. Current mandates for one special use group should not have any priority over the original intent for this game reserve.

Draft Compatibility Determination for Resident Game and Migratory Bird Hunting

“EO 1461 established Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) on January 11, 1912, as the “Niobrara Reservation . . . a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” EO 1642 expanded the refuge on November 12, 1913” ... [page 1]

What part of this executive order does US Fish and Wildlife Service staff not understand? It says preserve and the definition of that word is given in any dictionary. This is the initial indicated mandate and later attempts to revise management to enact preferential uses shows a lack of respect to this legacy. Ongoing revisionary efforts continue to divert from the original reasons the preserve was created and as indicated repeatedly by government documents. Late era documents such as those indicated for 1997 and more recently do not supersede the original order, no matter how bureaucrats make interpretations to suit demands made by special interest groups in more recent years.

“The Service is proposing to expand hunting opportunities for resident game and migratory birds on the refuge in accordance with the Fort Niobrara NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.” [page 2]

This is a seemingly false statement as the CCP plan of 1997 has this reference to hunting opportunities: “Hunting Objective: Offer a limited, strictly controlled hunting opportunities for elk and bighorn sheep to facilitate removal of herd excess.” Another statement under a Public Use topic option is: The Refuge is closed to hunting” according to one alternative.

There is apparently nothing in the CCP plan that refers to the hunting of migratory birds. Now it seems to be an essential.
A January, 1998 supplementary document for the refuge CCP, further states: “Preserve, restore and enhance the ecological diversity and abundance of migratory and resident wildlife with emphasis on native birds.” The current status for public use hunting was indicated as being closed. One alternative would be to allow guided hunts for elk, deer, bison and bighorn sheep. Once again, no mention made in regards to wild birds hunting or hunting of furbearers.

“Hunting is allowed in the current open hunt area of the refuge; the NGPC established hunting.” [page 3]

How can the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission establish hunting on a federal refuge? Doubtful statement? Besides, the proposed regulation revisions could probably be beneficial to them through the sale of more licenses as they will have an opportunity to convey there are more hunting opportunities.

“As described above, this alternative will expand hunting opportunities in the current open hunt area on the refuge to include hunting of pronghorn, badger, beaver, bobcat, coyote, fox, longtailed weasel, mink, muskrat, opossum, prairie dog, porcupine, rabbit and hare, raccoon, skunk, squirrel, woodchuck, greater prairie chicken, grouse, partridge, pheasant, quail, turkey, waterfowl, dove, crow, rail, snipe, and woodcock. In addition, the refuge hunting program will better align with NGPC hunting regulations. The potential take of most resident and migratory wildlife species open to hunting on the refuge is likely negligible in proportion to regional or state harvest numbers and will not add significantly to the cumulative effects on the various species.” [page 4]

Refuge management should focus on improving conditions for species locally so they can contribute to population status on a regional or national level. The refuge should not be managed to reduce local numbers based upon regional or national numbers. To manage based upon a larger geographic indicates that local populations can be impacted. If everyone managed on a basis of this intent, local populations could be reduced and eventually populations of a large extent would be impacted and likely reduced. Disingenuous rationale prevails here.

Draft Environmental Assessment for Resident Game and Migratory Bird Hunting

“2.1 Alternatives Considered” [page 5]

The reason for the current actions to expand hunting on the refuge is a direct result of a directive by the Secretary of Interior as determined by news reports. It is seemingly not being done at the request of the NGPC, though they may have made requests previously to which the USFW interpreted as to require some compliance.

“State-permitted shotguns shooting non-toxic shot, archery, and muzzleloader weapons are allowed for badger, bobcat, coot, crow, dark geese, dove, duck, fox, furbearer, greater prairie chicken, grouse, long-tailed weasel, light geese, mink, opossum, partridge, pheasant, quail, rabbit and hare, raccoon, rail, skunk, snipe, squirrel, teal, turkey, woodcock, coyote, porcupine, prairie dog, and woodchuck.” [page 6]

It is a federal decision to allow this hunting. New regulations are obviously being modified to comply with state hunting rules season. The EA seems to try to implicate the state agency as being the source of the requested change.

Why does the environmental assessment not indicate the source of given informational details? Any authoritative details need to be attributed to a credible source.

Table 1 indicates a completely problematic potentiality: “Given the near of the refuge’s hunt area to the City of Valentine and limited availability of other public lands in area, we would expect a possible 50 percent reduction in the existing wild turkey population and 50 percent reduction in the northern bobwhite population within the hunt area. Gunfire and associated hunter activity would disrupt bird activity and likely cause dispersal.”

What does “given the near of the refuge’s” statement mean? No decision can be made on these words because they are nonsensical, and which makes the entire statement erroneous.

This is not managed hunting but a decimation. There is no sustainability indicated here. A 50% reduction! Just extirpate local populations. Certainly there are lots of wild turkeys locally, but that does not mean there should be a diminution that could lead to an overall population decline, and which might be detrimental to adjacent landowners.

As for Northern Bobwhite, there is only a limited population in the local area. This is based on particular, documented records of occurrence for Valentine and its immediate vicinity, including just south of FNNWR. To reduce the population to the extent indicated would be a travesty. The proposed alternative has nothing to do with sustainability though the mis-named purpose for sustainability was given in a press release announcing this of a change as issued in public newspapers and online. The expected outcome would be one of the worse instances ever seen locally in regards to acceptable wildlife management practices. Management intents are meant to maintain or increase population of a species … not destroy a local population. Quail deserve protection not destruction.

There are no known records for the Grey Partridge on the refuge. There is only one instance of occurrence in the local region along the Niobrara River of Cherry county and that is from 1982. It is not acceptable for so-called managers of a bird preserve to allow shooting of a particular bird type that is so rare, and actually unexpected. There needs to be a prohibition on hunting this species.

As for the American Woodcock, there is a single known instance on the refuge from 2006 near Buffalo Bridge and in the wilderness area by a bird watcher of intent. Including this species would be another instance where the changes to promote hunting could destroy the very rare occurrence locally. There needs to be a prohibition on hunting for this species.

The environmental assessment is not adequate as it does not even the majestic Trumpeter Swan. It is a species of concern and can occur at the refuge ponds, just to the east at a local pond on private property and also along the Niobrara River. This shows another instance how the EA is not acceptably adequate.

An increase in hunting of game birds can result in accidental killing by hunters. Mistakes are made in the moments when birds flush, resulting in a wrong shot. Hunters will not say anything about this but just ignore it and continue to find a suitable target. This is another reason that there should be no increase in wildbird hunting at Fort Niobrara NWR, a supposed refuge.

What is a “hare” referred to in the proposal. There are no hares in Cherry county nor in Nebraska. This is another false indication given in the indication for a pending regulation change.

There is no indication given for the potential impact of taking by hunting of furbearers. How will the local population be affected? No details given indicate conjecture. This is no acceptable in making any suitable evaluation for the pending regulations.

“While effects to wilderness values and character would be expected to increase because of expanded hunting opportunities and no longer requiring a refuge access permit, refuge visitors would still be required to abide by wilderness area rules, such as the prohibition of motorized vehicles and bicycles.” [page 19]

Effects expected and they would be more than temporary. No passive hiking during hunting season because of the noise and honestly, the threat of being shot. A bird watcher on a hike should not need to wear a hunter orange vest and cap. The expected decision would continue the decline in features of this special area as officially recognized and designated. Once again, refuge management continues the ruination of a place where particular values were known more than a century ago.

A doubling of the number of hunters [page 21]. This would mean reasons for visitors appreciating other recreational activities would be diminished.

“As a result, changes or additions to hunting on the refuge would have minor effects on migratory birds in Nebraska. Although the proposed action alternative would increase hunting opportunities compared to the current action alternative, the slight increase in hunter activity would not rise to a significant level.” [page 30]

This statement is based upon opinion. If there are one or two American Woodcock on the refuge and both are killed by a blast from a shotgun, it would be a long time until a single view of this beautiful bird might be seen again by a bird watcher or someone on a hike. The result does not conform with the requisite bird preserve mandate.

“Expanded hunting opportunities on the refuge could alleviate hunting pressure to wildlife populations on nearby public lands.” [page 31]

Is this a comment based not on fact but rather presumption? What are nearby hunting lands where there are Greater Prairie-Chicken within ten miles? Birds have a home range and upon which they are dependent for their survival. To what other public land species does this apply.

Are these state or federal property? The nearest federal property is miles away so the USFWS seems to want to start making decisions that will influence state or private property where they have no basis for decision making.

“The Service would work with the NGPC to use an adaptive management approach for the hunting program on the refuge.” [page 31]

Hunting has an immediate impact. How shooting sport relate to management is another faux statement. Climate change is related to habitat management, not recreational activities, though of course all facets of concern need to be considered in detail. The EA provides statements which are grasping for pertinence but are included to just convey required regulatory requirements.

“3.4 Mitigation Measures and Conditions Refuge staff would work in close cooperation with the NGPC to share, evaluate, and discuss available population and harvest data, make recommendations for regulation changes, and take any other actions necessary to make sure that viable populations of resident and migratory game species are maintained on the refuge.”

When and how? Statements of this sort need to indicate what is to happen and when. When will the details for this be provided to the public? How has the NGPC said that they agree to this precept.

“3.5 Monitoring inventory and monitoring of wildlife and their habitats would be done on the refuge in conjunction with our state and federal partners.”

Did the refuge staff conduct a migratory bird survey in 2019? When have surveys been done so that information can be indicated that the service is actually doing the survey they claim are being done? Does a survey once every five or ten years suffice?

Please provide further details on the 2018 consultation with NGPC on their request for more hunting opportunities on service lands? Show the facts.

Summary

The proposed regulatory changes should be rejected in their entirety. The proposal as personally considered does not indicate any respect for the legacy of the Niobrara Game Reserve created so long ago by people with vision.

If management trends continue, it seems that the USFWS should bring in center-pivot systems because then maybe could increase populations of preferred species so there can be more taking through hunting. Maybe plant some corn fields to attract pheasants or deer and maybe some elk. Deplorable options.

The proposed change in regulations would open land to taking while other decisions have been made to prevent bird watchers from taking a hike because some refuge spaces are closed to the public. Why? The word that might apply here is paradox.
There has already been enough diminution of the wildbird resources and other natural values through recent years at this first of bird refuges in the U.S.A.

When will the USFWS get back to the basics and take a long-term view that conforms to the original intent of the refuge? It is a necessity that should now be the norm, but alas it is not.

Respect the legacy is impossible since the USFWS has already decided what is going to happen according to information in the Federal Register. The situation is indicative how the agency proclaims a mission statement which does not reflect reality because of false language.
Regulatory action to promote more taking by hunting needs to be delayed until public hearings can be held. It is not acceptable that the proposed changes for the regulations are already issued in the federal register before public comments have been considered.

The USFWS federales are forcing changes based upon false statements and lack of essential consideration.

Birds are a public asset and of great importance. To let some bureaucrats make decisions about our feathered friends is not acceptable because there is too much politics going on. How wrong!

That a decision has basically already been made with a readily apparent biased view does not respect the input of the public in the process. Any legal maneuver on a federal level should not occur until there is proper consideration given to any public comments. As federales, the USFWS is trampling on the resource and very ready to ignore public comment. There was not even any consideration given to postpone any decisions until a public meeting is properly held at a later time because of this troubling pandemic.

It is very obvious that the measures to be enacted will not be beneficial to the refuge and the reasons for which it was established. For the service to claim it is being done for the sustainability of wildlife populations is a bunch of bureaucratic propaganda. This is simply a ploy to benefit a single group, shootists, some who are like fleas on a hound, pests both not welcomed and not wanted. The preferential attention and consideration being given shows how prejudice is blatantly obvious.

Some associated with a federal whatever service are not focused on sustainable conservation management but will open more lands to the taking of wildlife from refuges that myriads of conservationists consider to be havens for all sorts of flora and fauna. The FWS is absconding the public trust in changing the regulations and simply should not have any role in caring for refuges because of their ignoring the inviolate mandate to ensure an essential resource legacy of all American citizens.

John W. and Louise Seier National Wildlife Refuge - Comments on Proposal to Revise Area Management Regulations

April 14, 2020. Email sent to three staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service including Steve Hicks, project leader.

Number one, why would a 2400 acre refuge that has been closed for public use for a multitude of years and still is, allow hunting but not other recreational pursuits including bird watching, photography, hiking, perhaps scientific research, etc. A changed situation for one group would obviously be discriminatory and violate my civil rights as a citizen.

The public has been prohibited to visit public property since the US Fish and Wildlife Service took control has failed in its management by not preparing a site management plan to allow multiuse activities. Yet the agency goes through the process for a single special use.

Draft Compatibility Determination for Hunting on John W. and Louise Seier National Wildlife Refuge

“’The refuge was established pursuant to The John W. and Louise Seier Living Trust. The primary purpose of the refuge is “. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources . . .” (16 U.S. Code a 742fl:[a][4]) ‘. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services.” [page 1]

This is an indicative comment of error as the refuge was not established to the benefit of the USFWS but for the benefit of the natural resources of sandhills land held in trust for the American public.

“The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on the refuge. The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife dependent recreational uses” (16 U.S. Code 668dd[a][4]). [page 2]

“Direct impacts on refuge populations of some species (for example, turkey and deer) will not be known until the hunting program is implemented.”

These impacts should be known before they occur. This is a key tenet to prevent any unwanted consequences and threats to natural resources.

Draft Environmental Assessment for Hunting on the John W. and Louise Seier National Wildlife Refuge

“The Service is proposing to open hunting opportunities for game species on the John W. and Louise Seier National Wildlife Refuge (Seier NWR) in accordance with the refuge’s conceptual management plan.” [page 3]

There is no management plan yet the USFWS has decided to open the area for hunting. There has been no public input on the management of a property donated for public uses of the area yet a federal edict will now be issued to benefit a select group. Proper decisions are not based upon some conceptual nothing.

“1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

“The purpose of this proposed action is to provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Seier NWR. The need of the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the Refuge System for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses” (16 U.S. Code 668dd[a][4]).” [page 5]

Once again compatible uses are more than hunting. Birding and other recreational pursuits cannot be appreciated if the public is prohibited from any appreciation of a place donated to the USFWS for public enjoyment. The service ignoring multiple uses indicates their lack of attention to all compatible recreational uses.

“Mitigation Measures to Avoid Conflicts:

“Because the refuge is not currently open to any public use, opening the refuge to hunting would not conflict with other uses.” [page 6]

How it is being opened to hunters only is sordidly shown by this statement.

Elk and antelope occurrence. These two species might be a wildlife value to the refuge, but though transient. Allowing hunting could effectively remove these species from the local landscape.

Wild Turkey hunting could also have a detrimental impact on this species. A decision is being made without any details given for the extent of occurrence of this wildbird in the local area.

A table shows the estimated extent of furbearers or migratory birds that would be taken by hunting are minimal to sport hunters [pages 13-14]. For this reason, there should be no hunting in order to retain the conservation integrity of the refuge.

“Therefore, we consider that opening the refuge to migratory bird hunting would not significantly affect the overall migratory bird populations at the flyway and national levels.” [page 14]

Hunting of waterfowl would dramatically alter the species occurrence and distribution on the refuge when hunting events occurred.

It would also have a significant and potentially ongoing disturbance factor.

“Overall, hunting impacts on other wildlife and their habitats and impacts on the biological diversity of the refuge would be insignificant.” [page 16]

This is an opinion. There are no factual details given in the environmental assessment on the direct impacts at the refuge! Who is the arbitrator on insignificant? It certainly should not be the USFWS because they are making the decision. There needs to be an independent consideration!

“American burying beetles probably occur on the refuge. They are seemingly common in the Nebraska Sandhills.” [page 16]

This comment of opinion once again shows how little the USFWS understands the biotic resources present on Seier refuge and how they can be best managed. Probably is an opinion not fact.

“We anticipate a few hundred hunter use days per year to start. This number may go up, but due to the small size of the refuge, hunter presence would decrease the abundance of huntable game. Because the open hunt area is highly visible and is otherwise off-limits all year to other members of the public, allowing hunters may cause a perception of favoritism for one user group over another. This could be alleviated in the future, if necessary, by opening the area to the general public for other uses such as photography, wildlife observation, and interpretation.” [page 19]

No kidding. Favoritism is obviously being shown. Let hunters visit but not other people interested in a variety of other sorts of outdoor recreation. This is blatant and deplorable preferential treatment that can only be called prejudice.

“The addition of hunting under this alternative would likely benefit the state and local economy through revenues generated by hunter lodging, food, gas, and miscellaneous purchasing.” [page 21]

Minimal hunting visits are projected, yet rather than focus on local economic impact statewide figures are given. What is the threshold for minimal as an earlier statement said few hundred, which is not minimal.

Since the refuge has been closed to the public there is no opportunity for passive uses to contribute to the local economy if people want to walk the prairie and enjoy the creek places. Once again selective bias on the information presented is dramatically obvious.

“The Service believes that hunting on the refuge would not add significantly to the cumulative impacts of migratory bird management on local, regional, or Central Flyway populations.” [page 22]

This is an opinion that once again shows bias. No land management decision should be based on beliefs. The agency does not have any information to indicate in any manner how the refuge might contribute to local bird populations. Is there a heron rookery? Are Dickcissels ample in number? Do snipe find it to be a haven? Do bobolink raise young and contribute to the species’ numbers because the meadows are not mown? How does the service know there are an adequate number of woodcock to support hunting? The same focus can be applied to other species, including prairie grouse.

“Research has shown that lead can be present in gut piles left by deer hunters after field dressing. Bald eagles and other raptors feed on the gut piles and may ingest the lead, leading to poisoning.” [page 23]

Use of lead ammunition should never occur on a wildlife refuge for the reason herewith indicated and perhaps others.

“The Service would adjust the hunting program as necessary to ensure that it would not contribute further to the cumulative impacts of climate change on resident wildlife and migratory birds.” [page 24]

Another comment with no basis. How and when would this occur? Annually or in five years? In ten years? This is another statement not based upon a factual statement by the USFWS.

Hunting and furbearer harvest is also based upon estimates of conjecture and not factual. Why?

“We anticipate that this action” [alternative A] “would have minimal impacts on the refuge. The potential take of most resident and migratory wildlife species open to hunting on the refuge is likely negligible in proportion to regional or state harvest numbers and would not add significantly to the cumulative effects on the various species. [page 25]

Once again, an opinion not based on facts is indicated. Anticipate is an unknown and/or vague concept with no actual details of factual reality presented to support the claim. The impact on local bird occurrence would be much more than “negligible” and could reduce some populations in the long term.

Summary

Respect the refuge and its resources. The Seiers should not have given their ranch to the USFWS because their expectations have not been met and are now being disrespected by federal bureaucrats. A number one reason for this special refuge is not being met. And yes, I have visited the place to bird watch before the federales closed the place to the public should be able to appreciate the eastern sandhills refuge space.

That a decision has basically already been made with a readily apparent biased view does not respect the input of the public in the process. Any legal maneuver on a federal level should not occur until there is proper consideration given to any public comments. As federales, the USFWS is trampling on the resource and very ready to ignore public comment. There was not even any consideration given to postpone any decisions until a public meeting is properly held at a later time during this troubling pandemic time.

It is very obvious that the measures to be enacted will not be beneficial to the refuge and the reasons for which it was established. For the service to claim it is being done for the sustainability of wildlife populations is a bunch of bureaucratic propaganda. This is simply a ploy to benefit a single group, shootists, some who are like fleas on a hound, pests both not welcomed and not wanted. The preferential attention and consideration being given shows how prejudice is blatantly obvious.

Some associated with a federal whatever service are not focused on sustainable conservation management but will open more lands to the taking of wildlife from refuges that myriads of conservationists consider to be havens for all sorts of flora and fauna. The FWS is absconding the public trust in changing the regulations and simply should not have any role in caring for refuges because of their ignoring the inviolate mandate to ensure an essential resource legacy of all American citizens.

Site Management for Missouri River Wildlands to Revert to Corps

Mitigation lands along the Missouri river are being returned to management by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Following the Corps purchase of five areas along the Missouri River, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission agreed to be responsible for active management. The sites include William Gilmour/Tobacco Island south of Plattsmouth, Hamburg Bend in Otoe County as well as Kansas Bend, Upper Brownville Bend and Langdon Bend in Nemaha County.

Staff at the Corps Missouri River Project Office north of Omaha will be responsible for area management on October 1, 2019. The Corps has established many additional mitigation areas associated with the Missouri River.

“We plan to make the management change as transparent as possible,” said Larry Janis, recreation and natural resource branch chief with the Corps. There may be some difference in the area roadways and grassland management practices. A significant item prompting the change was that current Nebraska agricultural agreements would not allow “trade services to be done with local entities,” he said.

NGPC has managed some of these sites for more than 20 years, or since the 1990s, according to Pat Molini, assistant division administrator for the agency. The agency also owns other properties, including the Peru Bottoms WMA. “These sites are special places for birds along the river.”

There are currently no planned changes in management responsibilities at the five areas including no expected dramatic change in the outdoor activities available – including bird watching, fishing, hiking, hunting and nature study – on these public lands. Similar areas are owned and managed on the Iowa side of the river by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Camping will continued to not be allowed. Collecting of any flora and fauna is also not allowed.

Further information on Omaha District mitigation areas associated with the Missouri River is available at the Missouri River Recovery Program website.

Governor Ricketts Speaks About Wind Turbines at Community Meeting

When Governor Pete Ricketts held a community meeting at Valentine, there were three questions asked that dealt with wind turbines: 1). What was his position on the placement of turbines within the sandhills and if he was to make any decisions on turbines, how could Cherry county residents know that these would be made without bias; 2) what was his view on legislative bill 504 as introduced by senator Tom Brewer; and, 3) what taxes will be paid on wind turbine facilities.

The governor indicated that “zoning needs to be done locally” and that local residents should work on the issue and decide the rules. In regards to the R-Project, he said that this transmission line has nothing to do with wind turbines, but is instead a “duplicate path for power transmission.”

Specifically mentioned was the necessity for the Omaha Public Power District to provide a renewable energy source for the new Facebook facility to be built in eastern Nebraska. This was a “demand” made by the corporation to build their facility in the state.

Ricketts said he has not considered LB 504 in any detail. He did suggest that there may be alternatives to address the study portion of the legislative bill, perhaps through a university study. The governor indicated that property and sales taxes would be paid, however, the person that asked the question did not accept the answer as he was heard later stating that he would visit with county officials to get the particulars.

After the formal meeting, Twyla Witt discussed wind turbine aspects with the governor. One comment conveyed is that the r-project will be used to promote construction of turbine facilities, as the line will provide a means for energy transportation. Also mentioned was that a lot of people are not happy about the possibility to have turbines in the sandhills. Two other items Witt mentioned were the impact that turbines could have on a unique landscape and how that may influence tourism, and the situation with the conflict-of-interests associated with the Cherry county commissioners.

One attendee was a member of the board of the Bureau of Educational Lands and Funds. Subsequent to a decision by this agency to place turbines on property they manage, he indicated that details learned since this initial decision convey that the approval may not have been the proper choice.

About 25 people attended the Valentine meeting during the late afternoon on April 18th; present were Cherry county commissioners Tanya Storer (who introduced the governor) and Martin DeNaeyer, Mayor Kyle Argenbright and local print and radio media. Several wind turbine proponents and opponents were also present. The governor’s next stop was North Platte.

Yearly Comparison of Wildbirds at Twin Oaks WMA

Two recent visits to Twin Oaks WMA, Johnson county, Nebraska, provide current bird records that when combined with sightings made years ago, provide an interesting list of the local wildbirds.

This tally of 101 species is based upon more than 750 records, derived from observations on 55 different days. The largest number of species have occurred in May and June; notably from May 18^th to June 7^th. No records are available for November or December.

During the March 26^th visit during a field trip of the Wachiska Audubon Society, 31 species were recorded, according to a list graciously provided by Shari Schwartz. There had also been a scouting trip made on March 20^th. Some of the new additions to the avifauna list for this locality included the Canada Goose, Northern Pintail, Cooper’s Hawk, Eurasian Collared Dove (which would not have been present in the vicinity during the 1980s), Brown Creeper, Carolina Wren, Golden-crowned Kinglet and Fox Sparrow.

This is a composite list of species as noted during different years, with the value given indicating the number of times the species was observed. Further details are available on the number of birds counted.

Common Name	1981	1982	1985	2003	2017
Snow Goose	--	--	--	1	--
Canada Goose	--	--	--	--	1
Wood Duck	--	2	--	--	1
Mallard	1	--	--	--	--
Blue-winged Teal	--	2	--	--	--
Northern Pintail	--	--	--	--	1
Ring-necked Pheasant	1	--	--	--	--
Wild Turkey	--	3	--	--	--
Northern Bobwhite	1	3	--	--	--
Double-crested Cormorant	1	--	--	--	--
Great Blue Heron	4	1	--	1	--
Green Heron	1	--	--	--	--
Turkey Vulture	6	4	--	--	2
Northern Harrier	--	--	--	1	--
Sharp-shinned Hawk	4	--	--	--	--
Cooper's Hawk	--	--	--	--	1
Broad-winged Hawk	1	--	--	--	--
Red-tailed Hawk	2	7	--	1	2
American Kestrel	1	1	--	1	1
Killdeer	7	7	--	--	2
Spotted Sandpiper	3	1	--	--	--
Solitary Sandpiper	1	--	--	--	--
Upland Sandpiper	6	5	--	--	--
Franklin's Gull	2	--	--	--	--
Eurasian Collared-Dove	--	--	--	--	1
Mourning Dove	11	8	--	--	1
Yellow-billed Cuckoo	5	6	--	--	--
Black-billed Cuckoo	3	--	--	--	--
Eastern Screech-Owl	--	--	--	1	--
Great Horned Owl	5	6	--	1	--
Barred Owl	--	1	--	--	--
Common Nighthawk	3	1	--	--	--
Common Poorwill	--	2	--	--	--
Eastern Whip-poor-will	1	2	--	--	--
Chimney Swift	5	5	--	--	--
Belted Kingfisher	3	1	--	--	2
Red-headed Woodpecker	8	8	--	--	--
Red-bellied Woodpecker	5	8	--	1	1
Downy Woodpecker	8	6	--	1	--
Northern Flicker	11	7	--	1	1
Eastern Wood-Pewee	--	4	--	--	--
Least Flycatcher	--	1	--	--	--
Eastern Phoebe	9	2	--	--	2
Great Crested Flycatcher	3	5	--	--	--
Eastern Kingbird	11	8	--	--	--
Loggerhead Shrike	3	4	--	--	--
Warbling Vireo	1	2	--	--	--
Philadelphia Vireo	1	--	--	--	--
Blue Jay	12	9	--	1	2
American Crow	7	8	--	1	2
Northern Rough-winged Swallow	5	4	--	--	--
Barn Swallow	13	7	--	--	--
Black-capped Chickadee	11	9	--	1	1
Tufted Titmouse	1	1	--	--	1
White-breasted Nuthatch	5	9	--	--	1
Brown Creeper	--	--	--	--	1
Carolina Wren	--	--	--	--	2
House Wren	10	6	--	--	--
Golden-crowned Kinglet	--	--	--	--	1
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher	4	--	--	--	--
Eastern Bluebird	9	6	1	1	1
Veery	--	1	--	--	--
Swainson's Thrush	--	1	--	--	--
Hermit Thrush	1	--	--	--	--
American Robin	8	7	--	1	1
Gray Catbird	7	1	--	--	--
Northern Mockingbird	6	5	1	--	--
Brown Thrasher	5	8	--	--	--
European Starling	3	3	--	--	1
Cedar Waxwing	1	1	--	--	--
Yellow Warbler	1	3	--	--	--
Yellow-rumped Warbler	--	--	--	1	--
Black-and-white Warbler	--	1	--	--	--
American Redstart	--	1	--	--	--
Common Yellowthroat	4	4	--	--	--
Eastern Towhee	3	2	--	--	--
American Tree Sparrow	1	4	--	1	--
Chipping Sparrow	--	1	--	--	--
Clay-colored Sparrow	2	--	--	--	--
Field Sparrow	9	7	--	--	--
Lark Sparrow	6	2	--	--	--
Savannah Sparrow	--	2	--	--	--
Grasshopper Sparrow	9	8	--	--	--
Fox Sparrow	--	--	--	--	2
Song Sparrow	5	1	--	--	1
Harris's Sparrow	1	2	--	1	--
Dark-eyed Junco	--	1	--	1	2
Northern Cardinal	11	7	--	1	1
Rose-breasted Grosbeak	2	5	--	--	--
Indigo Bunting	2	4	--	--	--
Dickcissel	5	5	--	--	--
Bobolink	1	--	--	--	--
Red-winged Blackbird	10	8	--	1	1
Eastern Meadowlark	10	8	--	1	1
Western Meadowlark	7	5	--	--	--
Common Grackle	8	7	--	1	--
Brown-headed Cowbird	10	7	--	--	--
Orchard Oriole	4	5	--	--	--
Baltimore Oriole	8	6	--	--	--
American Goldfinch	5	5	--	1	1
House Sparrow	7	6	--	--	1

This larger-sized wildlife area has a very nice diversity of habitats, including a small native prairie and - along its western edge - a section of the Nemaha river. Because of the variety of plant communities, research was conducted in the early 1980s to evaluate the species of wildbirds and how their occurrence was influenced by typical habitat management practices carried out by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (i.e.; “The effects of habitat management on nongame birds” which was graduate school work done by James E. Ducey and as published as a M.S. thesis issued in August, 1984). A majority of the bird records available are from this project.

It would be interesting and valuable to get further details of the local – modern-era - avifauna during the mid-mid to early June breeding season period.

Bald Eagle Numbers Soar in Nebraska

The number of Bald Eagle nesting within Nebraska had a dramatic increase in 2016. There were 158 active nests recorded, compared to 118 in 2015, according to a report recently issued by the nongame wildlife program of the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Records on nesting activity and locales have been kept for at least a decade, with agency surveys and a compilation of contributed information methodology being used by agency staff since 2012.

In north-central Nebraska, these eagles nested in Brown county (two sites), Keya Paha county (two sites), Cherry county (at ten localities), as well as Grant and Hooker counties which each had one known nest. There were no known nests in Thomas or Sheridan counties.

In addition to surveys by the state agency, information was also provided by federal agency staff, non-governmental groups and public power districts. Numerous individuals also contributed useful information. Carolyn Semin contributed details on a new nest in the south Kilgore vicinity. Information for Cherry county was also provided by staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service. Special thanks was given to "Dr. Joseph Gubanyi and his biology students for monitoring several nests in eastern Nebraska and to a Niobrara High School science class for monitoring nests in northeast Nebraska," the report said.

An active nest can be used for many years, with more sticks piled on annually, so nests often become quite large and thus very obvious to observers.

This raptor starts nesting in late winter, so pairs are currently establishing their home territory and repairing or preparing their nest. It takes many weeks to incubate a clutch of eggs and then nourish the young to an age when they fledge and fly away from their nest haven.

Nests in Cherry county notably occur along the Niobrara River and in the lake country of the eastern and central portion of the county. There may be nests near lakes in the southwest portion of the county, but are likely not realized due to the lack of bird-watching activity in the area. An especially nice, repeatedly successful nest is in the Niobrara valley, atop a fine tree just a short distance south of the heart city. In the interior sandhills, nests occur by lakes that have a large tree that can support the mass of sticks of a nest. In the eastern extent of the region, the species occurs along many of the primary rivers.

The first modern-era nest of this eagle apparently occurred in 1991 in eastern Nebraska, according to the report. The number of known nests has continued to increase each subsequent year. The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was removed from the federal list of threatened or endangered species in 2007, and from a corresponding Nebraska list in 2008.

Primary Educational Lands are Nebraska Public Property

In order to define the “ownership” status of school lands, an investigation was done to determine how property was conveyed from its ownership by the United States of America.

There are three known methods:

1. the Nebraska constitution when the state was established in 1867
   
2. an abstract as filed in association with Cherry county deed records
   
3. through conveyance from a private landowner to the state or the agency responsible for management of school lands
   

Nebraska’s Constitution

When an Act of Congress was passed to establish the state, section 7 provides in part, that:

“And be it further enacted, that sections number sixteen and thirty-six in every township ... shall be, and are hereby granted to said state for the support of common schools.”

This is according to an opinion issued from the Attorney General Office of Nebraska, in 1989, as submitted by Robert M. Spire, the AG at the time. This document — available online — includes this statement:

“The fact that these lands are held in trust pursuant to the Nebraska Constitution and Enabling act has the effect of incorporating the rules of law regulating the administration of trusts and the conduct and duties of trustees.”

This is indicative that the Board of Educational Lands and Funds has specific responsibilities of a trust, which would include a regular trust report?

Land Parcel Sales Transactions

Another method of transference is shown by abstract filings in Cherry county deed records indicating when particular parcels were transferred from the U.S. government or as being made available for purchase.

Numerous property parcels had been selected by the state of Nebraska “for the support of schools” in July 1893. The filing as dutifully denoted by the deed office records comprised 38 parcels and 12,640 acres. Each parcel was individually denoted to a section within a township and range (Cherry county deed record book I, page 386, etc.). There were some additional parcels listed in association for an overall total of 13,638.18 acres. They were identified as “Clear List No. 2 of Valentine Nebraska, School Indemnity selections.” They were selected for sale.

Another filing on public lands occurred in February, 1899 indicated property parcels that would henceforth be listed as school lands (Deed record book I, pages 395-401). The list of parcels spanned multiple pages.

The deed book record states:

“… the government of the United States confirms title in the State of Nebraska to the lands therein mentioned except that the annexed list of lands aggregating 13,907.55 acres mentioned only in the lands in Cherry County, which are confirmed to the state by said document, while this list of lands is one of the documents above mentioned and is on file in my office.”

The signature was by J.V. Wolfe, commissioner of public lands and buildings, from his government office in Lincoln. An additional signature was that by E.H. Nelson, deputy.

This list included multiple 16 and 36 parcels, with a list of the considered acreage as parcel size varied. Each parcel, with – “title in the state of Nebraska” - were subject to sale at Valentine, Nebraska. Some of the parcels also continued to be owned by the state, subsequent to 2000 A.D.

The Board of Educational Lands and Funds continues to regularly offer trust parcels for sale. There are also still significant tracts of state land, with one large area with more than 30 parcels westward of the confluence of the Snake River at the Niobrara River, northward to Church Flat, and then a few miles to the south (south of the Prairie Club); one parcel was sold to the Prairie Club Golf Course. Sixteen parcels occur along the North Loup River, in T28N R31W, near were historic DeWitty once occurred. Also along eastern Big Creek, westward of Brownlee (12 parcels).

Numerous examples of some of the parcels listed remained to be the property of the state, as indicated in recent plat books. In other cases, such as associated with the Fawn Lake Ranch, R.E. “Ted” Turner bought – early in the summer of 2006 – 15 parcels comprising more than 5680 acres with the within or immediately adjacent to the ranch property. A few parcels were also purchased that were associated with the Spikebox Ranch and Dan Hill Ranch, in Sheridan county.

Land Transfers

When considering method 3, one particular situation has a degree of vagueness. In April 1989, multiple parcels within T25N R28W were conveyed by “warranty deed” to the BELF, according to records carefully denoted by staff of the Cherry county register of deeds office (deed book I, page 765). The ownership of multiple parcels was transferred from Hanna Ranches Ltd. to Board of Educational Lands and Funds. There were more than a dozen parcels indicated, comprising more than 5200 acres. The transfer occurred with a consideration of one dollar. Signers of the official document were Samuel K. Hanna and Tom D. Hanna, representing Hanna Ranches Ltd.

Some other associated land transfers with this property area were associated with property exchanges, as designated in the official record, notably land exchanges as specifically indicated.

BELF parcels within T25N R28W have subsequently been indicated – based upon online Federal Aviation Administration records - as the location for a potential wind turbine farm. A permit to place a meteorological tower in section 36, T25N R29W was approved May 26, 2015 by the Cherry County Board of Commissioners.

School Land Management

Key historic documents indicate that school lands have been identified as public property owned by the residents of Nebraska, based upon the state of Nebraska constitution, parcel identification indicated in several plat map books, and details indicated in the official deed records.

The land is owned by the citizens of Nebraska, yet they have not taken advantage of the many opportunities to present comments that would have been useful for directing management.

Considerations — or even concerns — regarding management of the parcels include:

1. What are the criteria evaluated regarding use and management of school lands?
   
2. How does BELF provide opportunities for input, including public meetings, regarding the fate of property parcels this state agency manages? This is especially appropriate as parcels are regularly being sold to private entities?
   
3. How does BELF provide opportunities for public comment in the local area where land parcel transactions occur? If property is to be sold in Cherry county, there should be a meeting in this regard within the county.
   
4. How does BELF recognize any unique biological or cultural features associated with the land parcels which it manages?
   
5. How does BELF suitably conserve unique features associated with the land parcels it manages? Does consultation with land management agencies, such as the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, or the Fish and Wildlife Service occur?
   
6. How can the public actively contribute to any actions associated with school lands activities, including resource conservation and decisions on whether or not a parcel should be sold?
   
7. What land management practices should occur on school lands, especially those tracts where there are multiple parcels in an associated tract? Decisions need to be made based upon more factors than simply economics.
   
8. What is the difference in property originally transferred to the state when Nebraska was established, and property transferred to the Bureau of Educational Lands and Funds?
   
9. Other points that need to be considered, etc..
   

It should also be noted that there is legislation that authorizes the purchase of a section of school land property on an annual basis by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

The key facet is that the management and use of school lands requires an opportunity for a public dialog on their management, which should include active input and commentary by residents of Nebraska.

This has not been the case, thus far. The only notifications that BELF issues in a public manner is a notice of a parcel sale, indicating the property details, sparse particulars and the date of the auction. There is no indication given on what was considered that led to a decision that this public property should be sold.

Primarily, when was a public hearing held regarding any decision on listing public lands as places where wind turbines could be placed?

July Birds in the Valentine Vicinity

July meant a month predominantly different due to the regular occurrence of fledglings for a variety of species. This meant increased numbers present and the antics of the youngsters wanting food from their parents. Adult birds were also more obvious as they were busy going to and from nests, providing suitable care.

• Canada Goose adults with smallish young earlier in the month at the Mill Pond, which foraged on ample grass as they continued their growth
  
• Wood Duck fledglings and then juveniles continued at the Mill Pond during the month
  
• Wild Turkey hen with six juveniles about 12" in height on the later survey dates; seen on two different dates though any of this game bird had been very sparse previously
  
• Red-tailed Hawk raised a young and were seen being defensive about where the juveniles was lingering at the end of the month
  
• Chimney Swift number significantly increased along Main Street by mid-month, indicating that fledging had occurred from area chimneys
  
• Western Kingbird and Eastern Kingbird; family groups including juveniles just after mid-month
  
• Purple Martin bunches had congregated about Valentine and to the north by the 23rd; they could be heard and seen foraging, as well as sitting upon powerlines near the houses where they had nested
  
• House Wren were busy feeding nestling during the early part of the month and by months' end were once again territorial at other nest sites
  
• Eastern Bluebird had fledglings from their second nesting by mid-month
  
• Black-capped Chickadee had fledglings (including begging young) towards the end of the month
  
• Red-winged Blackbird juveniles were numerous soon after the month was underway
  
• Common Grackle congregated in flocks during the first days of July, but became sparse during the latter part of the month
  

Hot weather meant fewer outings — mostly within Valentine and those green spaces on the north edge of the city — thus no visit to the fish hatchery or Government Canyon. A certain lethargy sets in when temperatures are in the upper 90s and there is high humidity that combine to create a heat index in excess of 100^o. When these conditions linger for days, and when there is little decent cooling overnight, the malaise worsens due to a lack of quality sleep. The first days of August are forecast to have these conditions!

These are the 60 species noted during last month, as listed in taxonomic sequence according to the International Ornithological Council, not the American Ornithological Union.

Common Name	188	189	205	212
Canada Goose	- -	28	4	1
Wood Duck	- -	6	- -	6
Mallard	- -	1	- -	- -
Wild Turkey	- -	- -	7	7
Great Blue Heron	- -	1	- -	1
Turkey Vulture	5	- -	11	2
Red-tailed Hawk	1	- -	1	2
Killdeer	- -	- -	1	- -
Spotted Sandpiper	- -	1	- -	- -
Rock Dove	- -	- -	12	- -
Eurasian Collared Dove	4	2	11	6
Mourning Dove	4	- -	5	6
Yellow-billed Cuckoo	1	- -	1	1
Common Nighthawk	- -	- -	1	1
Chimney Swift	2	- -	19	4
Ruby-throated Hummingbird	- -	1	- -	- -
Belted Kingfisher	- -	- -	1	- -
Red-headed Woodpecker	- -	- -	1	- -
Downy Woodpecker	1	- -	2	1
Hairy Woodpecker	- -	1	- -	1
Northern Flicker	- -	1	1	1
Eastern Phoebe	- -	- -	1	- -
Eastern Wood-Pewee	1	- -	2	1
Western Kingbird	- -	- -	17	7
Eastern Kingbird	- -	1	4	3
Great Crested Flycatcher	- -	1	1	1
Red-eyed Vireo	- -	1	2	1
Blue Jay	- -	- -	1	2
American Crow	- -	4	3	- -
Cedar Waxwing	1	2	1	2
Black-capped Chickadee	2	2	2	6
Purple Martin	- -	- -	12	- -
Northern Rough-winged Swallow	- -	5	5	5
Barn Swallow	- -	- -	2	- -
American Cliff Swallow	- -	5	5	40
House Wren	4	4	4	10
Red-breasted Nuthatch	- -	- -	1	1
White-breasted Nuthatch	- -	2	4	3
Grey Catbird	1	1	1	- -
Brown Thrasher	1	1	1	1
Common Starling	1	- -	- -	3
Eastern Bluebird	2	- -	7	5
American Robin	10	- -	16	5
House Sparrow	- -	- -	15	- -
House Finch	2	- -	17	6
American Goldfinch	2	2	2	3
Common Yellowthroat	- -	3	2	1
American Yellow Warbler	1	2	- -	- -
Orchard Oriole	2	3	2	2
Red-winged Blackbird	10	15	10	20
Brown-headed Cowbird	3	3	6	- -
Common Grackle	35	2	40	- -
Chipping Sparrow	3	- -	6	6
Field Sparrow	1	- -	1	2
Lark Sparrow	1	- -	2	2
Spotted Towhee	1	- -	1	2
Northern Cardinal	- -	- -	1	- -
Blue Grosbeak	1	- -	- -	- -
Indigo Bunting	- -	- -	- -	2
Lazuli Bunting	- -	- -	- -	1

New additions to the overall tally for the area included the Ruby-throated Hummingbird at flower blooms along Lake Shore Drive (and especially appreciated due to the incongruity of the sighting), the Barn Swallow south of the livestock market and a male Lazuli Bunting — its plumage features prominent — at the North Lake Shore Hills (very near to where two Indigo Bunting were seen earlier).

Research Investigating Aspen Decline in Niobrara Valley

Research was initiated in 2015 to understand what may be causing a decline in the extent of hybrid aspen trees along the Niobrara River.

The hybrids (Populus xsmithii) are a genetic mix of the quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) and bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata).

Two primary tasks were completed during the year.

1) “Leaf material for genetic analysis” and “root cuttings for clonal propagation in greenhouse experiments” were collected by Nick Deacon, a postdoctoral associate, and Jake Grossman, a graduate student, according to a project report provided to the National Park Service, the project sponsor. Both are from the University of Minnesota.

Root cuttings were collected from “all Niobrara aspens stands of as well as stands of quaking aspen and big toothed aspen from NE, SD, MN, IA, and WI.

2) An analysis of aspen stand condition at Smith Falls State Park was completed by James Robinson, a graduate student at the University of South Dakota. Also evaluated were the “effects of herbivory and management on growth and condition of aspen suckers. Findings provided implications for future management of aspen stands.”

Two manuscripts were prepared from these analyses, the report said.

The unique hybrid aspens – relicts of a Pleistocene age northern boreal forest - occur in the cool and moist spring-branch canyons along the river, notably on the southern slope of the Niobrara valley. The stands are currently in decline, “due to pathogen infestations, fire suppression, competition with invasive red cedar, ungulate browsing, drought stress and potentially changes in the spring freeze-thaw cycles due to climate change,” according to the project proposal.

“An understanding of the genetic diversity and hybrid status, age structure and health, ecological niche and historical rate of range contraction, and drought and freezing tolerance physiology, is of paramount importance for understanding the fate of these important heritage organisms,” the proposal said.

This is a three year project, financed by the Niobrara National Scenic River office of the National Park Service at Valentine. The project grant was for $381,439.81.