Land Protection Plan

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

Expansion

Nebraska

September 2011

Prepared by

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

73746 V Road

P.O. Box 8

Funk, Nebraska 68940

303 / 263 3000

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, Colorado 80228

303 / 236 8145

CITATION for this document:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Land Protection Plan—Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion. 

Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain–Prairie Region. 126 p.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, an environmental assessment and land protection plan have been prepared to analyze the effects of increasing the acquisition authority of the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District in central Nebraska. 

■ The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District expansion land protection plan describes the priorities 

for acquiring an additional 14,177 acres in fee-title and conservation easements within the project boundary. 

■ The environmental assessment analyzes the environmental effects of increasing the acquisition authority of 

the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District. 

The environmental assessment for this land protection plan is in appendix C. 

Note: Information contained in the maps within these documents is approximate and does not represent a legal survey. 

Ownership information may not be complete. 
Contents

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV

 Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Purpose of and Need for the Land Protection Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Fee Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Conservation Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Waterfowl Nutritional Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Biological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Socioeconomic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Related Actions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Rainwater Basin Joint Venture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ducks Unlimited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Natural Resources Conservation Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Nebraska Environmental Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Tri-Basin Natural Resource District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Habitat Protection and the Acquisition Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Adaptation, Mitigation, and Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Geologic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Landownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Property Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter 3—Threats to and Status of the Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Effects on the Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Water and Soil Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Population Decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
ii Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Rising Land Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Increasing Property Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Social Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Landownership and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Value of the Rainwater Basin Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Short-Term Use versus Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Past Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Present Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Conservation Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 4—Project Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Land Protection Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Short-Term Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

County Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Action and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Priority Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Contaminants and Hazardous Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Acquisition Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Strategic Habitat Conservation and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Strategic Habitat Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Biological Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Conservation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Conservation Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Monitoring and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Summary of Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Distribution and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendices

Appendix A List of Preparers and Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix B List of Plants and Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Appendix C Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Appendix D Comments and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Appendix E Finding of No Significant Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Appendix F Environmental Action Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Appendix G Environmental Compliance Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Appendix H Director’s Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Appendix I Section 7 Biological Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Contents III

FIGURES

1 Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District. ........................................................3

2 Central flyway’s spring migration route. ...............................................................4

3 Sources of nutrients for migrating waterfowl. ..........................................................6

4 Historical (top) and current (bottom) wetland distribution and abundance (blue area) within the Rainwater Basin. ...15

5 Change in county population size in the Rainwater Basin from the 2000 to 2010 census. .......................18

6 Funds distributed from the National Revenue Sharing program in comparison to national land values, 1972–2009. ..23

7 Priority wetland basins for migratory bird use in the Rainwater Basin. ......................................29

8 The elements of strategic habitat conservation. .......................................................30

TABLES

1 Wetland Acquisition Authority within the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District ......................2
Abbreviations

CCP comprehensive conservation plan

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

EA environmental assessment

FONSI finding of no significant impact

GIS geographic information system

Kcal kilocalories

LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperative

LPP land protection plan

NEDOR Nebraska Department of Revenue

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGPC Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SHC strategic habitat conservation

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WPA waterfowl production area

WRP Wetlands Reserve Program
 Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project 

Description

The Rainwater Basin was once covered by native prairie and was largely isolated from streams and natural 

drainages. Heavy rains or snow melts would fill the 

numerous shallow depressions scattered throughout 

the region. Its geographic location in the mid portion 

of the central flyway made the Rainwater Basin an 

oasis of food and rest for millions of birds during their 

northward migration to their breeding grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, and grassland birds would dominate the skies, with raptors following the migration. 

Today, the landscape is dramatically changed. The 

expansive grasslands and numerous wetlands have 

been replaced with fields of corn and soybeans. Roads 

traverse the landscape at 1-mile intervals, and small 

rural communities are scattered within a 10-mile radius of one another. Many of the wetlands have been 

filled or drained, reducing their numbers to only about 

16 percent of their historical level. 

The remaining wetlands play an increasingly important role in providing resting and feeding areas for 

the millions of birds that continue to use the central 

flyway each spring and fall. However, their function 

as wetlands has been diminished by sedimentation, 

nutrient runoff, and reduced water runoff within the 

watersheds. Waterfowl and shorebirds are forced to 

crowd into fewer areas and compete for the limited 

amount of natural food provided by the wetlands.

A Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) team 

(appendix A) used a planning process to analyze the 

impacts of increasing the acquisition authority of the 

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District. The 

team started with an analysis of the area’s habitats, 

species (appendix B), and issues. This LPP (Land 

Protection Plan) provides a general description of the 

operations and management of the Rainwater Basin 

Expansion Project (Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion Project, as described in 

the proposed action in the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District Expansion Project EA (Environmental Assessment)). The EA is presented in 

appendix C. 

Several alternatives were initially considered, and 

two alternatives were selected for further analysis. 

The first, alternative A, also called the no-action alternative, considered the consequences of not doing 

anything. Alternative B considered the positive and 

negative consequences of increasing the Service’s 

acquisition authority in the Rainwater Basin. After 

the EA was completed and after the public comment 

period was over and public comments (appendix D) 

were incorporated in the analysis, the proposed alternative—increasing the acquisition authority—was 

chosen and this LPP was developed. The project was 

found to have no significant impacts on the quality of 

the human environment; thus, a FONSI (finding of 

no significant impact) has been completed and signed 

(appendix E). Other environmental compliance and 

approval documentation is included in this volume 

(appendixes F, G, H, I).

A waterfowl production area in late spring.

USFWS
2 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

The Service developed this LPP to provide local landowners, governmental agencies, and the interested public with a general understanding of the 

anticipated management approaches for the acquisition program. The purpose of the LPP is to present a 

broad overview of the Service’s future management 

approach to wildlife and associated habitats, public 

uses, interagency coordination, public outreach, and 

other operational needs.

The Rainwater Basin Expansion Project will be 

implemented in the main portion of the Rainwater 

Basin region of south central Nebraska. Although the 

Rainwater Basin includes all or portions of 21 counties, the project will be restricted to the 13 counties 

that currently make up the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District: Adams, Clay, Fillmore, Franklin, Gosper, Hall, Hamilton, Phelps, Polk, Kearney, 

Saline, Seward, and York (figure 1).

The region is characterized by low, rolling topography with loess soils. In this region are many shallow 

wetlands that are an internationally known stopover 

for migratory birds. Euro-American settlement of the 

region resulted in the conversion, primarily to cropland, of about 84 percent of the historical wetlands. 

The remaining wetlands have become increasingly 

important to the central flyway. Birds from the gulf 

coast states and Mexico funnel through this region before spreading out across the Prairie Pothole Region 

and areas further north (figure 2). While here, ducks, 

geese, and shorebirds use the wetlands for food and 

resting. Body fat gained while in the Rainwater Basin is needed for successful production on their nesting grounds. 

Project Description

This project expands the Service’s acquisition authority from its current limit of 24,000 acres to 38,177 acres 

(table 1). The Service will purchase 9,177 acres in feetitle (0.20 percent of the Rainwater Basin region) and 

the remaining 5,000 acres in conservation easements 

(0.11 percent of the Rainwater Basin region). The 

specific locations of the acquisitions cannot be determined at this time because they depend both on the 

willingness of landowners to sell and on whether the 

available wetlands have the characteristics that most 

influence waterfowl use.

The purposes of the Rainwater Basin Expansion 

Project are to:

■ preserve the landscape-scale ecological integrity of 

the Rainwater Basin by maintaining and enhancing 

the hydrology, flora, and fauna of wetlands; 

■ support the recovery and protection of threatened 

and endangered species and reduce the likelihood of 

future listings under the Endangered Species Act;

■ provide a buffer against climate change by providing 

migration habitat for millions of migrating birds;

■ increase the amount of natural foods available to 

support healthy birds on their northern nesting 

areas; and

■ increase the social benefits of wetlands, such as increased water quality, flood control, hunting, and 

bird watching.

Table 1. Wetland Acquisition Authority within the 

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

Prior 

Authorization 

Acres*

Additional 

Acres 

Approved

New 

Authorization 

Acres

Fee 24,000 9,177 33,177

Wetland 6,500

Upland 2,677

Easement 5,000 5,000

Wetland 2,500

Upland 2,500

38,177

* Prior authorization did not distinguish between fee-title 

and easement acquisition.

Purpose of and Need for the 

Land Protection Plan

The Service began protecting wetlands with fee-title 

acquisition in 1962 to maintain the Rainwater Basin 

as an important stopover and breeding habitat for 

millions of migratory birds. NGPC (Nebraska Game 

and Parks Commission) took the same approach. All 

properties were purchased from voluntary sellers. 

In most situations, it was the owners of the deeper, 

wetter portions of the individual wetland basins who 

were willing to sell their land to the Service. Many surrounding owners of the remaining portion of a wetland 

chose to retain ownership and farm their portion during drier years. This split ownership greatly reduced 

the effectiveness of the publicly owned portion of the 

wetland. This is because a drained wetland that has 

only a small portion in private ownership cannot be 

effectively restored without purchasing the privately 

held portion. For example, a 200-acre drained wetland 

with 180 acres in public ownership and 20 acres in private ownership remains effectively drained until the 

last 20 acres are purchased. These generally small, 

privately owned tracts connected to publicly owned 

wetlands are referred to as “roundouts.”

Now, nearly 50 years after the Service began protecting wetlands with fee-title acquisition, only 8.5 

percent (18,067 acres) of the historical wetland acres 
Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project Description 3etland Management District. Figure 1. Rainwater Basin W
4 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Figure 2. Central flyway’s spring migration route.

in the Rainwater Basin are in public ownership. Public wetland areas (State and Federal) are represented 

by 90 distinct properties containing all or portions of 

168 wetlands, or about 1.5 percent of the 11,000 historical wetlands (USFWS, Grand Island GIS Shop, 

unpublished). 

The partners of the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture (see Related Actions and Activities) examined 

wetland acres in private ownership that may hamper 

the ability to manage wetlands owned by the Service 

or NGPC. The partners also examined the nutritional 

and energetic needs of all waterfowl while staging in 

the region. The determination of the total additional 

acres needing protection in the Rainwater Basin is 

based on this collaborative work. 

FEE TITLE

Taking into consideration the factors described above, 

the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture projected that an 

additional 7,790 wetland acres need to be purchased 

in fee title by all partners. The Service will strive to 

acquire 6,500 of these wetland acres. The required 

upland buffer around these wetlands is estimated to 

be 2,677 acres. Ownership of properties purchased 

with the authorization of this proposal would be held 

by the Service as part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The properties would be managed as WPAs 

(waterfowl production areas).

Fee-title acquisition will focus on two types of wetland properties. The primary focus will be on portions 

of privately owned wetland roundouts that share a 

boundary with wetland areas already owned by the 

Service. The secondary focus will be on large wetlands 

that can serve as a core wetland within a complex of 

smaller, privately owned wetlands. 

Currently, 38 WPAs need additional land acquisition in order to complete Service ownership of the 

properties’ hydric or wetland soil. Adjoining roundout 

property, which represents a significant portion of the 

total wetland area, will need to be purchased in fee 

title to allow full management of the wetland. Adjoining wetland portions that represent a small portion 

of the wetland and do not substantially affect management on the Service’s portion could be protected 

with conservation easements. Most privately owned 

properties that could serve as core wetlands within a 

wetland complex are currently drained and would be 

more difficult to purchase. Both of these acquisition 

approaches would have a positive effect on bird use 

within the local area. 

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS 

The Rainwater Basin Joint Venture determined that 

an additional 9,239 acres of wetlands need to be protected by perpetual easements (Andy Bishop, coordinator, Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, Nebraska; 

personal communication; May 12, 2010). The Service 

will strive to acquire 2,500 wetland acres and 2,500 

upland buffer acres through conservation easements. 

Easements purchased by the Service will be grassland-wetland easements that would require the upland 

to be in permanent grassland. The easement would 

restrict commercial and residential development, but 

would allow the landowner to use the property for 

haying, grazing, and recreation. Allowing access to 

the property will remain a landowner’s right.

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

has administered 31 conservation easements within 

the region before 2009. Eight of these easements are 

within the Rainwater Basin, but only one has significant wetland habitat for migratory birds. Since 2009, 

the Service has acquired five additional grasslandwetland conservation easements within the Rainwater 

Basin. Those easements, acquired under the current 

land acquisition authority, follow the same guidelines 

that will be acquired through this project.

The NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) is expected to be the dominant partner with the 

Service in obtaining perpetual easements under its 

WRP (Wetlands Reserve Program). In 2010, the WRP 

launched a pilot project that allows landowners to sell 

a WRP easement, with the buyer retaining the right 

to graze the property with only minimal restrictions. 

The reason for allowing grazing is that it helps to keep 

wetlands in an early successional, seed-producing state, 

making it more valuable to migrating birds. 

WATERFOWL NUTRITIONAL NEEDS 

The Rainwater Basin is internationally recognized 

for its importance as a migration stopover. Birds in 
5

migration have additional nutrient demands, not only 

for the migration itself but to reach a body condition 

needed for egg production (Devries et al. 2008). 

Historically, the Rainwater Basin has provided 

migrating birds with natural foods from thousands 

of shallow wetlands. It is impossible to estimate how 

much food these wetlands provided for waterfowl 

hundreds of years ago, but recent research into the 

nutrient value of common native wetland plants documents their high value. 

The Rainwater Basin Joint Venture has used data 

on the energetic needs of ducks and other waterfowl 

as well as the number of bird-use days in the Rainwater Basin to estimate that migratory waterfowl need a 

total of 15.6 billion Kcal (kilocalories) from both natural and agricultural sources during their stay in the 

region (Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, unpublished 

report, 2010).

The conversion of wetlands and grassland to cropland has caused migrating waterfowl to feed heavily on 

waste grain (top chart in figure 3). Although waste grain 

meets the caloric requirements of waterfowl, it does 

not provide the amino acids and minerals they need. 

One of the goals of the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture is to increase the amount of available energy for 

waterfowl from natural, nonagricultural foods to 4.4 

billion Kcal, or 28 percent of their diet (Rainwater 

Basin Joint Venture, unpublished report). A 2004 

GIS (geographic information system) assessment of 

available wetland habitat and food indicated that, 

given their current number and condition, the region’s 

wetlands are capable of only providing 13.6 percent of 

the birds’ dietary needs (USFWS, Grand Island GIS 

Shop, unpublished). 

Aside from the loss of wetlands, remaining wetlands with altered hydrology or no management for 

wildlife are more prone to developing dense stands 

of late-successional plants, such as reed canary grass, 

cattail, and bulrush. Research suggests that wetlands 

dominated by late-successional plants can provide 

only about one-tenth of the kilocalories (0.025 million 

Kcal/acre) of wetlands in an early-successional stage 

(USDA, NRCS 2008).

The lands acquired under the LPP will contribute 

to meeting the nutritional needs of migratory birds 

as determined by the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture. 

Better vegetation management at existing wetlands 

and an increase in the number of wetlands providing 

natural foods are required. The bottom chart in figure 

3 shows where future wetland foods will come from. 

Acquisition and management of additional wetlands 

would increase the projected contribution from public 

wetlands from 5.8 to 21.3 percent. This action would 

provide the greatest amount of increased nutrition 

with the fewest number of additional acres. 

Purchases and associated management of easements 

would need to be increased to provide 10.2 percent of 

needed calories. Short-term wetlands are those that 

have less than 99-year easements or land use contracts. These wetlands would be expected to provide 

almost 5 percent of needed calories. Privately owned 

wetlands that have no protection would be expected 

to continue to provide 6 percent of the wetland foods. 

Issues

Two public scoping meetings were held in Clay Center and Holdrege, Nebraska, in January 2011. Public 

comments were taken at these scoping meetings to 

identify issues to be analyzed during the environmental review of the proposed action. Approximately 39 

landowners, citizens, and elected representatives attended the meetings. Additionally, 16 letters providing comments and identifying issues and concerns 

were received.

The Service’s field staff contacted local government officials, other public agencies, and conservation groups that have expressed an interest in and a 

desire to provide a sustainable future for wetlands in 

the Rainwater Basin region. Approximately 170 fact 

sheets were mailed out, and project information was 

also made available at the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District and regional planning Web sites.

Many of the comments received were about the 

biological needs of waterfowl and socioeconomic issues. Comment topics are summarized below. 

BIOLOGICAL ISSUES

■ Concern about past and future loss of wetlands 

within the Rainwater Basin

■ Concern about providing adequate habitat for 

spring migration

■ Concern about the value of the region for migrating birds and the need to protect declining species

■ Concern that farm programs and increased interest in biofuels may cause loss of the remaining unprotected wetlands

■ Concern that the energetics model used to determine the number of proposed acquisition acres is 

not a valid or accurate model

■ Concern that wetlands in public ownership are 

not being managed for the benefit of all wildlife, 

including pheasants

SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES

■ Concern that land protection discourages or negatively affects economic activity in the area

■ Concern about the loss of taxes paid to the county, 

and that these lost taxes will place a greater burden on local taxpayers

Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project Description
6 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Figure 3. Sources of nutrients for migrating waterfowl.
Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project Description 7

■ Concern that acquisition may drive up land prices

■ Concern that transition from privately owned 

farmland to public ownership will decrease the 

human population and support for schools, roads, 

and other services

■ Concern that local governments should be given 

more authority to approve or disapprove land acquisitions and to determine the use of public property

■ Concern that funding should be made available to 

compensate landowners for their privately owned 

wetlands

■ Concern that the Service should work with landowners to enhance wetlands on private property

The Service incorporated these issues into the draft 

Environmental Assessment (appendix C) during the 

spring of 2011. The Service released the draft EA 

and LPP on May 31, 2011, for a 30-day public review 

period. This period was extended 2 weeks until July 

15, 2011, allowing a 45-day public review period. All 

comments received were incorporated into the administrative record. A majority of comments were 

supportive in nature and recognized the benefits that 

wetlands provide to wildlife as well as local communities. Comments received that were substantive in nature were incorporated in the EA and were responded 

to in appendix D.

ISSUES NOT SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS

At one of the scoping meetings, the accuracy of the 

energetics models was called into question. No detailed analysis of this issue was performed for this environmental assessment. This model clearly assumes 

that the data used to estimate the energetic needs of 

waterfowl within Rainwater Basin came from a large 

amount of research not specific to this area. For example, the energetic value (Kcal) of a particular wetland plant studied in another part of the country is 

assumed to have an energetic value similar to that of 

the same plant species within the Rainwater Basin. 

The validity of this assumption is currently unknown 

and would require site-specific research. The energetic 

value given to plants in the Rainwater Basin, however, 

represents the best information available. Information 

from the energetic model has helped the Service to 

better understand the importance of the Rainwater 

Basin for migratory waterfowl, not just as a resting 

area but also as a source of amino acids and minerals. 

The issue of land management on WPAs is addressed only in general terms in this document. Land 

management actions depend on a large number of 

variables, including existing vegetative conditions, 

site-specific objectives, past management actions, seasonal weather conditions, and other planned management actions. In addition, the wetland management 

district in 2007 developed a CCP (Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan) (USFWS 2007) for Service lands 

within the Rainwater Basin that outlined and analyzed 

land management actions.

A common concern that was expressed by the public pertains to wetland grazing and pheasant habitat. 

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

commonly receives comments that the Service does 

not do as much as it could to increase pheasant populations. Although pheasants are recognized as part 

of the diversity provided by WPAs, the pheasant is a 

State-managed species and not a Service responsibility. The purpose of the wetland management district, 

as described in the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, is to manage migratory birds. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System and Authorities

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States 

for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.

Lands acquired under the proposed action will be 

administered as part of the Refuge System in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and other relevant legislation, 

executive orders, regulations, and policies.

Conservation of additional wildlife habitat in the 

Rainwater Basin region will also continue to be consistent with the following laws, policies, and management plans:

■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)

■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (1934)

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965)

■ North American Wetlands Conservation Act (1968)

■ Endangered Species Act (1973)

■ North American Waterfowl Management Plan (1994)

■ National Wildlife Refuge System Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (2001)

■ Migratory Non-Game Birds of Management Concern in the U.S. (2002)
8 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Related Actions and 

Activities

The Service is working with other public and private 

entities to maintain wildlife habitat within the Rainwater Basin region. Many organizations in Nebraska 

have recognized the ecological significance of the 

region and the need to promote conservation in concert with production agriculture. Wetland acquisition 

and restoration has been done by the NGPC, NRCS, 

Ducks Unlimited, and The Nature Conservancy. Local 

natural resource districts have worked closely with 

conservation partners to maintain a balance between 

wetland habitats and agriculture. 

As described above, the wetland management 

district developed a CCP in 2007 (USFWS 2007) for 

Service lands within the Rainwater Basin. The document identifies land management activities planned 

by the Service through 2022. Additional land acquisition was identified as an important need in the draft 

CCP sent out for public comment and the subsequent 

final document. 

RAINWATER BASIN JOINT VENTURE 

The Rainwater Basin was identified as a habitat of 

major concern by the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, which established a focus area for 

a joint venture (NAWMP 1986). Partners involved in 

the formation of the joint venture included the Service, the NGPC, Ducks Unlimited, the NRCS, Little 

Blue Natural Resource District, and the National 

Audubon Society. Its current partners include many 

of these same organizations along with other natural 

resource districts, The Nature Conservancy, and private landowners. 

The Rainwater Basin Joint Venture is currently 

in the process of rewriting its Implementation Plan 

(Gersib et al. 1992). The newer version is expected 

to recommend the acquisition of an additional 20,000 

acres (about 60 percent of which would be perpetual 

easements). One proposed strategy is to develop working landscapes, which would involve the purchase and 

restoration of wetlands and grasslands, with the property being resold to the private sector once a conservation easement has been established. The easement 

would allow livestock grazing and dryland haying, but 

no farming. The landowner would retain the right to 

allow public access to the land. This approach would 

protect wetlands, restore grasslands, and provide agricultural income to the landowners. 

PARTNERS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM 

The PFW (Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program) 

is administered by the Service. It provides financial 

and technical assistance and works cooperatively 

with landowners to voluntarily restore and enhance 

wildlife habitat on private land. The program was 

implemented in Nebraska in 1991 and has been growing ever since. Since the early 1990s, approximately 

400 projects have been accomplished statewide, resulting in a substantial amount of habitat restored 

for Federal trust species (i.e., migratory birds and 

threatened and endangered species). In Nebraska, the 

predominant wetland restoration and enhancement 

techniques involve restoring the natural hydrology 

through the blocking of drains, breaking tiles, filling 

in concentration pits, removing sediment, installing 

grass buffers, installing fences along stream corridors, 

and addressing problems throughout the watershed. 

Wetland enhancement activities include working with 

the landowners to better manage the wetland through 

the use of grazing, haying, discing, and burning. Upland and riparian areas are restored and enhanced 

through the installation of cross fencing, the provision 

of alternative sources of water, and the development 

of grassland/grazing management plans. Prairie restoration along the central Platte River involves the 

conversion of cropland to a high-diversity mixture of 

locally harvested native grasses and forbs, ranging 

from 100 to 200 species.

DUCKS UNLIMITED 

Ducks Unlimited has long considered the Rainwater 

Basin an important focus area for wetland conservation efforts. Its goal is to secure a base of wetland 

complexes to restore the region’s function for waterfowl. In 2002, it began acquiring the Verona Complex 

in the central portion of the Rainwater Basin. Much 

of this property, including both the wetland and the 

surrounding upland, has required restoration. Ducks 

Unlimited’s Rainwater Basin initiative uses multiple 

approaches, consisting of land acquisition, wetland restoration, and wetland management, as well as working 

to change public policy. The land acquisition portion 

involves the purchase of land containing existing or 

restorable wetland habitat. Once Ducks Unlimited 

has restored the wetlands, the property may be sold 

to a public agency or to a private buyer with a conservation easement in place. The proceeds from the 

sale are then used to repeat the process. 

NEBRASKA GAME AND PARKS COMMISSION 

NGPC continues to work toward acquisition, restoration, and management of Rainwater Basin wetlands. 

Currently, it owns approximately 6,700 wetland 

acres. Its philosophy of acquisition, restoration, and 

management of its lands mirrors that of the Service. 

NGPC also faces the problems of split ownership and 

is working toward acquiring roundouts to improve the 

functionality of its wetlands.

NGPC developed the Nebraska Legacy Plan (Schneider et al. 2005), which is Nebraska’s “Comprehensive 
Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project Description 9

Wildlife Conservation Strategy”; such plans are required by Congress for all States. The plan was developed by a partnership team made up of 20 Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, 

and the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska. This document has 

become the guiding document for conservation groups 

throughout the State. 

The plan identifies the Rainwater Basin as a biologically unique landscape. Key concerns identified 

for this region include the spread of invasive species, 

conversion of natural habitats, alteration of grazing 

and burning regimes, and drainage and sedimentation 

of existing wetlands.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 

The NRCS is one of the major partners in wetland 

conservation in the region. Most of its recent work has 

been associated with the national Wetlands Reserve 

Program, a voluntary program to restore wetlands. 

The program has three options for landowners: permanent conservation easements, 30-year conservation easements, or a simple cost-share restoration 

agreement. Lands that are enrolled in a conservation 

easement have both the wetland and the surrounding 

upland restored. Within the Rainwater Basin, Wetlands Reserve Program contracts scattered across 

the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

have restored and protected approximately 7,077 

acres (Randy Epperson, program manager, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service, Nebraska; personal 

communication; 2011). 

Recently, the NRCS granted a variance to the 

Wetlands Reserve Program within Nebraska. This 

variance would allow sellers of conservation easements to retain grazing rights. The variance is based 

on the fact that grazing is a critical, natural process 

in sustaining shallow, playa wetlands.

In 2010, because of the intense agricultural and 

wetland drainage within the Rainwater Basin, the 

Nebraska office of NRCS approved an application 

that requested a variance to allow center pivot irrigation equipment to traverse portions of wetlands and 

uplands that are protected under the Wetlands Reserve Program. However, numerous wetlands remain 

drained and without conservation protection because 

farmers need to run one or more pivot wheels across 

a wetland, which is generally not allowed under the 

Wetlands Reserve Program.

The Farm Service Agency, with technical assistance 

from the NRCS, administers the CRP (Conservation 

Reserve Program) which emphasizes support for 

working livestock-grazing operations, enhancement of 

plant and animal biodiversity, and short-term (10–15 

year) protection of grassland that is under threat of 

conversion to other uses. Participants voluntarily limit 

future development and cropping uses of the land. At 

the same time, participants retain the right to conduct 

common livestock-grazing practices and operations related to the production of forage and seeding, subject 

to certain restrictions during nesting seasons of bird 

species that are in significant decline or are protected 

under Federal or State law.

NEBRASKA ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST 

By a vote of the people, the Nebraska Environmental 

Trust was established in 1992, which uses 44.5 percent 

of the State’s lottery proceeds for the purpose of conserving, enhancing, and restoring natural physical and 

biological environments across the State. During its 19-

year existence, millions of dollars have been provided 

toward conservation of wetlands within the Rainwater 

Basin region. The projects funded by the trust have 

included fee and easement acquisition, restoration, 

research, monitoring, and public outreach projects.

TRI-BASIN NATURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT 

The Tri-Basin Natural Resource District, located in the 

western portion of the Rainwater Basin, currently owns 

and manages a large wetland as well as two conservation easements that protect privately owned wetlands. 

Furthermore, an imposed moratorium on groundwater development has prompted the district to begin 

exploring ways to reduce groundwater use and to increase groundwater recharge. One such means would 

be water banking, in which water allocation from one 

area would be transferred to another area. This type 

of program leads the way to having drained wetlands 

restored, while marginal farm lands are taken out of 

irrigation. Other natural resource districts within the 

Rainwater Basin are also looking at ways to better 

manage groundwater use for agriculture.

Habitat Protection and the 

Acquisition Process

Wetland habitat protection will occur through fee-title 

purchases and conservation easements. It is the longestablished policy of the Service to acquire minimum 

interest in land from willing sellers in order to achieve 

habitat acquisition goals. 

The acquisition authorities for the proposed expansion are the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act of 1934, also known as the Duck Stamp Act 

(16 U.S.C. 718-718h; 48 Stat. 51, as amended), the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 

4401), and the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578, Title 16). The Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act money used to 

acquire property is received from Duck Stamp revenue. The North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act funds are from congressional appropriations, Migratory Bird Treaty Act fines, and various Federal 
10 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

accounts. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is 

derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the Outer 

Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel tax revenues, and 

sale of surplus Federal property.

There may also be additional funds for the acquisition of lands, waters, or interest therein for fish and 

wildlife conservation purposes through congressional 

appropriations, donations from nonprofit organizations, 

and other sources.

The basic considerations in acquiring interest in 

property are the biological significance of a wetland, 

the feasibility of restoring wetland habitat, and landowner interest in the program. Fee-title acquisition 

will focus on two areas: wetland portions that adjoin 

properties in fee title by the Service, and larger semipermanent wetlands located within a wetland complex 

of smaller seasonal wetlands. These properties, once 

acquired, will be managed as WPAs. 

Conservation easements will be purchased in perpetuity on privately owned property containing smaller 

wetlands that are located in cropland and grassland. 

The easements will protect the wetlands from being 

drained or filled. Surrounding upland buffer areas under easement will be planted and remain in grass. All 

other property rights, including grazing, haying, and 

public access will remain with the landowner. 

Purchases will occur with willing sellers only and 

will be subject to available funding.
Chapter 2 — Area Description and 

Resources

This chapter describes the biological, cultural, and socioeconomic resources of the Rainwater Basin.

Biological Environment

This section discusses climate; climate change; adaptation, mitigation, and engagement; geological resources; 

habitat; and wildlife species of the Rainwater Basin.

CLIMATE

The region’s climate is semiarid, with annual precipitation ranging from 21 to 28 inches from the west to 

the east. Annual evaporation for small bodies of water averages 46 inches, and about 77 percent of that 

amount is lost from May through October. Most of the 

precipitation occurs in the springtime and during summer thunderstorms. Heavy rains fill the wetlands, but 

quickly dry in a matter of a few weeks. Wind scouring 

of wetland bottoms has removed the finer silts and 

loam soils, while the heavier silt clays remain in the 

wetland bottoms. In some wetlands, the impervious 

clay layer that has formed extends as deep as 72 inches.

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Current climate change projections for the Great 

Plains are for warmer temperatures and increased 

precipitation. The increase in precipitation is expected 

to be quite variable across the Great Plains, although 

it is expected to be less than what is needed to offset 

the anticipated increase in temperatures. The result 

will likely be warmer, drought-like conditions. Intense 

precipitation events are projected to increase, causing more flooding, runoff, pollution, and soil erosion 

problems; however, droughts are also expected to occur more frequently. The problems caused by climate 

change will be further compounded by invasive species that will be able to adapt quickly to fluctuating 

extreme water conditions. 

ADAPTATION, MITIGATION, AND ENGAGEMENT

The Service’s strategic response to climate change 

involves three core strategies: adaptation, mitigation, 

and engagement (USFWS 2009). Through adaptation, 

the impacts of climate change on wildlife may be reduced by conserving resilient habitats. The Rainwater 

Basin Expansion Project will provide an anticipatory, 

Mallards using a partially thawed wetland during their annual spring migration.

USFWS
12 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

rather than a reactive, response to climate change. 

As preserving migratory corridors becomes increasingly important, the Rainwater Basin will continue 

to provide a critical stopover area for shorebirds and 

waterfowl within the central flyway. 

Waterfowl use of the area may increase significantly 

because most of the precipitation in the region occurs 

in early spring and because precipitation events are 

expected to be more intense in the future. Another 

factor that may play a significant role in bird use will 

be the anticipated decline in precipitation and wetlands in other portions of the country.

Carbon sequestration is one of the key elements of 

mitigation. The Rainwater Basin Expansion Project 

will have a mitigating effect on climate change by capturing carbon. Wetlands that are currently drained and 

being farmed at the time of purchase will be restored 

to wetland habitat. Surrounding upland buffer areas 

will be restored to native warm-season grasses and 

forbs. Because native prairie vegetation stores carbon in its deep fibrous roots, with approximately 80 

percent of the plant biomass located below ground, a 

large amount of carbon is expected to be sequestered. 

Engagement involves cooperation, communication, 

and partnerships to address the conservation challenges presented by climate change (USFWS 2009). 

The Rainwater Basin Expansion Project will serve 

as a model for engagement by working with farmers and landowners; nongovernmental organizations 

such as The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, 

and Pheasants Forever; State and local agencies such 

as the NGPC and local natural resource districts; and 

Federal agencies, including the NRCS.

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

The Rainwater Basin lies in the flat to gently rolling, 

mixed-grass, loess plains of south-central Nebraska. 

This area is geologically new and has not developed 

a complete system of streams to drain surface water. 

It is from this characteristic that the area received its 

name: Rainwater Basin. 

Wind-deposited Peorian Loess occurs extensively 

across the basin and has been stable for about 10,000 

years (Keech and Dreezen 1959). Upland soils that 

formed in wind-deposited material include Crete, Hastings, Holdrege, Hord, and Uly (Kuzila 1984). These 

soils are suitable for farming, and about 80 percent of 

this land is planted with crops. 

The shallow, flat depressions formed predominantly 

by wind scouring are often referred to as playa wetlands because of their formation process and ephemeral nature (water levels lasting for a brief time). Radiocarbon dating indicates the wetlands were created 

near the end of the ice age, 20,000 to 25,000 years ago. 

Some depressions may have been enlarged and new 

ones created as recently as 3,000 years ago (Farrar 

1996). Over thousands of years, minute clay particles 

accumulated in the bottoms of the depressions, allowing 

water to pond above the soil surface. The impervious 

clay layers are 6 to 72 inches thick. The wetland soils 

are predominantly Butler, Fillmore, Scott, and Massie 

(Kuzila and Lewis 1993, Kuzila 1994). 

HABITAT

History of Land Development 

According to a large wetland survey conducted in 

1984, approximately 4,000 wetlands that covered 

over 100,000 acres once existed in the Rainwater Basin (Schildman and Hurt 1984). More recent soil surveys, however, estimate that the original number of 

wetlands was much higher and covered about twice 

that number of acres.

The upland soils of the Rainwater Basin, in contrast with the thick clays in the wetland depressions, 

are very productive silts and loams. At the end of the 

1800s, this rich soil was being cultivated, and by the 

1910s, larger wetlands were being converted to cropland. In the 1950s, irrigation canals and large-volume 

wells expanded the use of gravity-flow irrigation, causing smaller wetlands to be filled and their watersheds 

to be reshaped.

With the expansion of gravity-flow irrigation, water 

concentration pits were constructed to collect irrigation runoff at the lowest parts of the fields in areas that 

would normally be wetlands. The pits were an effective way to both drain a wetland and gain excavated 

material to fill the remaining portion of the wetland. 

The use of concentration pits was extensive. The Service identified 11,859 concentration pits totaling 7,506 

acres within the Rainwater Basin in 2004 (USFWS, 

Grand Island GIS Shop, unpublished). Their water 

storage capacity is estimated to be about two-thirds 

of the region’s historical wetland storage capacity. 

In the early 1970s, the loss of wetlands was further 

accelerated with the development of center pivot irrigation technology. Pasture ground containing wetlands was broken up, drained, and combined with other 

existing cropland to form large (160-acre) fields that 

would support center pivots. The 2004 assessment estimated that only 16 percent (1,693) of the historical 

wetlands in the area retained some wetland function. 

Those wetlands total about 38,500 acres. 

The conversion of what was once pastureland to 

cropland has not only affected water quality from runoff, it has effectively reduced the number of livestock 

that are available for grazing the remaining wetlands. 

Wetlands that once supported livestock grazing and 

that once remained open for waterfowl have become 

choked with cattail and bulrush. 

Since the advent of industrial farming in the region, most of the wetlands in the area have been intentionally leveled or have been filled with culturally 

accelerated sediment. Nearly all of the remaining 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 13

wetlands have been affected by surrounding land use. 

One of the more serious problems is the reduction of 

the ability of the watersheds to provide enough water 

to allow the wetlands to function naturally. As more 

upland has been converted to cropland, sedimentation 

caused by runoff has increased. In the last 40 years, 

the use of chemicals and fertilizers in crop production 

has brought pesticides and high levels of nutrients 

into the wetlands. 

Wetlands in larger watersheds used to retain water on a semipermanent basis. Now with reshaping 

of the landscape, creation of roads and ditches, sedimentation, and cultivation practices, even unaltered 

wetlands cannot function properly and most of them 

are retaining water for shorter and shorter periods.

Past Wetland Protection and Land Use within 

Watersheds

Wetland drainage and conversion is the main threat 

to the Rainwater Basin wetlands. Over the past decade, wetland loss from drainage and filling has been 

extensive. Wetland drainage was widespread even 

before efforts were made to determine the number 

of wetlands that existed in the region. 

Estimates of the number of historical wetlands are 

based primarily on soils maps, which show the extent 

of hydric soils on the landscape. Using this method, the 

estimate is that there were 11,000 historical wetlands 

totaling 204,000 acres (USFWS, Grand Island GIS 

Shop, unpublished). GIS analysis and high-resolution 

aerial photography now allow for an accurate measure 

of wetland acres. Current estimates are that 38,500 

acres of wetlands remain. The number of functional 

wetlands has declined to 1,693 (2004 data, USFWS, 

Grand Island GIS Shop, unpublished). This is about 

16 percent of the historical number.

Each year, the slow degradation of wetlands continues. Shallow depressions that are being farmed are 

slowly filling with sediment from the adjacent uplands. 

In addition, years of farming and pesticide application 

have adversely affected native vegetation and invertebrates. Farming practices such as no-till farming 

reduce the amount of soil erosion, but may also reduce 

the amount of water runoff reaching the depression. 

Most of the larger wetlands have been fully or 

partially drained. Those that have retained some 

functionality are slowly being subjected to the same 

forces as the smaller depressions: sedimentation, 

agricultural chemical runoff, and decreased surface 

water running into the wetland. Years of no farming 

or grazing encourage invasion by reed canarygrass, 

cattail, bulrush, and trees. In general, lack of grazing, 

burning, and disturbance greatly reduces the value of 

the wetland for migratory birds. Wetlands that retain 

a higher level of functionality still capture enough of 

the watershed’s runoff to provide aquatic vegetation, 

invertebrates, and water for migrating birds, but 

these remaining wetlands are being subjected to the 

same adverse effects as the more disturbed wetlands. 

Many of the problems affecting the wetlands go 

beyond what is happening directly within a wetland 

to the surrounding land uses. These problems include 

intense cultivation, land leveling, large livestock confinement areas, and lack of grazing livestock. 

Cultivation of upland areas increases soil erosion 

and sedimentation of wetlands, a process that has 

been going on in some areas for more than 150 years. 

Runoff and erosion also transport pesticides and excessive levels of nutrients to the wetlands. In some 

larger watersheds, seasonally heavy rains occur with 

enough intensity that residual cornstalks are transported to ditches and waterways. Restoration work 

on these wetlands often includes sediment removal, 

especially near the fluvial area of waterways. 

As discussed earlier, land leveling began with the 

conversion from dryland farming to gravity-flow irrigation. Effective gravity-flow irrigation requires a 

uniform, gentle slope across the field to allow water 

released on the upper end of the field to flow gently toward the lower end. With this method, any wetland or 

depression in the middle of the field that pooled water 

is filled. The common practice was to dig large water 

concentration pits to collect any water that reached 

the lower end of the field. Soil material removed from 

the pit was used to fill the remaining portion of the 

wetland to allow more area for farming. The result of 

this practice was that only the larger wetlands that 

could not be economically filled or drained remained 

as wetlands. 

An additional threat to some of the wetlands is nutrient and waste runoff from large livestock confinement 

areas. Both economic conditions and the availability 

of cheap corn for feed encouraged the development 

of these facilities. Many were built on poorer, steeper 

land, often in close proximity to a wetland. Animal 

waste from these operations is hauled to surrounding fields. Although State regulations control most 

of the contaminant concerns, runoff from heavy rain 

events as well as operator violations sometimes carry 

waste and chemicals to wetlands. Since the wetlands 

are within a closed drainage, the nutrients and pollutants are not flushed out but instead accumulate 

within the wetlands. 

The functioning of many of the remaining wetlands 

has deteriorated. Sedimentation has resulted in reduced 

water depth, loss of portions of the watershed’s runoff has shifted wetlands toward more seasonal water 

retention, aquatic vegetation has increased, and, with 

the absence of grazing livestock, the wetlands have 

become choked with monotypic stands of cattail, bulrush, and reed canarygrass. 

The conversion of wetlands and grassland has also 

caused birds to concentrate into fewer areas, increasing the risk of disease outbreaks and competition for 
14 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

natural foods. Waste grain has replaced much of the 

natural foods in waterfowl diets. Although corn meets 

the caloric requirements, it is deficient in many of the 

nutrients found in natural foods (Baldassare and Bolen 

1994, Krapu et al. 2004). 

There are many factors driving the continued 

conversion of wetlands within the Rainwater Basin. 

The assumption is that the wetlands that were easy 

and economically feasible to drain have already been 

drained and converted. Each year, however, additional 

wetlands are lost. Some of the common causes for the 

continuing loss of wetlands are changes in Farm Bill 

regulations, commodity prices, increased crop insurance subsidies, and new irrigation and farming technologies. Commodity prices and crop insurance serve 

as a safety net for farming the more risky lands. New 

irrigation technologies allow for chemigation, control 

of water delivery, and easier access across wet areas 

and steeper slopes. No-till farming allows for more economical farming in more arid areas than was possible 

in years past. In recent years, impending moratoriums 

on groundwater development have stimulated developers and producers to convert more land to cropland.

Property taxes, low livestock prices, and low production rates from dryland farming cause landowners to continually look for ways to make every acre 

financially productive, reducing the incentive to keep 

a privately owned wetland. 

Current Protection Status 

Service acquisition has focused on purchase and protection of the larger wetlands. Over the decades, as the 

smaller surrounding wetlands have been lost, the wetlands purchased by the Service have become isolated. 

In some portions of the Rainwater Basin, acquisition 

needs to focus on protecting the smaller wetlands that 

make up a complex, while in other portions a larger 

core wetland needs to be restored in order to create a 

complex. Figure 4 shows the change in spatial distribution of wetlands throughout the region (USFWS, 

Grand Island GIS Shop, unpublished).

Aerial surveys were conducted every spring from 

2000 to 2008 by the Rainwater Basin station biologist 

to document the amount of migratory bird habitat 

available. A total of 17,984 acres of public wetlands 

was surveyed. The average amount of habitat containing water during this 8-year period was 5,582 acres. 

This means that an average of 32 percent of the public wetland acres were suitable migration habitat. 

Some of those wetlands that provided suitable habitat were supplemented with groundwater pumped by 

the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

and the NGPC. 

Groundwater In most areas of the Rainwater Basin, 

groundwater has little or no influence on wetland water 

levels. The majority of the groundwater in the region 

is located more than 50 feet underground and in some 

areas the groundwater is more than 400 feet deep. One 

area east of the Tri-County canal has groundwater 

levels that are less than 50 feet deep due to artificial 

groundwater mounds that have developed near the 

surface (Ekstein and Hygnstrom 1996).

The use of center pivot irrigation in the region 

since the early 1970s has placed a lot of demand on 

the groundwater underlying Rainwater Basin. Irrigation, compounded by extensive drought, has caused 

the State legislature to pass legislation to help control 

groundwater declines. Only the extreme western edge 

of the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

lies within an over-appropriated natural resource district. Some of the natural resource districts located 

within the Rainwater Basin, however, have placed a 

moratorium on new wells and are requiring stricter 

monitoring of pumping. 

The Rainwater Basin wetlands contribute to 

groundwater recharge. Percolation occurs as macropore flow through desiccation cracks that form during 

dry conditions (Wilson 2010). However, soil percolation decreases as the clays expand and the desiccation 

cracks close (Wood 2000, Wilson 2010). Research from 

playa lakes in Texas and New Mexico has shown similar recharge characteristics (Wood 2000).

Artificially pumping groundwater into the wetlands has made a dramatic difference in the amount 

of available habitat on WPAs. The average amount 

of suitable habitat for WPA wetlands that were not 

pumped was 22 percent of the total wetland acres. 

For WPA wetlands that were pumped, the average 

amount of suitable habitat was 39 percent of the total 

wetland acres.

WILDLIFE

Rainwater Basin serves as a critical resting and feeding area for millions of waterfowl during spring migration. It is estimated that 7.5 million ducks and 2.1 

million geese use the area each spring. Gersib et al. 

(1989) documented that 50 percent of the mid-continent 

mallards and 30 percent of the continental northern 

pintails migrate through the area during the spring. 

Nearly 90 percent of the mid-continent population of 

greater white-fronted geese has been documented to 

use this region during their spring migration.

A total of 329 species of birds has been observed 

within the Rainwater Basin, including 41 species of 

shorebirds and 35 species of waterfowl. Between 200,000 

and 300,000 shorebirds migrate through the area in 

the spring. Common grassland species include northern harrier, northern bobwhite, ring-necked pheasant, 

greater prairie-chicken, dickcissel, western meadowlark, bobolink, field sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. 

Spring migration in the area usually starts with a 

buildup of Canada geese on the Platte River until the 

Rainwater Basin wetlands begin to thaw. Snow geese, 

greater white-fronted geese, and mallards begin to 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 15

Figure 4. Historical (top) and current (bottom) wetland distribution and abundance (blue area) within the 

Rainwater Basin.
16 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

peak by mid- to late February. In early March, northern pintail numbers peak, followed by Ross’s geese and 

green-winged teal. The remaining divers and puddle 

ducks usually peak during mid- to late March. 

Most shorebirds pass through between April 15 

and May 15. According to Jorgensen (2004), the most 

common spring shorebird migrants are black-bellied 

plover, American golden-plover, semipalmated plover, 

greater yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, willet, upland 

sandpiper, Hudsonian godwit, dunlin, white-rumped 

sandpiper, Baird’s sandpiper, semipalmated sandpiper, 

least sandpiper, stilt sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, 

long-billed dowitcher, buff-breasted sandpiper, Wilson’s snipe, and Wilson’s phalarope. Rainwater Basin 

hosts the largest known concentration of buff-breasted 

sandpipers during spring migration (Jorgensen 2007). 

In the late summer, common migrant shorebirds are 

greater and lesser yellowlegs, solitary sandpiper, 

upland sandpiper, pectoral sandpiper, semipalmated 

sandpiper, least sandpiper, stilt sandpiper, long-billed 

dowitcher, and Wilson’s snipe. 

Rainwater Basin has been recognized as a landscape 

of hemispheric importance by the Western Hemisphere 

Shorebird Reserve Network. Rainwater Basin has also 

been identified as a key area for habitat conservation 

in Bird Conservation Region #19.

Peregrine falcons frequent the wetlands during 

peak shorebird migration periods. Prairie falcons, 

on the other hand, are most numerous in late winter 

when horned larks and meadowlarks are most common. Merlins are primarily winter visitors and spring 

migrants (Johnsgard 1997). Bald eagles are most common during peak waterfowl migration. Burrowing 

owls nest on isolated prairie dog towns. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Three species that are listed under the Nebraska Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act and 

the Federal Endangered Species Act use the Rainwater Basin wetlands during migration: the State and 

Federally endangered whooping crane and least tern, 

and the State and Federally threatened piping plover. 

Forty-two percent of confirmed whooping crane 

observations in Nebraska have been at Rainwater 

Basin wetlands (Richert 1999). Most of these sightings have occurred during the first 2 weeks of April 

or from late October through mid-November. Piping 

plovers are rarely seen on Rainwater Basin wetlands 

due to their size and the number of other shorebirds 

that would be using mudflat habitats in late April 

through mid-May (Johnsgard 1997). Least terns have 

even been documented at some basins, although their 

occurrence in the Rainwater Basin is rare. 

Other species that are proposed or are candidates 

for listing under the State and Federal Endangered 

Species Acts or are species of concern that use the 

Rainwater Basin are northern harrier, Swainson’s 

hawk, ferruginous hawk, long-billed curlew, black 

tern, short-eared owl, and Sprague’s pipit.

Mammals 

Large mammals that are common to the region are 

those usually associated with grasslands of the Great 

Plains. They include white-tailed deer, coyote, raccoon, 

striped skunk, eastern cottontail, American badger, and 

Virginia opossum. Mule deer have occasionally been 

seen in the western portion of the Rainwater Basin. 

Muskrat and mink may occur during wetter years 

but their populations have dropped dramatically with 

changes in land use and wetlands. Isolated prairie dog 

towns are scattered throughout the region; most of 

them are smaller than 40 acres and located on public 

lands. Common small mammals include thirteen-lined 

ground squirrel, northern and plains pocket gophers, 

Ord’s kangaroo rat, meadow jumping mouse, meadow 

vole, northern grasshopper mouse, and white-footed 

mouse. Less common mammals are red fox, black-tailed 

jackrabbit, woodchuck, Franklin’s ground squirrel, 

and eastern fox squirrel. 

Reptiles and Amphibians

Semipermanent wetlands provide habitat for painted 

and snapping turtles. Ornate box turtles may be found 

in grassland areas. Western garter snakes, bull snakes, 

and eastern yellowbelly racers are fairly common. 

Western hog-nosed snakes are less common and prefer 

dry sandy prairies. Smooth green snake and redbelly 

snake are rare in the region. The lesser earless lizard 

may occur in open sandy soil with sparse vegetation, 

while the six-lined racerunner can be found in both 

lowland and upland sites.

Amphibians that occur in the Rainwater Basin include plains spadefoot toad, Woodhouse’s toad, Great 

Plains toad, Blanchard’s cricket frog, boreal chorus 

frog, bullfrog, gray treefrog, plains leopard frog, and 

tiger salamander.

Fisheries 

Due to the hydrology of the wetlands within the Rainwater Basin, there are currently no viable fisheries. 

Two native Missouri River basin cyprinids, the shoal 

chub and plains minnow, are of concern but have no 

legal protected status in Nebraska. Other species in 

the area that are of concern and interest to the National Fish Habitat Action Plan partnerships are catfish, sunfish, darters, catastomids, and other minnows.

Cultural Resources

Archaeological features and Native dwelling remains 

representing 12,000 years of human occupation have 

been found in the Rainwater Basin. Although there 

have been few formal investigations done in the area, 
17

evidence from the earliest paleo-Indian occupation 

through the rural and agricultural development of 

the early 20th century has been located in a variety 

of geographical settings. Although these sites exhibit 

a wide range of artifacts and features, definite trends 

in site types and changes through time are apparent. 

Current archaeological evidence indicates that 

the earliest humans in the area, called paleo-Indians, 

migrated to the region near the close of the ice age 

approximately 12,000 years ago. These people had a 

highly mobile lifestyle that depended on the hunting of 

big game, including mammoths and a species of huge, 

now-extinct bison. The hallmark of most paleo-Indian 

sites are the beautiful but deadly spear points that are 

generally recovered from animal kill and butchering 

sites and small temporary camps. Three late paleoIndian sites in Frontier County, just to the west of the 

Rainwater Basin, date from 10,000 to 8,000 years ago 

and have provided the best evidence yet discovered of 

actual living areas in the region. Another well-known 

paleo-Indian site, the Meserve site, dated from approximately 9,400 years ago, is located in Hall County 

within the Rainwater Basin.

Beginning about 8,000 years ago, there was a 

gradual but definite shift in the pattern of human use 

of the area. The changes were due to a combination 

of climatic fluctuations and an increasing population, 

coupled with tremendous social change and technological innovation. This stage is referred to as the Archaic stage and it lasted until about 1,500 years ago. 

Although the Archaic stage is better represented in 

the archaeological record than the preceding paleoIndian stage, interpretation of the remains has been 

difficult. Evidence of a greater diversity of tools and 

increased use of native plants is found on many sites, 

but the remains also suggest a more localized and less 

mobile population. 

By 2,000 years ago, the populations of the area had 

become increasingly influenced by the woodland cultures to the east. This period, referred to as the Plains 

Woodland period (2,000 to 1,000 years ago), brought 

great changes and innovation, including the advent 

of pottery, the bow and arrow, and semipermanent 

dwellings. Small villages began to be established, and 

evidence of early agriculture has been found along 

some of the waterways. 

Evidence of an increasingly sedentary population 

dating from approximately 1,000 years ago until approximately 400 years ago is found at many of the sites. 

This adaptation is referred to as the Central Plains 

village tradition, and it amplifies many of the trends 

that began during the Plains Woodland period. Small 

villages of earthen structures with associated agricultural fields became more common. The increased 

use of pottery in conjunction with the construction of 

food storage pits reflect a population that was spending increasing amounts of time in one location. 

Early post-contact occupation of the area (400 to 

100 years ago) included the Pawnee with the Arikara, 

Arapaho, Cheyenne, Lakota, Oto, and Kansas peoples. 

Their settlements tended to be large villages with 

extensive agricultural fields and were often located 

along the major waterways. Bison hunting, fishing, 

and Euro-American trade were also primary components of their economy. Beginning in the early 1700s, 

Euro-American explorers began to make incursions 

into the area and by the mid-1800s, there was a regular stream of emigrants passing through on their way 

west. Many of these travelers chose to stay and settle 

in the area referred to today as the Rainwater Basin.

Socioeconomic Environment

LANDOWNERSHIP

The project area includes all or portions of 13 counties: Adams, Clay, Fillmore, Franklin, Gosper, Hall, 

Hamilton, Kearney, Phelps, Polk, Saline, Seward, and 

York. The total population of these counties is almost 

182,000 people, or roughly 10 percent of Nebraska’s 

population (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Numerous small 

communities of less than 1,000 people exist throughout 

the area. The five largest commercial hubs are Grand 

Island, Hastings, York, Holdrege, and Minden. The 

city of Kearney lies outside the Rainwater Basin immediately north of Kearney County. 

The population trend within the Rainwater Basin 

has followed the trends seen throughout the State. 

From 1980 to 2002, the number of individual farms 

in the Rainwater Basin region dropped by 28.5 percent from 4,585 to 3,280, and the farms became larger 

(Nebraska Agricultural Statistics Service 2003). Between 2002 and 2007, the number of farms within the 

13 Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

counties dropped by another 6.3 percent, and the average farm size increased by 195 acres (USDA 2007). 

During the years 2000 to 2010, the collective population of the counties in the Rainwater Basin increased by 1.0 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

The increase, however, was not uniform. Counties 

without a large commercial hub (9 of the 13 counties) 

showed significant declines. Fillmore and Franklin 

Counties each experienced about an 11 and 10 percent 

decline, respectively. Hall County, containing the city 

of Grand Island, showed nearly all of the population 

gain (figure 5). 

The well-being and stability of the small communities have depended on the farming economy, primarily 

irrigated corn and soybeans. As land becomes more 

concentrated in larger farm operations, fewer families 

remain in small communities to support businesses, 

Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources
18 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

schools, and churches. The trend is for people to move 

to larger nearby commercial hubs.

Approximately 1.6 percent of land area in Nebraska 

is in either State or Federal ownership (U.S. Census 

Bureau 1991). Only Iowa and Kansas have less government land ownership by percentage. Within the 

Rainwater Basin, 79.9 percent of the land is cropland 

and 10.5 percent is pasture or CRP lands, making 

agriculture the dominant land use (USFWS, Grand 

Island GIS Shop, unpublished). Roads or communities make up 5.4 percent of the land area. Nonfarmed 

wetlands represent 1 percent of the land use. Fish and 

Wildlife Service lands within the region total 23,855 

acres, representing about 0.6 percent of the region. 

Clay County, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 35,000-acre Roman L. Hruska Meat Animal 

Research Center, has a higher percentage of Federal 

ownership than the other Rainwater Basin counties. 

Located west of Clay Center, Nebraska, the research 

center is the largest Federally owned property in the 

project area. See the Habitat section in chapter 3 for 

additional information about agricultural development. 

Figure 5. Change in county population size in the Rainwater Basin from the 2000 to 2010 census.

PROPERTY TAX

Property tax is assessed on each property owner 

within each county. The amount is derived from the 

value of each parcel of land, based on the reasonable 

highest and most probable use. The assessed value of 

agricultural land is no more than 75 percent of market 

value (NEDOR 2011). 

The inflation in land value in recent years has caused 

the taxes on agricultural land to go up disproportionately compared with nonagricultural property, such 

as homes within communities. For counties with low 

populations and few commercial properties, agricultural 

lands may represent well over half of the county’s total assessed value. As costs in low-population counties 

continue to go up, populations go down, and because 

no new industries are being created, agricultural land 

claims a higher percentage of the county’s total assessed value, placing more of the burden of financing 

the county on the shoulders of farmers.

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act provides for 

payments to counties by the Service in lieu of taxes. 

Revenues for these payments are derived from the 

sale of products from refuges, including animals, 

timber, and minerals, or from leases and other privileges. If there is not enough money in the National 

Wildlife Refuge Fund to cover payments, Congress is 

authorized to appropriate money to make up the difference. If the amount that Congress appropriates is 

not enough, the units of local government receive a 

pro-rata share. Payment is calculated three different 

ways, with the amount due being the highest of the 

three methods. The three methods are: 0.75 percent 

of the appraised property value, 25 percent of the net 

receipts produced on the property, or $0.75 per acre. If 

the funds in the special Treasury account fall short of 

100 percent payment, each county receives payment 

at a lower percentage. In 2009, refuge revenue sharing 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 19

payment to Rainwater Basin counties averaged only 

32.3 percent ($90,983) of full payment. 

PUBLIC USE AND WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT 

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

For much of the past century, access to private property was relatively easy to obtain. Most of Nebraska’s 

population was somehow connected to the land, either 

by family or by acquaintances. Hunting was seen as 

recreation that provided little opportunity for revenue to the landowner, and access was freely granted 

as a neighborly gesture. In the past few decades, this 

trend has changed. Urban populations are no longer 

closely connected to the land, and access to private 

land is more commonly being denied or allowed only 

on a fee basis. 

The result is that the public is relying more on public lands for wildlife-dependent recreation. Within the 

Rainwater Basin, 32 wildlife management areas are 

managed by the NGPC, and 59 WPAs are managed 

by the Service. A total of 31,823 acres is available for 

public use (USFWS, Grand Island GIS Shop). Pheasant hunting is the most common recreational activity, 

followed by waterfowl hunting and birdwatching. It 

is estimated that 81,880 use-days are spent annually 

on waterfowl and upland bird hunting on State and 

Federal properties in the Rainwater Basin (Mark 

Vrtiska, biologist, NGPC; personal communication; 

May 12, 2010).

Chapter 3 — Threats to and Status of 

the Resources

This chapter discusses the analysis conducted during the EA process and explains why increasing the 

acquisition authority of the Rainwater Basin was the 

chosen alternative.

A spring 2004 assessment of available wetland 

habitat showed that only 16 percent of the historical 

wetlands had some wetland function. The rest have 

been lost to development. Today, only 8.5 percent 

(18,067 acres) of the historical wetland acres are in 

public ownership. Public wetlands are represented 

by 90 distinct properties, containing all or portions 

of 168 wetlands or 1.5 percent of the 11,000 historical 

wetlands (USFWS, Grand Island GIS Shop, unpublished). These few wetlands provide about 45 percent 

of the waterfowl habitat in the region. Increasing 

commodity prices are causing higher land prices and 

more development, threatening the remaining unprotected wetlands.

The conversion of wetlands and grassland to cropland has caused birds to concentrate in fewer areas, 

increasing the competition for natural foods and the 

risk of disease outbreaks. Waste grain has replaced 

much of the natural foods in waterfowl diets. Although 

corn meets the caloric requirements for waterfowl, it 

is deficient in many of the nutrients found in natural 

foods (Baldassare and Bolen 1994, Krapu et al. 2004). 

Native prairie managed with prescribed burning and rest.

USFWS

Effects on the Biological 

Environment

This section describes the effects on wildlife habitat 

and water and soil resources of increasing the acquisition authority of the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District.

WILDLIFE HABITAT

Increased land acquisition across the Rainwater Basin 

will ensure that critical wetlands are protected in perpetuity. It will allow the Service greater flexibility to 

consider fee-title or easement acquisition as potential 

land management strategies. GIS modeling will help 

to identify wetlands with key biological characteristics 

that are best suited for fee-title and easement acquisition. This approach will help to ensure that funding 

is directed to where it can provide the most benefit 

to priority species. 

Purchase of roundout properties will in many ways 

multiply the benefits of the wetlands beyond what 

they currently provide in split ownership. It will be 

easier to use management strategies such as grazing, 
22 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

prescribed burning, and water management to restore the wetlands. Pumping and other forms of water management will remain as management options. 

The Service will continue to partner with neighboring 

landowners to enhance privately owned wetlands for 

the benefit of migratory birds. 

Natural food availability from wetlands will increase, 

bringing the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture closer to 

its goal of having 28.2 percent of waterfowl energetic 

needs being met by natural foods rather than waste 

grain. Birds will leave the Rainwater Basin region in 

better body condition, which will in turn mean better 

production on their northern nesting grounds.

The potential for a major avian disease outbreak 

will be reduced as more wetlands become available 

and birds become less crowded. 

Acquisition and protection of wetlands within the 

Rainwater Basin will indirectly provide improved water quality to the headwaters of several streams (e.g., 

Big Blue and Little Blue) that provide fish habitat. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Implementation of the LPP will increase the acres 

of available habitat for whooping cranes, least terns, 

and piping plovers. The continued preservation and 

management of WPAs, especially grazing management, may increase the use of WPAs on the part of 

these species. The Nebraska Ecological Services Field 

Office concurred with the determination, “may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect” these species, and that 

the impact to these species from the implementation 

of the LPP will be beneficial.

WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES

Wetlands that are protected in perpetuity will enable 

long-term provision of many of the benefits attributed 

to wetlands, including entrapment of agricultural fertilizers, chemicals, and sediment. Wetland plants will 

help convert fertilizers and other farm chemicals into 

nonpolluting forms. The preserved wetlands will continue to provide groundwater recharge to a currently 

declining groundwater table. 

Increasing the Service’s land base in the Rainwater 

Basin will likely reduce long-term management costs; 

therefore, short-term acquisition costs will likely be 

made up over the long term by reducing the per-acre 

cost of management. Having management control of 

entire wetlands will allow the Service to restore natural hydrologic function, which will reduce management 

costs because the wetlands will flood naturally and dry 

out on their own. In addition, full management over 

a wetland will reduce potential conflict with neighbors who may have different management plans for 

the wetland.

Effects on the 

Socioeconomic Environment

The analysis of the chosen alternative considered 

the effects of population decline, rising land prices, 

increasing property taxes, social benefits, landownership, public use, and the value of the Rainwater Basin 

on the socioeconomic environment.

The socioeconomic impact of land acquisition within 

the Rainwater Basin counties is hard to measure with 

a high degree of certainty. What is known is that there 

will be reduction in agricultural production and tax 

revenue associated with Federal acquisition. What is 

poorly determined or immeasurable are the environmental and social benefits provided by wetlands, especially those located in close proximity to each other 

or near a community. Economists often refer to these 

benefits as nonexcludable (available to all) goods that 

have a value to the public that exceeds its value to the 

landowner. For Rainwater Basin wetlands, this value 

extends beyond the local residents to a much larger 

area. For example, the birds that use the Rainwater 

Basin during spring migration are of international 

value for birdwatching and hunting. 

Some local residents perceive themselves as having 

to unfairly shoulder the burden of maintaining these 

wetlands for the benefit of others. Their concerns are 

expressed in the belief that Service acquisition of wetlands contributes to declining county populations as 

well as increasing land prices and taxes. 

POPULATION DECLINE

A review of the population changes between 2000 and 

2010 in the 13 counties located in the Rainwater Basin 

shows that the greatest decline has been in counties 

with low (<10,000) starting populations (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010). 

Fillmore County, which does not have a large commercial hub, showed the greatest decrease in population (11 percent), declining by 744 people from 2000 

to 2010. In contrast, those counties with a relatively 

large commercial hub showed an increase in population. 

Hall County, which includes the community of Grand 

Island, had over a 9 percent increase during the same 

period, increasing by 5,073 people. This trend in population shift among counties was common throughout 

the State, where counties with small populations and 

relatively small commercial hubs showed a decrease 

while counties with larger populations and larger commercial hubs showed an increase. 

Even though some residents are concerned that 

Federal acquisition may lead to a decrease in population, there does not appear to be a correlation between 

the two factors. Clay County, for example, showed a 

population decline of over 7 percent between 2000 
Chapter 3 — Threats to and Status of the Resources 23

and 2010. During that period of time, only 32.5 acres 

in Clay County were acquired by the Service. When 

comparing Clay County with Antelope County, which is 

a nearby county with a similar population and economy 

but without Federal lands, Service ownership does 

not appear to be a contributing factor to population 

decline, as Antelope County showed a decline of 11 

percent. Other Nebraska counties that had populations and economies comparable to those of Antelope 

County showed similar trends.

RISING LAND PRICES

Nationally, farmland values rose throughout much of 

the post-World War II period, and from 1969 to 1978, 

farmland prices increased 73 percent as agricultural 

producers responded to high returns and various Federal policies that increased incentives for investing in 

agriculture. In 1980, farmland prices began to decline 

in response to Federal monetary policy that raised 

interest rates in order to help resolve high inflation. 

In addition to rapidly rising interest rates, higher 

energy prices contributed to a significant financial 

crisis in the farm sector during the 1980s, leading to 

farm bankruptcies and bank failures. Since the farm 

crisis of the mid-1980s, farmland real estate values 

(including land and buildings) have been rising in both 

nominal and real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) terms. Between 1994 and 2004, real values increased between 

2 and 4 percent annually (figure 6), and in 2005 and 

2006, they experienced sharp annual increases of 16 

percent and 11 percent, respectively, before slowing 

to 7 percent and 6 percent annual growth in 2007 and 

2008 (USDA 2011)

Regarding the concern that Service acquisition 

drives up land prices, a 2010 UNL (University of 

Nebraska, Lincoln) survey reported that agricultural 

land values in the Rainwater Basin region increased 

an average of 2.6 percent annually between 2005 and 

2010 (Johnson et al. 2010). During those same 5 years, 

only 513 acres were acquired in fee title by the Service. In 2009, 74 percent of all agricultural lands sold in 

the Rainwater Basin region were purchased by active 

farmers, 21 percent were purchased by nonfarming 

Nebraska residents, and 5 percent were purchased 

by nonfarming out-of-state buyers. 

UNL’s survey asked 150 land-market observers to 

rank the importance of 16 factors in determining land 

prices. The top three factors were purchasing for farm 

expansion, the limited amount of land offered for sale, 

Figure 6. Funds distributed from the National Revenue Sharing program in comparison to national land values, 

1972–2009.
24 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

and the financial health of current owners. Property 

tax levels were ranked 15th out of 16. 

In 2009, 68 percent of land purchases in the Rainwater Basin area were cash purchases and 27 percent 

involved a mortgage; the remaining 5 percent of ownership changes involved other types of transactions 

such as gifts, inheritances, and so forth. During the 

last decade, the average rate of return on assets of agricultural land in the Rainwater Basin region dropped 

from 5.5 to 4.9 percent. 

INCREASING PROPERTY TAXES

Tax increases are a very contentious issue across the 

State, including in the Rainwater Basin. Although land 

brought into Federal ownership is no longer on the 

tax roll, it does not result in an increase in personal 

property taxes paid to the counties. 

For counties with low populations and no commercial hub, agricultural lands may represent well over 

half of the county’s total assessed value (Johnson et 

al. 2006). When county costs continue to go up, populations go down, and no new industries are being created, agricultural land claims a higher percentage of 

the county’s total assessed value, shifting the burden 

of financing the county to the shoulders of farmers. 

A contrast that demonstrates this concept is that 57 

percent of the total assessed value in Clay County is 

agricultural land, but it is only 22 percent in adjoining Adams County.

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Program has increased 

payments made to local governments over the longterm which have actually increased at a faster rate 

than inflation (figure 6). However, payments due to 

the local governments have risen substantially more, 

primarily due to the increasing land prices described 

in the prior section. This is particularly evident in the 

period from 2004 to 2008 when land prices increased 

by approximately 10 percent annually, but receipts 

from the National Wildlife Refuge Fund rose at a 

substantially lower rate (figure 6). However, the difference between what is paid by the Revenue Sharing 

Program and what is due does result in lower revenue 

for local governments. However, substantive social 

benefits are provided by public lands to local communities and economies (see below). 

SOCIAL BENEFITS

The value of the benefits provided by WPAs is substantial. Although Service lands do not provide the 

same property tax revenue to the counties that the 

land would generate in private ownership, there are 

goods and services produced by these lands that benefit 

the general public. Some lands benefit the local community directly in terms of flood control, groundwater recharge, increased water quality, and sediment 

or nutrient entrapment. Recreation, aesthetics, and 

health and production of wildlife may provide value to 

the local community as well as to a much larger society. Other benefits include reduced need for water and 

sewer services and increased law enforcement in the 

local area, thereby reducing costs to local communities. 

It is difficult to assign dollar values to these public benefits. The social and environmental benefits 

provided by the wetlands have very little economic 

value to an individual buyer; in comparison, the assessed value reflects the land’s value for agricultural 

production. In addition, each wetland provides a specific level of benefits depending on its unique characteristics, location in the watershed, and proximity to 

larger communities. For example, WPAs located in 

the more populated eastern portion of the Rainwater 

Basin receive much more use, and therefore provide 

a greater recreational benefit to the local area, than 

those in the western portion.

Some studies exist that suggest some of the value 

that wetlands provide to the public. In 1978, the Little 

Blue Natural Resources District hired an engineering 

firm to provide a cost-benefit analysis of a watershed 

plan in Clay County. This analysis reported that a 650-

acre impoundment would have an estimated annual 

benefit value of $97.37 per acre. This value was based 

on only three benefits: $52.75 per acre for groundwater 

recharge, $41.14 per acre for flood control, and $3.46 

per acre for recreation. This figure of $97.37 per acre 

in 1978 is equivalent to approximately $337 per acre 

in today’s economy. This estimate did not include the 

value of other services provided, such as capturing 

and transforming agricultural runoff or sustaining 

migratory bird populations. 

A limited amount of agricultural benefit is provided 

by WPAs. In 2009, approximately 12,600 animal-unit 

months of grazing were provided and an additional 

1,150 acres were hayed. 

Publicly owned wetlands within the Rainwater 

Basin are an important factor in bringing hunters and 

birdwatchers to the region. The 2006 National Survey 

of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation reports that the average hunter in Nebraska 

spent about $25 per day on trip expenses such as 

food, lodging, and fuel. For birdwatchers, that number was $31.50 per day. The Service estimates that 

there are approximately 80,000 visitor-days within 

WPAs in the Rainwater Basin each year. Using the 

$25 per visitor-day figure, that number of visitor-days 

brings $2 million of commerce to the region. NGPC 

estimates that upland game and waterfowl hunting 

provides $2,374,520 of economic activity to the Rainwater Basin (Mark Vrtiska, biologist, NGPC; personal 

communication; 2011). 

LANDOWNERSHIP AND LAND USE

Under this project, an additional 14,177 acres of land 

(0.36 percent of the Rainwater Basin region) will be 

permanently protected and managed for wildlife use. 
25

The adjoining upland and drained portions of wetlands 

will be converted from cropland back to grassland and 

wetlands. Agricultural income from the 5,000 acres 

of easements will be derived from livestock grazing 

and haying. 

The 9,177 acres purchased in fee title (0.20 percent 

of the Rainwater Basin region) will potentially be taken 

off the county tax rolls, with the counties receiving 

Refuge revenue sharing funds to help compensate for 

the loss of tax money. 

Lands with a conservation easement will remain 

on the tax rolls, and the taxes will be paid by the landowner. Land use on these properties will be limited to 

the terms of the easement, which will allow haying, 

grazing, and control of public access.

PUBLIC USE 

Additional fee-title properties will be open to public 

recreation, including hunting, birdwatching, and environmental education. Direct and indirect revenue 

from recreation will increase. Public pressure and 

wildlife disturbance to individual wetlands will lessen 

as more areas will be available for use. 

Properties with conservation easements will remain in private ownership. Access to the property 

will be at the discretion of the landowner, since the 

easements will not include public use.

VALUE OF THE RAINWATER BASIN ECOSYSTEM

This project will not completely restore the Rainwater 

Basin ecosystem, but it will help to reduce the threat 

of further losses to wetlands. Nearly 90 percent of the 

region’s wetlands will remain lost. Wetlands that are 

permanently protected will help to ensure that the 

region continues to play a critical role in the migration of millions of ducks, geese, shorebirds, and other 

birds. The wetland values of the acquired areas will 

continue to provide better water quality, quality of 

life, and wildlife habitat for many generations. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

An increase of land acquisition will cause a direct decline in taxes paid to counties. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

There will be an irretrievable and irreversible annual 

commitment of funds to protect and manage these 

lands. The potential for the property to be used for 

crop production by private landowners will be removed 

in perpetuity, unless the Service divests interest in 

such lands in the future.

Short-Term Use versus LongTerm Productivity

Land acquisition will preserve wetlands and adjoining 

grasslands in perpetuity. The loss of direct tax revenue 

to the affected counties will have a long-term impact. 

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are defined by NEPA as the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to the other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 

CFR § 1508.7)

PAST ACTIONS

Past land acquisition by the Service or the NGPC has 

included 31,823 acres of wetland and grassland. The 

Wetlands Reserve Program administered by NRCS 

has added 7,077 acres in conservation easements. This 

total acreage represents approximately 1.0 percent of 

the Rainwater Basin. These lands are managed primarily for the social benefits that wetlands provide, 

particularly for wetland and grassland birds. 

PRESENT ACTIONS

The Service’s action to expand land acquisition authority to 38,177 acres will add an additional 14,177 

acres to the Refuge System, 5,000 of which will be 

conservation easements. Land acquisition by NGPC 

is limited and is driven by available funds and willing sellers. The Wetlands Reserve Program continues to be an active program. The Wetlands Reserve 

Program areas, however, are not open for public use. 

Ducks Unlimited is actively seeking willing sellers 

and is obtaining both fee-title and easement properties. Its acquisitions are directed toward purchasing 

property, restoring the wetland and upland, protecting it with a conservation easement, and then selling 

the property. Present actions by conservation groups 

support the goals of the Service and the Rainwater 

Basin Joint Venture.

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS

Reasonably foreseeable actions are actions and activities that are independent of the proposed expansion 

addressed in this document. They are anticipated to 

Chapter 3 — Threats to and Status of the Resources
26 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

occur regardless of which alternative is selected. Increased production of ethanol and demand for corn 

and soybeans are expected to encourage an increase 

in land devoted to, and production from, farmland. A 

significant portion of that increased acreage can be 

expected to come from wetland conversion. Future 

wetland conservation will be done primarily by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture and nongovernmental 

conservation organizations. 

Wind energy development is currently being considered for the region. The potential for this development is speculative at this time. 

Development

The project will restore and protect an additional 14,177 

acres of wetlands and grassland areas for the benefit 

of the public and wildlife. The project will result in 

less land being available for agricultural production. 

Conservation Efforts

This project will allow for the protection of an additional 

14,177 acres of wetland and grassland habitats. These 

acres will be added to the 23,855 acres currently owned 

and managed by the Service. This action will have a 

long-term positive impact on wildlife habitat, substantially add to the management capability for existing 

wetlands, and help the Service meet the goals in the 

North American Waterfowl Plan. Service programs 

such as Partners for Fish and Wildlife will continue 

within the Rainwater Basin region. The Service will 

continue to work cooperatively with landowners to 

voluntarily improve habitat on private land through 

various conservation means such as prescribed fire, 

range management systems, or native plantings.
Chapter 4 — Project Implementation

This chapter discusses the Service’s action to increase 

the acquisition authority of the Rainwater Basin.

Land Protection Alternatives

The alternatives considered by the Service during the 

EA process were no action, short-term contracts, county 

zoning, or acquisition by the Service (proposed action).

NO ACTION

The consequences of the no-action alternative were 

considered unacceptable. Under this alternative, the 

Service would continue to acquire wetlands until it 

reaches its current authorization of 24,000 acres. After the authorization level had been reached, any additional acres in the Rainwater Basin that would come 

under Service ownership would come from donations 

or gifts from landowners, conservation organizations, 

and other government agencies. 

Management of Service lands would continue as 

described in the 2007 Rainwater Basin Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. WPAs with portions of the wetland in private ownership would not reach their full 

potential. The ability to use management tools such 

as prescribed burning, pumping, and grazing would 

be greatly limited because of split ownership. Refuge 

revenue sharing payments would continue to be made 

to counties with Service lands. 

Many of the privately owned wetlands that are 

currently vulnerable to drainage or other destruction would be lost. The burden to protect wetlands 

without compensation would rest more heavily on 

private landowners. Future wetland protection would 

rely primarily on the Wetlands Reserve Program and 

conservation organizations such as Ducks Unlimited. 

Although their contributions are significant, they are 

not expected to be enough to meet waterfowl needs in 

the region. Conservation work by a wider spectrum 

of conservation partners would be needed. 

These unacceptable consequences resulting from 

the no-action alternative led to the selection of the proposed action to expand land acquisition to 38,177 acres.

SHORT-TERM CONTRACTS

One alternative considered was developing a program 

similar to CRP that would pay landowners for protecting their wetlands from being altered or destroyed for 

a period of 10 years. The contract would be available 

for renewal every 10 years. This alternative would not 

ensure the protection of wetlands for the long term. 

Like CRP lands, wetlands would become vulnerable 

to drainage when crop prices make it profitable to 

convert such wetlands to cropland. Furthermore, the 

Service has an active Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program in the area, which can be used if acquisition 

is not an option for a landowner.

Upland grassland restoration brings back the diversity found in native grasslands.

USFWS
28 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

COUNTY ZONING

In a traditional approach used by counties and municipalities, the local government would use zoning 

as a means of designating what type of development 

could occur in an area. Nebraska law grants cities and 

counties the authority to regulate land use, and engaging in planning and zoning activities is therefore 

optional. However, zoning may be subject to frequent 

changes and would not ensure the long-term protection of wetlands.

Action and Objectives

The Service will increase its land acquisition goal 

within the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management 

District from 24,000 to 38,177 acres. All the lands will 

be acquired from willing sellers, with acquisition occurring over as many years as is necessary to reach 

the new goal. Wetlands that have characteristics that 

are biologically important to migratory birds will be 

targeted. These characteristics include the potential 

hydrology and location of the wetland in relation to 

other important wetlands (figure 7). Factors such as 

the presence of roads and power lines will also be considered when wetlands are prioritized.

Property will be purchased by one of two methods: fee-title and easement. Fee-title acquisition will 

total 9,177 acres and will target two types of wetlands: 

those currently sharing partial ownership by the Service and larger wetlands located within a complex of 

smaller wetlands. 

Conservation easements will be purchased for 

5,000 acres. Approximately 2,500 of these acres will 

be wetlands, with the remaining 2,500 being surrounding upland buffers. Easements will be purchased from 

willing sellers and will be restricted to those wetlands 

located near State and Service-owned wetlands.

Both fee-title acquisition and conservation easements will be done strategically using GIS technology 

to identify those wetlands that have the highest potential for waterfowl habitat. Wetlands will be prioritized 

by rating wetland and landscape characteristics that 

are critical for waterfowl. 

PRIORITY AREAS

A rating system that considers the various characteristics important to migratory birds has been developed by the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture and area 

biologists. Using GIS technology, a priority map was 

created that identifies individual wetlands as well as 

complexes of wetlands that provide the most benefit 

to birds (figure 7). 

Overall, the project will focus on fee-title acquisition in two types of wetlands. The highest priority will 

be to acquire portions of wetlands that adjoin existing 

WPAs, which will allow for better management of the 

entire wetland. Management practices such as prescribed burning, grazing, and water delivery are more 

effective when the entire wetland can be managed. 

The second type of wetlands that will be considered 

for acquisition will be larger wetlands located within 

a complex of smaller wetlands. Waterfowl prefer using wetlands within a complex of wetlands. A complex 

provides different wetlands for different needs, such 

as feeding, loafing, and roosting. 

Easement acquisition will target smaller wetlands 

close to a larger, publicly owned wetland. This strategy 

will allow the numerous small wetlands to remain in 

private ownership while still protecting the integrity 

of the wetland complex. Easements will protect the 

wetlands from future alteration and keep the adjoining upland in grassland. The landowner will retain 

access, grazing, and haying rights. 

MANAGEMENT

Acquired lands will be managed by the Rainwater 

Basin Wetland Management District, as described in 

the 2007 Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Easement 

monitoring will include periodic review of land status 

through correspondence and meetings with landowners or managers to ensure that the stipulations of the 

easement are being met. 

Payment in lieu of taxes from the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act will be paid to counties for lands 

in fee-title ownership by the Service. Taxes on lands 

containing a conservation easement will continue to 

be paid by the landowner. 

CONTAMINANTS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Surveys for contaminants will be conducted before 

any land interests are acquired. Fieldwork for the 

preacquisition surveys will be conducted on a tractby-tract basis. Any suspected problems or contaminants requiring additional surveys will be referred 

to a contaminant specialist located in the Service’s 

Ecological Services office in Grand Island, Nebraska.

Acquisition Alternatives

The Service proposes to acquire conservation easements mostly by using funds appropriated under the 

Land and Water Conservation Act, which derives 

funds from royalties paid for offshore oil and gas 

leasing; the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, which derives funds from the sale of 

Federal Duck Stamps; the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act, which derives funds from congressional appropriations; other funding as identified; or 

through donations. These funds are intended for the 

protection of recreational and natural resource lands. 
Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 29Figure 7. Priority wetland basins for migratory bird use in the Rainwater Basin.
30 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Funding is subject to annual appropriations by Congress for specific acquisition projects. 

Monies from other sources may also be used within 

the project area. Funding for management of acquired 

properties will come from Congress as appropriated 

to the Refuge System.

Strategic Habitat 

Conservation and Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives 

SHC (strategic habitat conservation) is a means of applying adaptive management across large landscapes. 

LCCs (landscape conservation cooperatives) will facilitate strategic habitat conservation (USFWS 2008).

STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION

The Rainwater Basin expansion proposal will apply 

the strategic habitat conservation framework outlined in the National Ecological Assessment Team 

report (National Ecological Assessment Team 2006). 

SHC involves an ongoing cycle of biological planning, 

conservation design, conservation delivery, outcomebased monitoring, and assumption-based research 

(figure 8). It is the process by which the Service continues to develop and apply science that is focused on 

improving the ability to apply conservation delivery 

actions that result in landscapes capable of supporting populations of priority species at desired levels. 

Additionally, SHC provides the framework by which 

the Service develops and applies science to inform and 

continually improve conservation delivery by addressing landscape-level population-limiting factors in an 

adaptive manner.

The Service’s Region 6 Refuges Program has established a GIS office in Grand Island that works 

closely with the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture and 

the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

to provide support for the biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, and monitoring/

research elements of SHC necessary to implement the 

proposed action. This environmental assessment addresses the four key SHC elements: planning, design, 

delivery, and monitoring and research.

Figure 8. The elements of strategic habitat 

conservation.

BIOLOGICAL PLANNING

Priority resources were described in earlier chapters 

of this document. Biological planning requires the identification of priority species, development of population objectives, and identification of landscape-level 

limiting factors that keep the populations of priority 

species below desired levels. Initial biological planning 

was done using dabbling ducks and a subset of goose 

populations as focal species. This approach was based 

on the assumption that protection and management of 

wetlands in a manner that meets the biological needs 

of the focal species will also adequately meet the needs 

of other wetland species. 

Conceptual and quantitative models have been 

developed to identify specific wetlands and wetland 

complexes. Priority species will continually be defined 

and updated throughout the implementation of the project, and additional landscape models will be developed 

for priority species. Biological planning will continue 

into the future, engaging partners in the population 

objectives and developing biological models that will 

be directly linked to conservation delivery actions.

CONSERVATION DESIGN

Land acquisition is most effectively completed using 

biologically driven, spatially explicit models. During 

the past decade, the Service, in cooperation with the 

Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, has used GIS to extensively map the Rainwater Basin region. Modeling has 

identified and ranked each hydric soils area, including 

both drained and existing wetlands. Key spatial and 

biological characteristics of each area were scored to 

determine which wetlands are cost effective to acquire 

and restore. The analysis considered the impacts of 

geographic features such as the proximity of other 

wetlands, roads, and power lines to each individual 

wetland. Color-coded maps reflect an individual wetland’s priority for fee-title acquisition, easement, and 

other types of conservation programs. 

The information obtained from the model was also 

used in conjunction with the management history of 

existing WPAs to identify where roundout acquisition is most needed.
31

CONSERVATION DELIVERY

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

has worked with neighboring landowners, conservation 

organizations, and government agencies for almost 5 

decades to preserve and enhance wetlands throughout the region. Beginning in the early 1990s, Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife biologists have worked with the 

same partners to bring conservation programs to wetland owners regardless of their proximity to existing 

Service properties. Application of the SHC framework will build on existing partnerships and support 

the development of new partnerships for delivering 

conservation throughout the ecoregion. 

It is recognized that the past practice of opportunistic acquisition will not result in the best use of 

conservation dollars. The function of some wetlands 

can best be used or enhanced by short-term conservation programs. Computer modeling of waterfowl 

energetic needs and wetland priority mapping allow 

for greater flexibility, increased responsiveness, and 

improved efficiency in meeting Service and partner 

conservation delivery needs.

Conservation design will continue to involve the 

development of spatially explicit decision support 

tools for targeting conservation delivery actions. Research and monitoring will help update the modeling 

parameters that will be used to develop future conservation priorities.

MONITORING AND RESEARCH

The success of the proposed action will depend on its 

ability to adapt to new and better information gathered through research and monitoring. Currently, 

monitoring and research are being done on a variety 

of subjects to provide for better decision making in the 

future. At the end of each growing season, wetlands are 

examined to assess the response of plant communities 

and seed production to different management actions. 

This information is being used to develop a strategic 

decision-making matrix to guide future management. 

Bird use associated with wetland juxtaposition is being analyzed to confirm if our current understanding 

of wetland complexes aligns with what actually occurs in the field. A study of the relationship between 

groundwater recharge and wetland characteristics was 

recently completed. A major research project related 

to grazing intensity and its impact on the control of 

reed canarygrass is beginning its final year. Information from these studies and future work on landscape 

ecology will be incorporated into the SHC process to 

further refine biological planning.

LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION COOPERATIVES

The Service will use LCCs as a means of implementing 

strategic habitat conservation. LCCs will be formal 

scientific and management partnerships between the 

Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, other Federal 

agencies, States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and others to increase the capacity for applied conservation science in support of fish 

and wildlife management in specific landscapes (Secretarial Order Number 3289). The tools developed by 

the LCCs will allow Service offices and their many 

partners to implement on-the-ground actions in the 

most effective locations to meet conservation goals. 

The Rainwater Basin Expansion Project is part of 

the Great Plains LCC, which was recently developed. 

The project meets the main criterion of the LCC initiative: cooperation among private landowners; other 

Federal, State, and local agencies; and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition to fostering partnerships, 

the LCCs provide science support to managers. 

In 2009, the Secretary of the Interior outlined the 

importance of LCCs as a response to climate change 

(USFWS 2009). LCCs reach across broad landscapes, 

involve many partners, and function at a scale necessary to address wildlife adaptation in response to climate change. The Rainwater Basin Expansion Project 

would contribute to the wetland protection projects of 

Ducks Unlimited, NGPC, natural resource districts, 

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

These cooperatives will continue to grow as a 

means of delivering strategic habitat conservation. The 

Service and the U.S. Geological Survey have signed 

a memorandum of understanding to strengthen the 

science-management relationship in landscape-level 

conservation. This further commitment to strategic 

habitat conservation will improve the effectiveness 

of the type of landscape conservation being proposed.

Coordination

The Service has discussed the proposal to expand land 

acquisition in the Rainwater Basin with landowners; 

conservation organizations; other Federal agencies; 

tribal, State, and county governments; and other interested groups and individuals. Approximately 170 

fact sheets were mailed out, and project information 

was also made available at the wetland management 

district and regional planning Web sites during the 

public scoping period.

The Service held two public meetings to provide 

information and discuss the proposal with landowners 

and other interested citizens. Information on the proposal has been made available to county commissioners 

in each of the 13 counties included in the project area. 

The Service released the draft EA and LPP on May 

31, 2011, for a 30-day public review period. This period 

was extended 2 weeks until July 15, 2011, allowing a 

45-day public review period. In total, the Service received 7 letters from agencies, organizations, and other 

entities, 58 comments from the general public, and 3 

Chapter 4 — Project Implementation
32 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

phone calls. After all the comments were received, 

each one was reviewed and incorporated into the administrative record. A separate request for further 

discussion with the Clay County Board of Supervisors 

was met on August 16, 2011.

At the Federal level, information was provided to 

the Congressional delegation as well as to representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. At the State level, 

information was provided to Governor Heinemann’s 

staff and Nebraska’s senators. Information was also 

provided to 21 tribes with aboriginal interest in the 

project during the entire planning process. 

Nongovernmental conservation groups are vital to 

the success of the proposed action. The Service has 

coordinated with partner organizations such as The 

Nature Conservancy, natural resource districts, and 

Ducks Unlimited.

Summary of Proposed Action

The Service intends to purchase an additional 14,177 

acres of wetlands and associated uplands for the 

benefit of migratory birds, primarily waterfowl and 

shorebirds. Fee-title acquisition will be used to acquire 

9,177 acres. Conservation easements will be used to 

protect the remaining 5,000 acres. Purchases will be 

from willing sellers and will strategically target those 

wetlands that most benefit migratory birds. Fee-title 

acquisition will be on two types of wetlands, those 

partially in private ownership but part of a WPA, 

and larger wetlands that serve as the core wetland 

in a complex of smaller wetlands. Easements will be 

purchased on biologically significant wetlands that lie 

close to State or Federally owned wetlands. 

Distribution and Availability 

Copies of this LPP were sent to Federal and State 

legislative delegations, tribes, agencies, landowners, 

private groups, and other interested individuals.

Additional copies of the document are available 

from the following offices and Web sites:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

P.O. Box 8

Funk, Nebraska 68940

308 / 263 3000

http://rainwater.fws.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning

Branch of Land Protection Planning

P.O. Box 25486–DFC

Denver, Colorado 80225 

303 / 236 4345

303 / 236 4792 fax

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning/lpp.htm
Appendix A

List of Preparers and Reviewers

Author’s Name Position Work Unit

Andy Bishop Joint venture coordinator USFWS, Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, Grand Island, NE

Jeff Drahota Wildlife biologist USFWS, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, 

Funk, NE

Nick Kaczor Planning team leader USFWS, Region 6, Planning Division, Lakewood, CO

Brad Krohn Wildlife refuge specialist USFWS, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, 

Funk, NE

Ted LaGrange Wetland program manager Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE

David Lucas Chief of planning USFWS, Region 6, Planning Division, Lakewood, CO

Gene Mack Former wildlife refuge manager USFWS, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, 

Funk, NE

Sue Oliveira Chief of realty USFWS, Region 6, Realty Division, Lakewood, CO

Garret Richason Realty specialist USFWS, Region 6, Realty Division, Lakewood, CO

Ronnie Sanchez Supervisory refuge operations specialist USFWS, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, 

Funk, NE

Meg VanNess Regional historic preservation officer USFWS, Region 6, Refuges, Lakewood, CO

Reviewer’s Name Position Work Unit

Brooke McDonald Writer/editor North State Resources, Inc.

Kathryn McDonald Writer/editor North State Resources, Inc.

Brooke Stansberry Acting field supervisor USFWS, Region 6, Ecological Services, Grand Island, NE

Jeanine Lackey Fish and wildlife biologist USFWS, Region 6, Ecological Services, Grand Island, NE

Barbara Boyle Refuge supervisor USFWS, Region 6, National Wildlife Refuge System, 

Lakewood, CO

Bud Oliveira Deputy assistant regional director USFWS, Region 6, National Wildlife Refuge System, 

Lakewood, CO

Appendix B

List of Plants and Animals

Rainwater Basin Flora List 

for Waterfowl Production 

Areas, Version 2.0

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a list 

of plant species (422) that occur in wetlands (http://

www.fws.gov/nwi/bha/list88.html). The following list 

of plants for the Rainwater Basin was generated using the Region 5 (1,523 plant species) map from this 

Web site. The USDA Plants Web site (http://plants.

usda.gov) listed 9,485 plant species for Nebraska. Both 

the USDA Plants Web site and the Nature Serve Explorer Web1

 site were used to verify scientific names, 

common names, and habits for those species not listed 

on the FWS Web site.

SCIENTIFIC NAME

The genus and species applied to the taxon were derived from Kaul et al. (2006) and Nature Serve Explorer (2010).

COMMON NAME

The common name is the popular name applied to the 

species. Common name selection generally follows common names from North American Plants 2

 (Kartesz 

and Thieret 1991), but some common names follow the 

current common name list maintained by the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and/or NatureServe.

NATIONAL RANGE INDICATORS

The national indicators reflect the range of estimated 

probabilities (expressed as a frequency of occurrence) 

of a species occurring in wetlands versus nonwetlands 

across the entire distribution of the species. A frequency 

of, for example, 67–99 percent (facultative wetland) 

means that 67–99 percent of sample plots containing 

the species randomly selected across the range of the 

species would be wetland. A question mark (?) following 

an indicator denotes a tentative assignment based on 

the botanical literature and not confirmed by regional 

review. When two indicators are given, they reflect 

the range from the lowest to the highest frequency 

of occurrence in wetlands across the regions in which 

1 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/

2 http://www.unl.edu/agnicpls/gpcn/about.html

the species is found. A positive (+) or negative (-) sign 

was used with the facultative indicator categories 

to more specifically define the regional frequency of 

occurrence in wetlands. The positive sign indicates 

a frequency toward the higher end of the category 

(more frequently found in wetlands), and a negative 

sign indicates a frequency toward the lower end of the 

category (less frequently found in wetlands).

NATIONAL WETLAND INDICATOR (INDICATOR 

CATEGORIES):

■ Obligate Wetland (OBL). These species almost always occur under natural conditions in wetlands 

(estimated probability >99 percent).

■ Facultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in 

wetlands (estimated probability 67–99 percent), 

but occasionally found in nonwetlands.

■ Facultative (FAC). Equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands (estimated probability 34–66 

percent).

■ Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in nonwetlands (estimated probability 67–99 percent), but 

occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1–33 percent).

■ Obligate Upland (UPL). Occur in wetlands in another region, but occur almost always (estimated 

probability >99 percent) under natural conditions 

in nonwetlands in the region specified. If a species 

does not occur in wetlands in any region, it is not 

on the national list.

The wetland indicator categories should not be equated 

to degrees of wetness. Many obligate wetland species 

occur in permanently or semipermanently flooded wetlands, but a number of obligates also occur and some 

are restricted to wetlands that are only temporarily 

or seasonally flooded. The facultative upland species 

include a diverse collection of plants that range from 

weedy species adapted to exist in a number of environmentally stressful or disturbed sites (including 

wetlands) to species for which a portion of the gene 

pool (an ecotype) always occurs in wetlands. Both the 

weedy and ecotype representatives of the facultative 

upland category occur in seasonally and semipermanently flooded wetlands.
36 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

REGION 5 WETLAND INDICATOR (REGIONAL 

INDICATOR FOR 5-CENTRAL PLAINS NE, KS, AND 

CO [EASTERN])

The wetland Indicator status estimates the probability 

(likelihood) of a species occurring in wetlands rather 

than nonwetland areas within this region. Regional 

indicators reflect the unanimous agreement of the Regional Interagency Review Panel. If a regional panel 

was not able to reach a unanimous decision on a species, NA (no agreement) was recorded on the regional 

indicator field. An NI (no indicator) was recorded for 

those species for which insufficient information was 

available to determine an indicator status. A nonoccurrence (NO) designation indicates that the species 

does not occur in that region. An asterisk (*) following 

a regional indicator identifies tentative assignments 

based on limited information from which to determine 

the indicator status. 

 HABIT

The plant characteristics and life forms assigned to 

each species in the National List of Scientific Plant 

Names3 (1982) and by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Family names are listed alphabetically 

under specific life forms restricted to these families. 

The HABIT symbols are combined to describe the life 

form of the species (e.g., ANG means annual native 

grass, IT means introduced tree).

3 http://www.archive.org/stream/nationallistofsc01unit#page/

n11/mode/2up
37

Symbol Characteristic or Life Form

A Annual

B Biennial

C Clubmoss Lycopodiaceae Selaginellaceae

E Emergent 

F Forb

 / Floating 

F3 Fern Adiantaceae Aspleniaceae

Blechnaceae Cyatheaceae

Davalliaceae Dennstaedtiaceae

Dryopteridaceae Gleicheniaceae

Grammitidaceae Hymenophyllaceae

Lomariopsidaceae Marattiaceae

Ophioglossaceae Osmundaceae

Parkeriaceae Polypodiaceae

Psilotaceae Pteridaceae

Schizaeaceae

G Grass Poaceae

GL Grasslike Cyperaceae Juncaceae

H Partly woody

HS Half shrub

H2 Horsetail Equisetaceae

I Introduced

N Native

P Perennial

+ Parasitic

P3 Pepperwort Marsileaceae

Q Quillwort Isoetaceae

S Shrub

- Saprophytic

Z Submerged

$ Succulent

T Tree

V Herbaceous vine

W Waterfern Azollaceae Salviniaceae

WV Woody vine

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
38 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Plants

Scientific Name Common Name

Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Abutilon theophrasti velvetleaf UPL–FACU– UPL AIF

Achillea millefolium common yarrow FACU FACU PNF

Agropyron elongatum tall wheatgrass FAC, FACU* NI PNG*

Agropyron cristatum crested wheatgrass FACU PIG

Agropyron smithii western wheatgrass FACU UPL, FAC– PNG

Agrostis hyemalis ticklegrass FACU FACU, FACW PNG

Agrostis stolonifera redtop FAC+, FACW FAC+ PIG

Alisma plantago-aquatica European water plantain OBL OBL PNEF

Alisma subcordatum American water plantain OBL OBL PNEF

Allium canadense meadow onion FACU–, FACU FACU PNF

Allium canadense var.

lavendulare

meadow onion FACU–, FACU FACU PNF

Alopecurus aequalis shortawn foxtail PNG

Alopecurus arundinaceus creeping foxtail FACW FAC+, FACW PIG

Alopecurus carolinianus Carolina foxtail FACW FAC+, FACW ANG

Amaranthus arenicola sandhill amaranth UPL, FAC FACU ANF

Amaranthus retroflexus redroot amaranth FACU FACU–, FAC– ANF

Amaranthus rudis amaranth FACW FACU–, FACW ANF

Ambrosia artemisiifolia annual ragweed FACU FACU–, FACU+ ANF

Ambrosia grayi woollyleaf burr ragweed FAC FAC, FACW PN F

Ambrosia psilostachya naked-spike ragweed FAC FACU–, FAC PNF

Ambrosia trifida great ragweed FACW FAC, FACW ANF

Ammannia coccinea valley redstem OBL FACW+, OBL ANF

Amorpha canescens leadplant FAC* NI PNF*

Andropogon gerardii big bluestem FAC– FACU, FAC PNG

Apocynum cannabinum clasping-leaf dogbane FAC FACU, FAC+ PNF

Argemone polyanthemos crested pricklypoppy UPL NI PNF

Aristida basiramea Vasey-forktip grass NI ANG

Aristida oligantha three-awn grass FACU* NI PNG*

Aristida purpurea red three-awn grass NI PNG*

Artemisia ludoviciana white sagebrush FACU– UPL, FACU PNFH

Asclepias incarnata swamp milkweed PNF*

Asclepias stenophylla slim-leaved milkweed FACU* NI PNF*

Asclepias syriaca common milkweed FACW–* NI PNF

Asclepias verticillata whorled milkweed UPL PNF

Asclepias viridifl ora woolly milkweed UPL PNF

Asclepias viridis green antelopehorn UPL PNF

Aster spp. 

See Symphyotrichum

Astragalus canadensis Canadian milkvetch FACU FACU, FACW– PNF

Astragalus crassicarpus groundplum milkvetch UPL PNF

Avena fatua wild oats AIG

Azolla mexicana Mexican mosquito fern OBL OBL PN/W

Bacopa rotundifolia disk water-hyssop OBL OBL PNF
39

Plants

Region 5 Wetland National Wetland 

Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Indicator Habit

Baptisia bracteata long-bract indigo UPL PNF

Bassia scoparia kochia ANF

Berula erecta water parsnip OBL OBL PIF

Bidens cernua nodding beggar-ticks OBL FACW+, OBL AIF

Bidens comosa leafy-bract beggar-ticks FACW FACW ANF

Bidens frondosa devil’s beggar-ticks FACW FACW, FACW+ ANF

Bidens vulgata beggar-ticks ANF

Boltonia asteroides white boltonia FACW FACW, OBL PNF

Bouteloua curtipendula sideoats grama FACU* NI PNG*

Bouteloua gracilis blue grama UPL* NI PNG*

Bouteloua hirsuta hairy grama UPL* NI PNG*

Brickellia eupatorioides false boneset UPL PNF*

Bromus inermis smooth brome UPL* NI PNG*

Bromus japonicus Japanese brome FACU FACU, UPL AIG

Bromus tectorum downy brome UPL* NI ANG*

Bryophyte spp. moss NI NI NI

Buchloe dactyloides buffalograss FACU FACU–, FACU PNG

Calamagrostis canadensis bluejoint reedgrass OBL FAC, OBL PNG

Calamagrostis stricta northern reedgrass PNG

Calamovilfa longifolia prairie sandreed UPL PNG

Callirhoe alcaeoides light poppymallow UPL PNF

Callirhoe involucrata purple poppymallow UPL PNF

Calylophus serrulatus yellow sundrops UPL PNF

Calystegia sepium hedge bindweed FACU, OBL FAC PIF

Cannabis sativa hemp FAC+* NI ANF*

Capsella bursa-pastoris common shepherd’s purse FACU FACU, FAC AIF

Cardus nutans musk thistle UPL B/PIF*

Carex bicknellii Bicknell’s sedge FACU, FACW FACU PNGL

Carex brevior short-beak sedge FAC UPL, OBL PNEGL

Carex cristatella crested sedge FACW FAC, FACW+ PNGL

Carex eleocharis needle leaf sedge FACW PNGL

Carex gravida heavy sedge OBL* PNGL

Carex laeviconica smooth-cone sedge OBL OBL PNEGL

Carex lanuginosa woolly sedge OBL OBL PNGL

Carex tribuloides blunt broom sedge FACW, OBL FACW PNGL

Carex vulpinoidea fox sedge OBL OBL PNEGL

Carex × stipata stalk-grain sedge OBL OBL PNGL

Cassia chamaecrista showy partridge pea UPL ANF

Ceanothus americanus New Jersey tea UPL PNF

Ceanothus herbaceus Jersey tea UPL PNS

Celtis occidentalis hackberry PNT

Celtis occidentalis common hackberry UPL PNT

Cenchrus longispinus sandbur FAC* NI ANG*

Chenopodium album lambsquarters FAC FACU, FAC AIF

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
40 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Plants

Scientific Name Common Name

Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Chenopodium desiccatum aridland goosefoot UPL ANF

Chenopodium leptophyllum narrowleaf goosefoot NI UPL, FAC ANF

Chloris verticillata windmill grass NI NI PNG

Cichorium intybus chicory BPIF

Circaea spp. enchanter’s nightshade FACW, UPL PNF

Cirsium altissimum roadside thistle FAC* NI BNF*

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle FACU FACU–, FAC PIF

Cirsium canescens prairie thistle UPL BNF*

Cirsium flodmanii Flodman’s thistle NI FACU? PNF

Cirsium ochrocentrum yellowspine thistle UPL BPNF

Cirsium spp. thistles FAC+* NI ABINF*

Cirsium undulatum wavy-leaf thistle FACU FACU, FAC BPNF

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle UPL UPL, FAC BIF

Comandra umbellata umbellate bastard toad-flax UPL, FACU UPL PN+F

Convolulus spp. field bindweed FAC* NI PNF*

Convolvulus arvense field bindweed FAC* NI PNF*

Conyza canadensis Canada horseweed FACU– UPL, FAC ANF

Conyza ramosissima dwarf horseweed FAC* NI AN F

Coreopsis tinctoria golden tickseed FAC FACU, FAC ANF

Crepis runcinata hawksbeard dandelion FAC FACU, FACW PNF

Cyclachaena xanthifolia giant sumpweed ANF

Cyperus acminatus short-point flatsedge OBL OBL ABPNGL

Cyperus aristatus awned flatsedge OBL FACW+, OBL ANGL

Cyperus erythrorhizos redrooted cyperus OBL FACW+, OBL APNEGL

Cyperus esculentes chufa FACW FAC, FACW PNGL

Cyperus lupulinus Houghton flatsedge FACU PNG

Dactylis glomerata orchard grass UPL PIG

Dalea candida white prairie clover UPL PNF

Dalea purpurea violet prairie clover UPL PNF

Dalea villosa silky prairie clover UPL PNFHS

Delphinium carolinianum Carolina larkspur UPL PNF

Delphinium virescens prairie larkspur UPL PNF

Desmanthus illinoensis prairie bundleflower FACU UPL, FAC PNF

Desmodium canadense showy tick-trefoil FAC FACU, FAC PNF

Desmodium illinoense Illinois tick-trefoil UPL PNF

Dianthus armeria Deptford pink UPL PNF

Dichanthelium acuminatum panic grass FAC, FACW FAC PNG

Dichanthelium oligosanthes Heller’s witchgrass FACU FACU, FAC PNG

Digitaria sanguinalis hairy crabgrass FACU FACU–, FAC– AIG

Digitaria spicata saltgrass PNG

Echinacea angustifolia blacksamson echinacea UPL PNG

Echinochloa crus-galli barnyard grass FACW FACU, FACW AIG

Echinochloa muricata rough barnyard grass OBL FAC, OBL ANG

Elatine rubella red waterwort ANF
41

Plants

Region 5 Wetland National Wetland 

Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Indicator Habit

Eleusine indica goosegrass AIG

Eleocharis acicularis least spikerush OBL OBL PNEGL

Eleocharis compressa flat-stem spikerush FACW FACW, FACW+ PNEGL

Eleocharis engelmannii annual spikerush OBL OBL ANGL

Eleocharis erythropoda bald spikerush OBL OBL PNGL

Eleocharis palustris creeping spikerush OBL OBL PNEGL

Elymus canadensis nodding wild rye FACU FACU, FAC+ PNG

Elymus elongatus tall wheatgrass PIG

Elymus hispidus intermediate wheatgrass FACU FACU, FAC+ PNG

Elymus repens quackgrass PIG

Elymus smithii western wheatgrass FACU PNG

Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass FACU PNG

Elymus virginiana Virginia wild rye FAC FAC, FACW PNG

Eragrostis cilianensis stinkgrass AIG

Eragrostis hypnoides teal lovegrass FACU ANG

Eragrostis pectinacea Carolina lovegrass ANG

Eragrostis spectabilis purple lovegrass FACU UPL, FACU PNG

Eragrostis spectabilis purple lovegrass FACU UPL, FACU PNG

Erigeron annuus white-top fleabane FACU FACU, FAC ANF

Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia fleabane FACU FACU, FAC ANF

Erigeron strigosus prairie fleabane FAC FACU, FAC ANF

Eriochloa contracta prairie cupgrass ANG

Eupatorium perfoliatum common boneset OBL FACW+, OBL PNF

Euphorbia cyathophora fire-on-the-mountain UPL NAPF

Euphorbia esula leafy spurge UPL PIF

Euphorbia glyptosperma UPL ANF

Euphorbia dentata toothed spurge UPL AIF

Euphorbia maculata spotted spurge FACU– UPL, FACU ANF

Euphorbia marginata snow-on-the-mountain UPL, FACU FACU ANF

Euphorbia prostrata ANF

Euphorbia nutans eyebane broomspurge FACU–, FACU FACU– AIF

Euphorbia serpens round-leafed spurge ANF

Euphorbia spathulata ANF

Festuca arundinacea Kentucky fescue FACU UPL, FACW– PIG

Festuca saximontana Rocky Mountain fescue NPG

Fragaria virginiana Virgina strawberry UPL, FAC FACU PNF

Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash FAC, FACW NT

Gaillardia pulchella blanket flower UPL PNF

Galium aparine catchweed bedstraw FACU FACU, FAC– ANF

Gaura coccinea scarlet gaura UPL PNS/F

Gaura parviflora velvet-leaf butterfly-weed FACU? NI ANF

Gleditsia triacanthos honey-locust FAC FACU, FAC NTS

Glyceria striata fowl mannagrass OBL OBL PNEG

Glycine max soybean UPL* NI AI*

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
42 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Plants

Scientific Name Common Name

Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Glycyrrhiza lepidota American licorice FACU UPL, FAC+ PNF

Grindelia squarrosa curly-cup gumweed FACU– UPL, FACU ABPNF

Gutierrezia sarothrae broom snakeweed UPL PNS/F

Hedeoma hispida rough false pennyroyal UPL ANF

Helianthus annuus common sunflower FACU FACU, FAC ANF

Helianthus grosseserratus saw-tooth sunflower FACW FAC, FACW PNF

Helianthus maximiliani Maximilian’s sunflower UPL UPL, FACU PNF

Helianthus petiolaris prairie sunflower UPL ANF

Helianthus rigidus stiff sunflower UPL PNF

Hesperis matronalis dame’s rocket IBPF

Heteranthera limosa blue mud-plantain OBL OBL ANEF

Heteranthera multiflora bouquest mud-plantain OBL ANF

Heterotheca villosa hairy goldaster UPL PNF

Hieracium longipilum hairy hawkweed FACU PNF

Hordeum jubatum fox-tail barley FACW FAC, FACW PNG

Hordeum pusillum little barley FAC FACU, FAC ANG

Hypoxis hirsuta eastern yellow stargrass FAC, FACW FACW PNF

Ipomoea hederacea ivyleaf morning-glory FACU, FAC FACU AIV

Ipomoea leptophylla bush morning-glory UPL PNF

Ipomoea pandurata wild sweet-potato vine FACU, FAC– FAC– PNF

Ipomoea purpurea common morning-glory UPL, FAC FACU AIV

Juncus dudleyi Dudley rush PNGL

Juncus interior inland rush FAC FACU, FACW PNGL

Juncus torreyi Torrey’s rush FACW, FACW+ FACW PNGL

Juniperus virginiana eastern red cedar FACU– FACI–, FACU NT

Kochia scoparia Mexican summer-cypress FACU UPL, FAC AIF

Koeleria macrantha prairie Junegrass UPL PNG

Kuhnia eupatoriodes false boneset FAC, FACU* NI PNF*

Lactuca canadensis tall yellow lettuce FACU FACU–, FAC+ ABNF

Lactuca ludoviciana biannual lettuce FAC UPL, FAC BPNF

Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce FAC FACU, FAC ABIF

Lactuca tatarica blue lettuce FAC BPNF

Lamium amplexicaule henbit AIF

Leersia oryzoides rice cutgrass OBL OBL PNG

Lemna minor lesser duckweed OBL OBL PN/F

Lemna trisulca star duckweed OBL OBL PN/F

Lepidium densiflorum common pepperweed FAC ABNF

Lepidium virginicum Virginia pepperweed UPL, FAC– FACU ABNF

Leptochloa fusca (fascicularis) bearded sprangletop OBL FACW, OBL ANG

Lespedeza capitata round-head bushclover UPL UPL, FACU PNF

Liatris punctata dotted gayfeather FACU PNF

Liatris pycnostachya cattail gayfeather FAC FACU, FAC+ PNF

Limosella aquatica northern mudwort OBL OBL APNEF

Lindernia dubia yellowseed false pimpernel OBL ANF
43

Plants

Region 5 Wetland National Wetland 

Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Indicator Habit

Linum compactum bushy flax ANF

Linum rigidum stiffstem flax UPL, FAC UPL PNF

Linum sulcatum grooved flax ANF

Lippia cuneifolia wedgeleaf fogfruit FAC, FACW FAC PNF

Lippia lanceolata northern fogfruit FACW, OBL OBL PNF

Lithospermum incisum narrow-leaved puccoon UPL PNF

Lolium arundinaceum tall fescue UPL PIG

Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass UPL PIG

Lomatium foeniculaceum wild parsley UPL PNF

Lonicera morrowii Morrow’s honeysuckle PIS

Lotus corniculatus bird’s-foot trefoil FACU FACU–, FAC PIF

Lotus purshianus prairie trefoil FACU* NI ANF*

Lotus unifoliolatus American bird’s-foot trefoil ANF

Ludwigia palustris marsh seedbox OBL OBL PNEF

Lycopus americanus American bugleweed OBL OBL PNF

Lygodesmia juncea rush skeletonplant UPL PNF

Lythrum salicaria purple loosetrife FACW+, OBL OBL PIF

Marsilea vestita hairy water fern OBL OBL PNEP3

Medicago sativa alfalfa APIF

Melilotus alba white sweetclover FACU FACU–, FACU+ ABIF

Melilotus officinalis yellow sweetclover FACU FACU–, FACU+ ABIF

Mentha arvensis field mint FAC, FACW FACW PNF

Mirabilis linearis narrowleaf four o’clock PNFHS

Mirabilis nyctaginea heartleaf four o’clock UPL UPL, FACU PNF

Mollugo verticillata green carpet-weed FAC FAC–, FAC ANF

Monarda fistulosa wild bergamot UPL, FAC+ FACU– PNF

Morus alba white mulberry UPL, FAC FAC IT

Morus rubra red mulberry FACU FACU, FAC NT

Muhlenbergia asperifolia Parodi scratchgrass PNG

Muhlenbergia mexicana wirestem muhly FACW FAC, FACW PNG

Muhlenbergia racemosa green muhly FACW FACU, FACW PNG

Myosurus minimus tiny mouse-tail FACW FACW–OBL ANF

Nepeta cataria catnip FACU FACU–, FACW– PIF

Oenothera biennis common evening-primrose FACU FACU–, FACU+ BIF

Oenothera villosa hairy evening-primrose FAC FACU, FACW BPNF

Oligoneuron rigidum goldenrod UPL PNF

Oxalis dillenia gray-green woodsorrel FACU* NI PNF*

Oxalis stricta yellow woodsorrel FACU* PNF

Oxalis violacea violet woodsorrel UPL PNF

Panicum capillare witchgrass FAC FACU, FAC ANG

Panicum dichotomiflorum fall panic grass FAC FAC, FACW ANG

Panicum oligosanthes Scribner panicum PNG

Panicum virgatum switchgrass FAC FAC, FACW PNG

Paspalum setaceum paspalum PNG

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
44 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Plants

Scientific Name Common Name

Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Parientaria pensylvanica Pennsylvania pellitory FAC FACU–, FACW– ANF

Penstemon grandiflorus large-flower beardtongue UPL PNF

Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass FACW+ FACW, OBL PI*G

Phleum pratense timothy FACU FACU PIG

Phragmites americanus australis reed FACW-OBL PNG

Phragmites australis reed FACW-OBL PI*G

Physalis heterophylla clammy groundcherry UPL PNF

Physalis longifolia longleaf groundcherry UPL PNF

Physalis virginiana Virginia groundcherry UPL PNF

Poa annua tufted bluegrass FACU, FACW- FACU AIG

Poa compressa Canada bluegrass FACU FACU–, FAC PIG

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass FACU FACU, FAC– PIG

Polygala alba white milkwort PNF

Polygonum arenastrum knotweed UPL* NI APNF*

Polygonum bicorne pink smartweed FACW+ FACW–, OBL ANEF

Polygonum coccineum water smartweed OBL OBL PNE/F

Polygonum convolvulus black-bindweed AIVF

Polygonum hydropiper swamp smartweed OBL OBL PNEF

Polygonum hydropiperoides mild water-pepper OBL OBL PNEF

Polygonum lapathifolium curlytop knotweed OBL FAC, OBL ANF

Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania FACW+ FACW–, OBL ANEF

Polygonum persicaria spotted ladysthumb OBL FAC, OBL AIF

Polygonum minus pygmy smartweed OBL APIF

Polygonum punctatum dotted smartweed OBL FACW, OBL PNEF

Polygonum ramosissimum bushy knotweed FAC FACU–, FACW ANF

Polygonum scandens climbing false buckwheat PNVF

Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitfoot grass FACW, OBL OBL AIG

Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood FAC FAC, FACW NT

Portulaca oleracea common purslane FAC FACU, FAC ANF

Potamogeton gramineus variable pondweed OBL OBL PNZF

Potamogeton nodosus longleaf pondweed OBL OBL PNZF

Potentilla arguta tall cinquefoil FACU UPL, FACU+ PNF

Potentilla norvegica Norwegian cinquefoil FAC FACU, FAC ABPNF

Potentilla recta sulphur cinquefoil FACU* NI PNF*

Prenanthes racemosa glaucous rattlesnake-root FAC FACU–, FACW PNF

Prunella vulgaris heal-all FAC FACU, FACW PIF

Prunus americana American plum UPL UPL, FACU NST

Prunus virginiana chokecherry FACU FACU–, FAC NST

Psoralea argophylla silver-leaf scurfpea FACU* NI PNF*

Psoralea tenuifl ora few-flowered scurfpea UPL PNF

Psoralidium lanceolatum lemon scurfpea UPL PNF

Pulsatilla patens pasqueflower UPL PNF

Ranunculus cymbalaria shore buttercup OBL OBL PNEF

Ranunculus flabellaris yellow water buttercup OBL OBL PNEF
45

Plants

Region 5 Wetland National Wetland 

Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Indicator Habit

Ranunculus longirostris white water buttercup OBL OBL PNZ/F

Ranunculus pensylvanicus Pennsylvania buttercup FACW, OBL OBL APNEF

Ranunculus sceleratus cursed buttercup OBL OBL APNEF

Ratibida columnifera upright prairie coneflower UPL PNF

Rhus glabra smooth sumac UPL NT

Robinia pseudoacacia black locust UPL UPL, FAC IT

Rorippa palustris bog yellowcress OBL FAC, OBL ANEF

Rorippa sessiliflora stalkless yellowcress OBL FACW+, OBL ANEF

Rorippa sinuata spreading yellowcress FACW FAC+, FACW PNF

Rosa arkansana wild prairie rose NI FAC? NSH

Rosa multiflora multiflora rose UPL, FACU UPL IS

Rosa woodsii Woods’ rose UPL, FAC– FACU NS

Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed susan FACU–, FACU FACU BPNF

Rumex altissimus pale dock FAC FAC, FACW+ PNF

Rumex crispus curly dock FACW FACU, FACW PIF

Sagittaria brevirostra shortbeak arrowhead OBL OBL PNEF*

Sagittaria calycina hooded arrowhead OBL OBL PNEF

Sagittaria cuneata arumleaf arrowhead OBL OBL PNEF*

Sagittaria graminea grassy arrowhead OBL OBL PNEF

Sagittaria latifolia broadleaf arrowhead OBL OBL PNEF*

Sagittaria longiloba longbarb arrowhead OBL OBL PNEF

Sagittaria rigida sessilefruit arrowhead OBL OBL PNEF

Salix amygdaloides peach-leaf willow FACW FACW NT

Salsola kali Russian thistle FACU–, FACU+ FACU AIF

Salvia azurea blue sage UPL PNF

Schedonnardus paniculatus tumblegrass PNG

Schizachyrium scoparium little bluestem FACU FACU–, FACU+ PNG

Schoenoplectus fluviatilis river bulrush OBL OBL PNEGL

Schoenoplectus heterochaetus slender bulrush OBL OBL PNEGL

Schoenoplectus pungens three-square bulrush FACW+, OBL OBL PNEGL

Scirpus acutus hard-stem bulrush OBL OBL PNEGL

Scirpus validus soft-stem bulrush OBL OBL PNEGL

Scutellaria parvula small skullcap UPL, FACU FACU PNF

Securigera varia crown-vetch UPL PIF

Senecio plattensis prairie groundsel UPL, FACU FACU BPNF

Setaria pumila yellow bristle grass FAC FACU, FAC AIG

Setaria verticillata bristly foxtail FACU, FAC FAC AIG

Setaria viridis green foxtail FAC* NI AIG

Silene antirrhina sleepy silene UPL ANF

Silphium integrifolium wholeleaf rosinweed UPL PNF

Silphium laciniatum compassplant UPL PNF

Silphium perfoliatum cup-plant FACU, FACW FAC PNF

Sinapis alba white mustard UPL AIF

Sinapis arvensis corn mustard AIF

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
46 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Plants

Scientific Name Common Name

Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Sisyrinchium campestre blue-eyed grass UPL PNF

Sisyrinchium montanum strict blue-eyed grass FACU, FACW FAC PNF

Solanum carolinense Carolina nightshade UPL, FACU UPL NSF

Solanum interius inland nightshade ANF

Solanum ptycanthum black nightshade FAC+* NI ANF*

Solanum rostratum buffalobur nightshade FAC* NI ANF*

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod FACU FACU, FACU+ PNF

Solidago gigantea giant goldenrod FAC, FACW FACW PNF

Solidago graminifolia flat-top goldenrod UPL PNF

Solidago missouriensis Missouri goldenrod FACU* NI PNF

Solidago rigida stiff goldenrod FACU UPL, FACU PNF

Sonchus arvensis field sowthistle UPL, FAC FAC PIF

Sonchus oleraceus common sowthistle UPL, FACU FACU AIF

Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass FACU UPL, FACW PNG

Sorghum bicolor milo UPL* NI AIG*

Sparganium eurycarpum giant burreed OBL OBL PNEF

Spartina pectinata prairie cordgrass FACW FACW, OBL PNG

Sphaeralcea coccinea false red mallow BPNFHS

Sphenopholis obtusata prairie wedgegrass FAC–, FACW+ FACW APNG

Spirodela polyrrhiza greater duckweed OBL OBL PNF

Sporobolus compositus 

(asper)

rough dropseed UPL, FACU FACU PNG

Sporobolus cryptandrus sand dropseed FACU– UPL, FACU PNG

Sporobolus neglectus poverty grass FACU UPL, FACU ANG

Sporobolus vaginiflorus poverty dropseed FACU UPL, FACU ANG

Stachys palustris marsh hedgenettle FACW, OBL OBL PIF

Stipa comata needle and thread UPL PNG

Stipa spartea porcupine grass UPL PNG

Stipa viridula green needlegrass UPL PNG

Strophostyles leiosperma slickseed fuzzybean ANFV

Symphoricarpos occidentalis western snowberry PNS

Symphoricarpos orbiculatus coralberry UPL, FAC– FACU– NS

Symphyotrichum divaricatum annual saltmarsh aster ABNF

Symphyotrichum ericoides white heath aster FACU UPL, FACU PNF

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum panicled aster FACW FACW PNF

Tamarix ramosissima saltcedar FAC, FACW FACW IT

Taraxacum officinale common dandelion FACU FACU–, FACU+ PIF

Teucrium canadense American germander FACW FAC+, FACW PNEF

Thalictrum dioicum early meadow-rue FACU+, FACW FAC PNF

Thinopyrum intermedium intermediate wheatgrass UPL PIG

Thlaspi arvense field pennycress FACU? NI AIF

Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy FACU, FACW FACU NWVS

Toxicodendron rydbergii Rydberg poison ivy FACU, FACW FAC NHS

Tradescantia bracteata longbract spiderwort UPL, FAC FAC PNF
47

Plants

Region 5 Wetland National Wetland 

Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Indicator Habit

Tragopogon dubius goatsbeard FACU* NI BIF*

Tribulus terrestris puncturevine UPL AIF

Trifolium pratense red clover FACU FACU–, FAC BPIF

Trifolium repens white clover FACU FACU–, FAC PIF

Triodanis perfoliata claspleaf Venus’ looking-glass UPL, FAC FAC ANF

Tripsacum dactyloides eastern gamagrass FAC, FACW FAC PNG

Triticum aestivum wheat AIG

Typha angustifolia narrowleaf cattail OBL OBL PNEF

Typha latifolia broadleaf cattail OBL OBL PNEF

Typha × glauca hybrid cattail OBL OBL PNEF

Ulmus americana American elm FAC, FACW FAC NT

Ulmus pumila Siberian elm FACU* NI IT*

Utricularia vulgaris bladderwort OBL OBL PNZF

Verbascum thapsus common mullein UPL PNF

Verbena bracteata prostrate vervain FACU UPL, FACW APNF

Verbena hastata blue vervain FAC, FACW+ FACW PNF

Verbena urticifolia white vervain UPL, FAC+ UPL APNF

Verbena stricta hoary vervain FAC, FACU* NI PNF*

Vernonia baldwinii Baldwin’s ironweed UPL, FACW– FACW– PNF

Vernonia fasciculata prairie ironweed FAC FAC, FACW PNF

Veronica peregrina purslane speedwell FACU–, OBL OBL ANEF

Vicia americana American purple vetch FAC? NI PNFV

Viola pedatifi da prairie violet UPL, FACU FACU PNF

Viola pratincola blue prairie violet FACU, FAC FAC– PNF

Vulpia octoflora sixweeks-fescue UPL ANG

Wolffia columbiana Columbian watermeal OBL OBL PN/F

Xanthium strumarium rough cocklebur FAC FAC–, FAC+ ANF

Yucca glauca soapweed UPL NI NT

Zea mays corn FAC NI AIF

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
48 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Mammals

Scientific Name Common Name

Blarina brevicauda northern short-tailed shrew

Blarina brevicauda short-tailed shrew

Canis latrans coyote

Castor canadensis American beaver

Chaetodipus hispidus hispid pocket mouse

Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat

Cryptotis parva least shrew

Cynomys ludovicianus black-tailed prairie dog

Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum

Dipodomys ordii Ord’s kangaroo rat

Eptesicus fuscus big brown bat

Geomys bursarius plains pocket gopher

Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat

Lasiurus borealis eastern red bat

Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat

Lepus californicus black-tailed jackrabbit

Lepus townsendii white-tailed jackrabbit

Lontra canadensis northern river otter

Lynx rufus bobcat

Marmota monax woodchuck

Mephitis mephitis striped skunk

Microtus ochrogaster prairie vole

Microtus pennsylvanicus meadow vole

Microtus pinetorum woodland vole

Mus musculus house mouse

Mustela frenata long-tailed weasel

Mustela nivalis least weasel

Mustela vison American mink

Myotis ciliolabrum western small-footed myotis

Myotis lucifugus little brown bat

Myotis septentrionalis northern myotis

Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis

Myotis volans long-legged myotis

Nycticeius humeralis evening bat

Odocoileus hemionus mule deer

Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer

Ondatra zibethicus muskrat

Onychomys leucogaster northern grasshopper mouse

Oryctolagus cuniculus European rabbit

Perognathus fasciatus olive-backed pocket mouse

Perognathus flavescens plains pocket mouse

Perognathus flavus silky pocket mouse

Peromyscus leucopus white-footed mouse

Peromyscus maniculatus deer mouse

Pipistrellus subflavus eastern pipistrelle
49

Mammals

Scientific Name Common Name

Procyon lotor northern raccoon 

Rattus norvegicus Norway rat

Reithrodontomys megalotis western harvest mouse

Reithrodontomys montanus plains harvest mouse

Scalopus aquaticus eastern mole

Sciurus niger eastern fox squirrel

Sigmodon hispidus hispid cotton rat

Sorex haydeni prairie shrew

Sorex merriami Merriam’s shrew

Spermophilus franklinii Franklin’s ground squirrel

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus thirteen-lined ground squirrel

Spilogale putorius eastern spotted skunk

Sylvilagus floridanus eastern cottontail

Synaptomys cooperi southern bog lemming

Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian free-tailed bat

Tamias minimus least chipmunk

Taxidea taxus American badger

Thomomys talpoides northern pocket gopher

Urocitellus elegans Wyoming ground squirrel

Vulpes velox swift fox

Vulpes vulpes red fox 

Xerospermophilus spilosoma spotted ground squirrel

Zapus hudsonius meadow jumping mouse

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
50 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Amphibians

Scientific Name Common Name

Spea bombirons plains spadefoot toad

Anaxyrus americanus American toad

Anaxyrus cognatus Great Plains toad 

Anaxyrus woodhousii Woodhouse’s toad

Acris crepitans northern cricket frog

Acris blanchardi Blanchard’s cricket frog

Hyla chrysoscelis Cope’s gray treefrog

Pseudacris maculata Boreal chorus frog

Gastrophryne olivacea Great Plains narrowmouth toad

Rana blairi plains leopard frog

Rana catesbeiana bullfrog

Ambystoma texanum smallmouth salamander

Ambystoma mavortium eastern tiger salamander
51

Reptiles

Scientific Name Common Name

Apalone spinifera spiny softshell turtle

Chelydra serpentina common snapping turtle

Chrysemys picta painted turtle

Kinosternon flavescens yellow mud turtle

Terrapene ornata western box turtle

Aspidoscelis sexlineatus six-lined racerunner

Holbrookia maculata lesser earless lizard

Ophisaurus attenuatus slender glass lizard

Plestiodon fasciatus five-lined skink

Plestiodon multivirgatus many-lined skink

Plestiodon obsoletus Great Plains skink

Plestiodon septentrionalis prairie skink

Sceloporus consobrinus prairie lizard

Coluber constrictor eastern racer

Crotalus viridis prairie rattlesnake

Diadophis punctatus ringneck snake

Heterodon nasicus western hognose snake

Heterodon platirhinos eastern hognose snake

Lampropeltis calligaster prairie kingsnake

Lampropeltis triangulum milk snake

Liochlorophis vernalis smooth green snake

Nerodia sipedon northern water snake

Pituophis catenifer sayi gopher snake

Storeria dekayi brown snake

Storeria occipitomaculata redbelly snake

Tantilla nigriceps plains black-headed snake

Thamnophis proximus western ribbon snake

Thamnophis radix plains garter snake

Thamnophis sirtalis common garter snake

Tropidoclonion lineatum lined snake

Nerodia sipedon northern water snake

Pituophis catenifer sayi gopher (bull) snake

Regina grahamii Graham’s crayfish snake

Storeria dekayi brown snake

Storeria occipitomaculata redbelly snake

Tantilla nigriceps plains black-headed snake

Thamnophis elegans western terrestrial garter snake

Thamnophis proximus western ribbon snake

Thamnophis radix plains garter snake

Thamnophis sirtalis common garter snake

Tropidoclonion lineatum lined snake

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
52 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Taxonomic List of Birds That Have Occurred in the Rainwater Basin

(Order follows the A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds, 7th ed. Sept. 1998)

Birds of the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

After each species name, one space is entered, then the seasonal abundance codes. The letter “m” was used to 

indicate that the species is not present during a particular season. For example, “American coot acar” (abundant in spring, common in summer, abundant in fall, rare in winter) or “California gull omom” (occasional in 

spring, not present in summer or winter, occasional fall). 

Nesting species documented in WPAs (waterfowl production areas) are marked with an asterisk (*) in 

front of the species name. Species accounts may indicate presence during the nesting season, but may not be 

marked as nesting. For example, frequent nesters in the area such as northern rough-winged swallow are not 

marked as nesters because WPAs do not provide preferred nesting habitat. For the most part, cavity nesters 

are excluded (the red-bellied woodpecker prefers mature, natural woodlands) due to the absence of mature or 

dying trees that typically provide cavities. The Rainwater Basin WPAs are managed as grassland-playa lake 

ecosystems. Non-native trees and shrubs have been removed on most WPAs. Due to remaining shelter belts 

on WPAs, a few woodland nesters are marked as nesting if they are known to use shelter belts. 

Seasonal Abundance Definitions 

Seasons are listed below. Seasonal abundance codes for some species such as shorebirds may be misleading 

because their fall migration starts in July or August (summer season). For example: “pectoral sandpiper cccm” 

(common in spring, common in summer due to peak migration occurring from mid-August through fall, not 

present in winter). 

A. Seasons: 

Spring (March–May) 

Summer (June–August) 

Fall (September–November) 

Winter (December–February) 

B. Seasonal Abundance: 

a = abundant: occurring in large numbers 

c = common: certain to be seen in suitable habitat 

u = uncommon: present, but not certain to be seen 

o = occasional: seen only a few times during the season 

r = rare: seen at intervals of 2–5 years 

h = hypothetical: within normal range, but never documented or has 

been extirpated 

x = outside normal range, but has been documented

Updated May 4, 2011

Common Name Scientific Name Seasonal Abundance

Swans, Geese, and Ducks

Black-bellied Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna autumnalis xxxm

Bean Goose Anser fabalis xmmm

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons arao

Emperor Goose Chen canagica xmmm

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens aoao

Ross’ Goose Chen rossii crco

Canada Goose Branta canadensis auac

Brant Branta bernicla rmrm

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator hxmh

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus omrm

Wood Duck Aix sponsa cucm

Gadwall Anas strepera cuco

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope rmrm

American Wigeon Anas americana aoao

American Black Duck Anas rubripes rmrr

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos acac

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors acar

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera uoum

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata acar

Northern Pintail Anas acuta auao
53

Common Name Scientific Name Seasonal Abundance

Garganey Anas querquedula xmmm

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca aoao

Canvasback Aythya valisineria umum

Redhead Aythya americana cucm

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris crum

Greater Scaup Aythya marila umrm

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis cocm

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca xmmm

Black Scoter Melanitta americana xmmm

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola cmcm

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula omum

Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica mmxm

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus urum

Common Merganser Mergus merganser omoo

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis cucm

Gallinaceous Birds 

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus cccc

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus rhro

Greater Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus cupido ooou

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus cccc

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo cccc

Loons 

Common Loon Gavia immer omrm

Grebes

Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii xmrm

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis rmrm

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps cccm

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus uhrm

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena hmrm

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis cocm

Pelicans 

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos cocm

Cormorants 

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus cucm

Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus ucum

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis uuom

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias cccr

Great Egret Ardea alba omom

Snowy Egret Egretta thula uuum

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea orrm

Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor hrrm

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis uoum

Green Heron Butorides virescens cucm

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax cocm

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nyctanassa violacea rmrm

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
54 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Common Name Scientific Name Seasonal Abundance

Ibises and Spoonbills 

White Ibis Eudocimus albus hxxm

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus xmmm

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi uurm

Roseate Spoonbill Ajaja ajaja mxmm

New World Vultures 

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus mxmm

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura cucm

Osprey, Kites, Hawks, and Eagles 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus omom

White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus xmxm

Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippiensis xmxm

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus cmco

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus cucu

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus uruu

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii umur

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis rmrr

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus mrrx

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus mxmm

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni cuur

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis cucu

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis uxuo

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus uhuu

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos omoo

Falcons and Caracaras 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius cccc

Merlin Falco columbarius umuo

Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus mmmr

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus omor

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus omou

Rails 

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis rmrm

Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis xxmm

King Rail Rallus elegans rrmm

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola uuum

Sora Porzana carolina cccm

Purple Gallinule Porphyrio martinica xmmm

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus uurm

American Coot Fulica americana acar

Cranes 

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis crum

Common Crane Grus grus xmmm

Whooping Crane Grus americana omom

Plovers

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola umum
55

Common Name Scientific Name Seasonal Abundance

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica umum

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus rrmm

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus umum

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus rhrm

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous cccm

Stilts and Avocets 

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus rrrm

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana urum

Sandpipers and Phalaropes 

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca cocm

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes cucm

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria ccum

Willet Tringa semipalmata uoum

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius cccm

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda uuum

Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis hmhm

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus omrm

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus rmrm

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica umxm

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa umrm

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres rmrm

Red Knot Calidris canutus xmrm

Sanderling Calidris alba omom

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla aucm

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri room

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla cccm

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis coom

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii acum

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos cccm

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata mmxm

Dunlin Calidris alpina umum

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea mxmm

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus accm

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis uuum

Ruff Philomachus pugnax xmxm

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus uurm

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus aucm

Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata cocm

American Woodcock Scolopax minor rmrm

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor aocm

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus rmrm

Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius mxmm

Skuas, Jaegers, Gulls, and Terns 

Laughing Gull Leucophaeus atricilla xmmm

Franklin’s Gull Leucophaeus pipixcan arcm

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
56 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Common Name Scientific Name Seasonal Abundance

Bonaparte’s Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia rmrm

Mew Gull Larus canus rmmm

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis acco

California Gull Larus californicus omom

Herring Gull Larus argentatus umuu

Common Tern Sterna hirundo umum

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri cucm

Least Tern Sternula antillarum anthalassos rrrm

Black Tern Chlidonias niger acam

Pigeons and Doves 

Rock Pigeon Columba livia cccc

Eurasian Collared-Dove Streptopelia decaocto oooo

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica mrmm

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura aaao

Inca Dove Columbina inca mmxm

Cuckoos and Anis 

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus ooom

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus uuum

Barn Owls 

Barn Owl Tyto alba oooo

Typical Owls 

Eastern Screech-Owl Megascops asio uuuu

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus cucu

Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus mmmx

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia uuum

Barred Owl Strix varia rrrr

Long-eared Owl Asio otus oroo

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus uruu

Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus mmxm

Nightjars 

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor cccm

Chuck-will’s-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis mrmm

Swifts 

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica aacm

Hummingbirds 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris ooom

Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus hrrm

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus mmrm

Kingfishers 

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon uuur

Woodpeckers 

Lewis’ Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis rmxm

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus ccco

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus uuuu

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens cccc
57

Common Name Scientific Name Seasonal Abundance

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus cccr

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus cccc

Tyrant Flycatchers 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi omom

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens ooom

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris rmrm

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens rmrm

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum rmrm

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii orom

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus umum

Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii mmxm

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe uuum

Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya urrm

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus cocm

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis cccm

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus cccm

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus rxrm

Shrikes 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus cccc

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor mmuu

Vireos 

White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus rmmm

Bell’s Vireo Vireo bellii uoum

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons rxrm

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus cucm

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus umum

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus urum

Crows, Jays, and Magpies

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata cccc

Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus mmmx

Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia uuuu

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos aoac

Larks 

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris acaa

Swallows 

Purple Martin Progne subis cucm

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor cocm

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina xmmm

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis cccm

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia uuum

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota ccam

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica aaam

Titmice and Chickadees 

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus cccc

Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor xxxm

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
58 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Common Name Scientific Name Seasonal Abundance

Nuthatches 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis mxmo

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis ooou

Creepers 

Brown Creeper Certhia americana mooo

Wrens

Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus roor

Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii xmmm

House Wren Troglodytes aedon cccm

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes rmro

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis rurm

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris uuur

Kinglets

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa umur

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula omom

Old World Warblers 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea orom

Thrushes 

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis cucr

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides omor

Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi rmro

Veery Catharus fuscescens rmmm

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus umrm

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus cmum

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus rmrm

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina rmrm

American Robin Turdus migratorius acac

Mimic Thrushes 

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis uuur

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos uuum

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum cccr

Starlings 

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris aaac

Wagtails and Pipits 

American (Water) Pipit Anthus rubescens cmcr

Sprague’s Pipit Anthus spragueii omom

Waxwings 

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus mmmr

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum cucu

Wood Warblers 

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera rmmm

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina cmcm

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata cmcm

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla umum

Northern Parula Parula americana umrm
59

Common Name Scientific Name Seasonal Abundance

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia cccm

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica umum

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia umum

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens rmrm

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata cmcm

Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica virens xmmm

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens omom

Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendi rmrm

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca omom

Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica rmrm

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus hmrm

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor rmrm

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum omrm

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea omom

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata cmrm

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia cmum

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla cocm

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea rmrm

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla umum

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis umum

Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla rmhm

Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus rmhm

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis rmxh

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia rmhm

MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei omrm

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas cccm

Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina rmrm

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla umum

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis rmrm

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens ooom

Tanagers

Summer Tanager Piranga rubra rmxm

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea omom

Sparrows and Towhees 

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus rmrm

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus uoum

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus umum

Cassin’s Sparrow Peucaea cassinii xmmm

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea aoaa

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina aoar

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida chcr

Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri rmrm

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla cucr

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus cocx

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus cccm

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals
60 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Common Name Scientific Name Seasonal Abundance

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys ouom

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis cmch

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum cccm

Baird’s Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii umum

Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii rrrm

Le Conte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii umcm

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni rmum

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca omor

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia cucu

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii crcm

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana uoum

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis cour

Harris’ Sparrow Zonotrichia querula cocu

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys cruo

Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla rmrm

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis cmca

McCown’s Longspur Rhynchophanes mccownii rmrm

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus amaa

Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus omur

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus omom

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis rmro

Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and Allies 

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis cccc

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus uurm

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus crcm

Blue Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus uuum

Lazuli Bunting Passerina caerulea xmxm

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea uuum

Painted Bunting Passerina ciris rmxm

Dickcissel Spiza americana cacm

Blackbirds and Orioles 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus cccm

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus acao

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna uuuo

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta acac

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus aocr

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus cour

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus cuco

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula aaao

Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus cccr

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater acar

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius cccm

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula cccm

Scott’s Oriole Icterus parisorum mxmm
61

Common Name Scientific Name Seasonal Abundance

Finches 

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator xmxm

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus umuo

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus cccc

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra mrmo

Common Redpoll Acanthis flammea ormo

Pine Siskin Spinus pinus uouu

American Goldfinch Spinus tristis cccc

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus rmrr

Old World Sparrows 

House Sparrow Passer domesticus aaaa

Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals

Appendix C

Environmental Assessment

SECTION 1 — PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

The Rainwater Basin was once covered by native prairie and was largely isolated from streams and natural 

drainages. Heavy rains or snow melts would fill the 

numerous shallow depressions scattered throughout 

the region. Its geographic location in the mid portion 

of the central flyway made the Rainwater Basin an 

oasis of food and rest for millions of birds making their 

northward migration to their breeding grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, and grassland birds would dominate the skies, with raptors following the migration. 

Today, the landscape is dramatically changed. The 

expansive grasslands and numerous wetlands have 

been replaced with fields of corn and soybeans. Roads 

traverse the landscape at 1-mile intervals, and small 

rural communities are scattered within a 10-mile radius 

of one another. Many of the wetlands have been filled 

or drained, and their numbers have been reduced to 

only about 16 percent of their historical level. 

The remaining wetlands play an increasingly important role in providing resting and feeding areas for 

the millions of birds that continue to use the central 

flyway each spring and fall. However, their function 

as wetlands has been diminished by sedimentation, 

nutrient runoff, and reduced water runoff within the 

watersheds. Waterfowl and shorebirds are forced to 

crowd into fewer areas and compete for the limited 

amount of natural food provided by the wetlands.

The proposed Rainwater Basin Expansion Project 

(Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion Project) would contribute to the conservation 

efforts described in such plans as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the United States 

Shorebird Conservation Plan, Partners in Flight, the 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and 

the Nebraska Natural Legacy Plan. 

24,000 acres of wetland habitat within the Rainwater 

Basin region. To date, 22,023 acres have been acquired. 

An additional 4,505 acres have been gifted, primarily 

from other Federal agencies including the Farmers 

Home Administration. Although the Service owns 

and manages these gifted properties, they were not 

acquired under the authority of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and therefore are not considered part 

of the total acreage.

The Service proposes to strategically acquire 

an additional 9,177 acres in fee title and 5,000 acres 

in conservation easements (table 1). All purchases 

would be from voluntary sellers. These 14,177 acres 

represent 0.36 percent of the total land area of the 

Rainwater Basin. 

Fee-title acquisition would focus on lands that 

meet one of two criteria: wetland portions that adjoin 

properties already partially held in fee title by the 

Service and larger semipermanent wetlands located 

within a wetland complex of smaller seasonal wetlands. These properties would be managed as WPAs 

(waterfowl production areas). Management practices 

would include prescribed burning, livestock grazing, 

limited haying, and periodic resting (USFWS 2007). 

The areas would be open to public recreation, including hunting, wildlife viewing, photography, and environmental interpretation and education. 

Conservation easements would be purchased on 

privately owned property containing smaller wetlands. 

The easements would protect the wetlands from being drained or filled. Surrounding upland buffer areas 

under easement would be planted with native grasses 

and protected from commercial and residential development, although haying and grazing would be allowed. 

Proposed Action

The Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) is proposing the Rainwater Basin Expansion Project to expand 

the number of acres in Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin 

that it can own in fee title or hold in easements. Currently, the Service has been authorized to purchase 
64 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Table 1. Wetland Acquisition Authority within the 

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

Prior 

Authorization 

Acres*

Additional 

Acres 

Approved

New 

Authorization 

Acres

Fee 24,000 9,177 33,177

Wetland 6,500

Upland 2,677

Easement 5,000 5,000

Wetland 2,500

Upland 2,500

38,177

* Current authorization does not distinguish between feetitle and easement acquisition

Project Area

The Rainwater Basin is located near the center of the 

Great Plains. It encompasses approximately 6,100 

square miles, covering portions or all of 21 counties in 

south-central Nebraska (figure 1) (LaGrange 2005). At 

its widest, it is 160 miles across, extending from Gosper 

County to central Seward County. The northern edge 

parallels the central Platte River, and the southern 

edge lies about 10 miles north of the Kansas border.

The topography ranges from flat to gently rolling 

loess plains that historically supported a tallgrass and 

mixed-grass prairie ecosystem. The area is geologically new and has not developed a complete system of 

streams to drain surface water. The shallow depressions, formed predominately by wind scouring, are 

quickly filled with runoff following spring snow melts 

and heavy rains—thus the name Rainwater Basin. The 

size of the depressions or wetlands ranges from a few 

acres to more than 1,000 acres. 

The climate is semiarid, with annual precipitation 

ranging from 21 to 28 inches (west to east). Annual 

evaporation for small bodies of water averages 46 

inches, and about 77 percent of that amount is lost 

from May through October. Most of the precipitation 

occurs in the spring and summer. Heavy rains fill the 

wetlands, but they dry out in a matter of a few weeks. 

Wind scouring of dry wetland basins has caused the 

finer silts and loam soils to be removed, while the 

heavier clays remain in the wetland bottoms. In some 

wetlands, the impervious clay layer that has formed 

extends as deep as 72 inches.

The region lies in the center of the central flyway. 

Migratory birds from the gulf coast states, Mexico, 

and areas further south funnel through the Rainwater 

Basin before spreading outward toward the Prairie 

Pothole Region and areas further north. The flight 

pattern of the migration resembles the shape of an 

hourglass, with the Rainwater Basin and the central 

Platte River being at the narrowest part (figure 2). 

Prominent wetland areas to the south include the 

Playa Lakes of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and 

Kansas. To the north is the Prairie Pothole Region. 

The prominence of the constriction emphasizes the 

importance of the Rainwater Basin as a resting and 

feeding stopover for millions of migratory birds.

The nearby Platte River complements the value of 

the Rainwater Basin. In years when drought or spring 

snowstorms make the wetlands unavailable, many of 

the birds move to the river. 

The Rainwater Basin lies over the Ogallala aquifer, which provides water for irrigated agriculture, 

primarily corn and soybeans. Waste grain provides 

food for migrating waterfowl and cranes. 

Purpose of and Need for 

Proposed Action

Recognizing the importance of the Rainwater Basin 

as stopover and breeding habitat for millions of migratory birds, the Service began protecting wetlands with 

fee-title acquisition in 1962. NGPC (Nebraska Game 

and Parks Commission) took the same approach. All 

properties were purchased from voluntary sellers. 

In most situations, it was the owners of the deeper, 

wetter portions of the individual wetland basins who 

were willing to sell. Many surrounding owners of the 

remaining portion of a wetland chose to retain ownership and farm their portion during drier years. This 

split ownership greatly reduced the effectiveness of 

the publicly owned portion of the wetland. This is because if a drained wetland has only a small portion in 

private ownership, the wetland cannot be effectively 

restored without purchasing the privately held portion. For example, a 200-acre drained wetland with 

180 acres in public ownership and 20 acres in private 

ownership remains effectively drained until the last 20 

acres are purchased. These generally small, privately 

owned tracts that are connected to publicly owned 

wetlands are referred to as “roundouts.”

Now, nearly 50 years after the Service began protecting wetlands with fee-title acquisition, only 8.5 

percent (18,067 acres) of the historical wetland acres 

are in public ownership. Public wetland areas (State 

and Federal) are represented by 90 distinct properties containing all or portions of 168 wetlands, or 1.5 

percent of the 11,000 historical wetlands (USFWS, 

Grand Island GIS Shop, unpublished). 

The partners of the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture 

(see Related Actions and Activities) examined those 

wetland acres in private ownership that may hamper 
Appendix C — Environmental Assessment 65etland Management District. Figure 1. Rainwater Basin W
66 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

the ability to manage wetlands owned by the Service 

or NGPC. The partners also examined the nutritional 

and energetic needs of all waterfowl while staging in 

the region. The number of total additional acres needing protection in the Rainwater Basin is based on this 

collaborative work. 

Figure 2. Central flyway’s spring migration route.

FEE TITLE 

Taking into consideration the factors described above, 

the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture projected that an 

additional 7,790 wetland acres need to be purchased 

in fee title by all partners. The Service would strive 

to acquire 6,500 of these wetland acres. The required 

upland buffer around these wetlands is estimated to 

be 2,677 acres. Ownership of properties purchased 

with the authorization of this proposal would be held 

by the Service as part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The properties would be managed as WPAs.

Fee-title acquisition would focus on two types of 

wetland properties. The primary focus would be on 

portions of privately owned wetland roundouts that 

share a boundary with wetlands already owned by 

the Service. The secondary focus would be on large 

wetlands that can serve as a core wetland within a 

complex of smaller, privately owned wetlands. 

Currently, 38 WPAs need additional acquisition to 

complete ownership of the properties’ hydric or wetland 

soil. Adjoining roundout property, which represents 

a significant portion of the total wetland area, would 

need to be purchased in fee title to allow full management of the wetland. Adjoining wetland portions that 

represent a small portion of the wetland and do not significantly impact management on the Service’s portion 

could be protected with conservation easements. Most 

properties that could serve as core wetlands within a 

wetland complex are currently drained and would be 

more difficult to purchase. Both of these acquisition 

approaches would have a positive effect on bird use 

within the local area. 

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS 

The Joint Venture determined that an additional 9,239 

acres of wetlands need to be protected by perpetual 

easements (Andy Bishop, coordinator, Rainwater Basin 

Joint Venture, Nebraska; personal communication; May 

12, 2010). The Service would strive to acquire 2,500 

wetland acres and 2,500 upland buffer acres through 

conservation easements. 

Easements purchased by the Service would be 

grassland-wetland easements that would require the 

upland to be in permanent grassland. The easement 

would restrict commercial and residential development, 

but would allow the landowner to use the property for 

haying, grazing, and recreation. Allowing access to the 

property will remain a landowner’s right.

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District has administered 31 conservation easements 

within the region since before 2009. Eight of these 

easements are within the Rainwater Basin, but only 

one has significant wetland habitat for migratory birds. 

Since 2009, the Service has acquired five additional 

grassland-wetland conservation easements within the 

Rainwater Basin. Those easements, acquired under 

the current land acquisition authority, follow the same 

guidelines proposed in this document.

The NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) is expected to be the dominant partner with the 

Service in obtaining perpetual easements under its 

WRP (Wetlands Reserve Program). In 2010, the WRP 

launched a pilot project that allows landowners to sell 

a WRP easement, with the buyer retaining the right 

to graze the property with only minimal restrictions. 

The reason for allowing grazing is that it helps to keep 

wetlands in an early successional, seed-producing state, 

making it more valuable to migrating birds. 

WATERFOWL NUTRITIONAL NEEDS 

The Rainwater Basin is internationally recognized 

for its importance as a migration stopover. Birds in 

migration have additional nutrient demands, not only 

for the actual migration but to reach a body condition 

needed for egg production (Devries et al. 2008). 

Historically, the Rainwater Basin has provided 

migrating birds with natural foods from thousands 

of shallow wetlands. It is impossible to estimate how 

much food these wetlands provided for waterfowl 

hundreds of years ago, but recent research into the 

nutrient value of common native wetland plants documents their high value. 

The Rainwater Basin Joint Venture has used data 

on energetic needs and the number of bird-use days in 
67

the Rainwater Basin to estimate that migratory waterfowl need a total of 15.6 billion Kcal (kilocalories) 

during their stay in the region from both natural and 

agricultural sources (Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, 

unpublished report, 2010).

The conversion of wetlands and grassland to cropland has caused migrating waterfowl to feed heavily 

on waste grain (top chart in figure 3). Although waste 

grain meets the caloric requirements of waterfowl, 

it does not provide the amino acids and minerals required in their diet. 

One of the goals of the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture is to increase the amount of available energy for 

waterfowl from natural, nonagricultural foods to 4.4 

billion Kcal, or 28 percent of their diet (Rainwater 

Basin Joint Venture, unpublished report). A 2004 

GIS (geographic information system) assessment of 

available wetland habitat and food indicated that, 

given their current number and condition, the region’s 

wetlands are capable of only providing 13.6 percent of 

the birds’ dietary needs (USFWS, Grand Island GIS 

Shop, unpublished). 

In addition to loss of wetlands, remaining wetlands 

with altered hydrology or no active management for 

wildlife are more prone to developing dense stands 

of late-successional plants such as reed canary grass, 

cattail, and bulrush. Research suggests that wetlands 

dominated by late-successional plants can provide 

only about one-tenth of the kilocalories (0.025 million 

Kcal/acre) of wetlands in an early-successional stage 

(USDA, NRCS 2008).

The proposed action would contribute to meeting 

the nutritional needs of migratory birds determined by 

the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture. Better vegetation 

management in existing wetlands and an increase in 

the number of wetlands providing natural foods are 

required. The bottom chart in figure 3 shows where 

future wetland foods will come from. Acquisition and 

management of additional wetlands would increase the 

projected contribution from public wetlands from 5.8 

to 21.3 percent. This action would provide the greatest amount of increased nutrition with the fewest 

number of acres. 

Easement purchases and associated management 

would need to be increased to provide 10.2 percent of 

needed calories. Short-term wetlands are those that 

have less than 99-year easements or land use contracts. These wetlands would be expected to provide 

almost 5 percent of needed calories. Privately owned 

wetlands that have no protection would be expected 

to continue to provide 6 percent of the wetland foods. 

Decisions to Be Made

The Service’s planning team (see appendix B) will 

complete an analysis of the alternatives. Based on 

the analysis documented in this environmental assessment, the Service’s Regional Director of Region 

6, with the concurrence of the Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, may make two decisions:

■ Determine whether the Service should expand 

the acquisition authority for the Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District; and,

■ If yes, determine whether the selected alternative 

would have a significant impact on the quality of 

the human environment. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires this decision. 

If the quality of the human environment would not 

be significantly affected, a finding of no significant 

impact will be signed and made available to the 

public. If the alternative would have a significant 

impact or impacts, completion of an environmental impact statement would be required in order 

to address those impacts.

Issues Identified and 

Selected for Analysis

Two public scoping meetings were held in Clay Center and Holdrege, Nebraska, in January 2011. Public 

comments were taken at these scoping meetings to 

identify issues to be analyzed for the proposed action. 

Approximately 33 landowners, citizens, and elected 

representatives attended the meetings. Additionally, 

16 letters providing comments and identifying issues 

and concerns were received.

The Service’s field staff contacted local government officials, other public agencies, and conservation groups that have expressed an interest in and a 

desire to provide a sustainable future for wetlands in 

the Rainwater Basin region. Approximately 170 fact 

sheets were mailed out, and project information was 

also made available at the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District and regional planning Web sites.

Many of the comments were related to the biological needs of waterfowl and socioeconomic issues. 

Comment topics are summarized below. 

BIOLOGICAL ISSUES

■ Concern about past and future loss of wetlands 

within the Rainwater Basin

■ Concern about providing adequate habitat for 

spring migration

Appendix C — Environmental Assessment
68 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Figure 3. Sources of nutrients for migrating waterfowl.
69

■ Concern about the value of the region for migrating birds and the need to protect declining species

■ Concern that farm programs and increased interest in biofuels may cause loss of the remaining unprotected wetlands

■ Concern that the energetics model used to determine the number of proposed acquisition acres is 

not a valid or accurate model

■ Concern that wetlands in public ownership are 

not being managed for the benefit of all wildlife, 

including pheasants

SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES

■ Concern that land protection discourages or negatively affects economic activity in the area

■ Concern about the loss of taxes paid to the county, 

and that these lost taxes will place a greater burden on local taxpayers

■ Concern that acquisition may drive up land prices

■ Concern that transition from privately owned 

farmland to public ownership will decrease the 

human population and support for schools, roads, 

and other services

■ Concern that local governments should be given 

more authority to approve or disapprove land acquisitions and to determine the use of public property 

■ Concern that funding should be made available to 

compensate landowners for their privately owned 

wetlands

■ Concern that the Service should work with landowners to enhance wetlands on private property

Issues Not Selected for 

Detailed Analysis

At one of the scoping meetings, the accuracy of the 

energetics models was called into question. No detailed analysis of this issue was performed for this environmental assessment. This model clearly assumes 

that the data used to estimate the energetic needs of 

waterfowl within Rainwater Basin came from a large 

amount of research not specific to this area. For example, the energetic value (Kcal) of a particular wetland plant studied in another part of the country is 

assumed to have an energetic value similar to that of 

the same plant species within the Rainwater Basin. 

The validity of this assumption is currently unknown 

and would require site-specific research. The energetic 

value given to plants in the Rainwater Basin, however, 

represents the best information available. Information from the energetic model has helped the Service 

better understand the importance of the Rainwater 

Basin for migratory waterfowl, not just as a resting 

area but also as a source of amino acids and minerals. 

The issue of land management on WPAs is addressed only in general terms in this document. Land 

management actions depend on a large number of variables, including existing vegetative conditions, sitespecific objectives, past management actions, seasonal 

weather conditions, and other planned management 

actions. In addition, the wetland management district 

in 2007 developed a CCP (comprehensive conservation plan) (USFWS 2007) for Service lands within 

the Rainwater Basin that outlined and analyzed land 

management actions.

A common concern expressed by the public pertains to wetland grazing and pheasant habitat. The 

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District commonly receives comments that the Service does not 

do as much as it could to increase pheasant populations. Although pheasants are recognized as part of 

the diversity provided by WPAs, the pheasant is a 

State-managed species and not a Service responsibility. The purpose of the wetland management district, 

as described in the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, is to manage migratory birds. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System and Authorities

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States 

for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.

Lands acquired under the proposed action would 

be administered as part of the Refuge System in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 and other relevant legislation, Executive orders, regulations, and policies.

Conservation of additional wildlife habitat in the 

Rainwater Basin region would also continue to be 

consistent with the following laws, policies, and management plans:

■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

■ Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929)

■ Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (1934)

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965)

■ North American Wetlands Conservation Act (1968)

■ Endangered Species Act (1973)

Appendix C — Environmental Assessment
70 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

■ North American Waterfowl Management Plan (1994)

■ National Wildlife Refuge System Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (2001)

■ Migratory Non-Game Birds of Management Concern in the U.S. (2002)

Related Actions and 

Activities

The Service is working with other public and private 

entities to maintain wildlife habitat within the Rainwater Basin region. Many organizations in Nebraska 

have recognized the ecological significance of the region and the need to promote conservation in concert 

with production agriculture. Wetland acquisition and 

restoration in the area have been done by the NGPC, 

NRCS, Ducks Unlimited, and The Nature Conservancy. 

Local natural resource districts have worked closely 

with conservation partners to maintain a balance between wetland habitats and agriculture. 

In 2007, the wetland management district developed 

a CCP (Comprehensive Conservation Plan) (USFWS 

2007) for Service lands within the Rainwater Basin. 

The document identifies land management activities 

planned by the Service through 2022. The need for additional land acquisition was identified as important 

in the draft CCP sent out for public comment and the 

subsequent final document. 

RAINWATER BASIN JOINT VENTURE 

The Rainwater Basin was identified as a habitat of 

major concern by the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, establishing it as a focus area for 

a joint venture (NAWMP 1986). Partners involved in 

the formation of the joint venture included the Service, the NGPC, Ducks Unlimited, the NRCS, Little 

Blue Natural Resource District, and the National 

Audubon Society. Its current partners include many 

of these same organizations as well as other natural 

resource districts, The Nature Conservancy, and private landowners. 

The Rainwater Basin Joint Venture is currently 

in the process of rewriting its Implementation Plan 

(Gersib et al. 1992). The newer version is expected to 

identify a need to acquire an additional 20,000 acres 

(about 60 percent of which would be perpetual easements). One proposed strategy is developing working 

landscapes, which would involve the purchase and restoration of wetlands and grasslands, with the property 

being resold to the private sector once a conservation 

easement has been established. The easement would 

allow livestock grazing and dryland haying, but no 

farming. The right to allow public access would also 

remain with the landowner. This approach would 

protect wetlands, restore grasslands, and provide 

agricultural income to the landowners. 

PARTNERS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM

PFW (Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program) is administered by the Service; it provides financial and 

technical assistance, and works cooperatively with 

landowners to voluntarily restore and enhance wildlife habitat on private land. The program was implemented in Nebraska in 1991 and has been growing 

ever since. Since the early 1990s, approximately 400 

projects have been accomplished statewide, resulting in a substantial amount of habitat restored for 

Federal trust species such as migratory birds and 

threatened and endangered species. In Nebraska, the 

predominant wetland restoration and enhancement 

techniques involve restoring the natural hydrology 

through the blocking of drains, breaking tiles, filling 

in concentration pits, removing sediment, installing 

grass buffers, installing fences along stream corridors, 

and addressing problems throughout the watershed. 

Wetland enhancement activities include working with 

the landowners to better manage the wetland through 

the use of grazing, haying, discing, and burning. Upland and riparian areas are restored and enhanced 

through installing cross fencing, providing alternative 

sources of water, and developing grassland/grazing 

management plans. Prairie restoration along the central Platte River involves the conversion of cropland 

to a high-diversity mixture ranging from 100 to 200 

species of locally harvested native grasses and forbs.

DUCKS UNLIMITED 

Ducks Unlimited has long recognized the Rainwater 

Basin as a focus area for wetland conservation efforts. 

Its goal is to secure a base of wetland complexes to 

restore the region’s function for waterfowl. In 2002, 

it began acquiring the Verona Complex in the central 

portion of the Rainwater Basin. Much of the property, 

including both the wetland and the surrounding upland, 

has required restoration. Ducks Unlimited’s Rainwater 

Basin initiative uses multiple approaches, consisting 

of land acquisition, wetland restoration, wetland management, and affecting public policy. The land acquisition portion involves the purchase of land containing 

existing or restorable wetland habitat. Once Ducks 

Unlimited has restored the wetlands, the property 

may be sold to a public agency or to a private buyer 

with a conservation easement in place. The proceeds 

from the sale are then used to repeat the process. 

NEBRASKA GAME AND PARKS COMMISSION 

NGPC continues to work toward acquisition, restoration, and management of Rainwater Basin wetlands. 

Currently, it owns approximately 6,700 wetland 

acres. Its philosophy of acquisition, restoration, and 

management of its lands mirrors that of the Service. 
71

NGPC also faces the problems of split ownership and 

is working toward acquiring roundouts to improve the 

functionality of its wetlands.

NGPC developed the Nebraska Legacy Plan 

(Schneider et al. 2005), which is Nebraska’s “Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.” Such plans 

are required by Congress for all States. The plan was 

developed by a partnership team made up of 20 Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, 

and the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska. This document has 

become the guiding document for conservation groups 

throughout the State. 

The plan identifies the Rainwater Basin as a biologically unique landscape. Key concerns identified 

for this region include the spread of invasive species, 

conversion of natural habitats, alteration of grazing 

and burning regimes, and drainage and sedimentation 

of existing wetlands.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 

The NRCS is one of the major partners in wetland 

conservation in the region. Most of its recent work has 

been associated with the national Wetlands Reserve 

Program, a voluntary program to restore wetlands. The 

program has three options for landowners: permanent 

conservation easements, 30-year conservation easements, or a simple cost-share restoration agreement. 

Lands enrolled in a conservation easement have both 

the wetlands and the surrounding upland restored. 

Within the Rainwater Basin, Wetlands Reserve Program contracts scattered across the Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District have restored and protected approximately 7,077 acres (Randy Epperson, 

program manager, Natural Resource Conservation 

Service, Nebraska; personal communication; 2011). 

Recently, the NRCS granted a variance to the Wetlands Reserve Program within Nebraska. The variance will allow the sellers of conservation easements 

to retain grazing rights. The basis of the variance is 

that grazing is a critical, natural process in sustaining 

shallow, playa wetlands.

In addition, because of the intense agriculture and 

history of wetland drainage within the Rainwater Basin, the Nebraska office of NRCS in 2010 approved an 

application that requested a variance to allow center 

pivot irrigation equipment to traverse portions of wetlands and uplands protected under the Wetlands Reserve Program. However, numerous wetlands remain 

drained and without conservation protection because 

farmers need to run one or more pivot wheels across 

a wetland, which is generally not allowed under the 

Wetlands Reserve Program.

The Farm Service Agency, with technical assistance 

from the NRCS, administers the CRP (Conservation 

Reserve Program), which emphasizes support for 

working livestock-grazing operations, enhancement 

of plant and animal biodiversity, and protection of 

grassland under threat of conversion to other uses 

for 10 to 15 years. Participants voluntarily limit future development and cropping uses of the land. At 

the same time, participants retain the right to conduct 

common livestock-grazing practices and operations related to the production of forage and seeding, subject 

to certain restrictions during nesting seasons of bird 

species that are in significant decline or are protected 

under Federal or State law.

NEBRASKA ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST 

By a vote of the people, the Nebraska Environmental 

Trust was established in 1992 to use 44.5 percent of the 

State’s lottery proceeds for the purpose of conserving, 

enhancing, and restoring natural physical and biological environments across the State. During its 19-year 

existence, millions of dollars have been provided toward conservation of wetlands within the Rainwater 

Basin region. The projects funded by the trust have 

included fee and easement acquisition, restoration, 

research, monitoring, and public outreach projects.

TRI-BASIN NATURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT 

The Tri-Basin Natural Resource District, located in 

the western portion of the Rainwater Basin, currently 

owns and manages a large wetland and two conservation easements that protect privately owned wetlands. 

In addition, an imposed moratorium on groundwater 

development has prompted the district to begin exploring ways to reduce groundwater use and to increase 

groundwater recharge. One such program would be 

water banking, in which water allocation in one area 

would be transferred to another area. This type of 

program leads the way to having drained wetlands 

restored as marginal farm lands are taken out of irrigation. Other natural resource districts within the 

Rainwater Basin are also looking at ways to better 

manage groundwater use for agriculture.

Habitat Protection and the 

Acquisition Process

Wetland habitat protection would occur through the 

purchase of fee-title and conservation easements. It 

is the long-established policy of the Service to acquire 

minimum interest in land from willing sellers to achieve 

habitat acquisition goals. 

The acquisition authorities for the proposed expansion are the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act of 1934, also known as the Duck Stamp Act 

(16 U.S.C. 718-718h; 48 Stat. 51, as amended); the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 

4401); and the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578, Title 16). The Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act money used to 

Appendix C — Environmental Assessment
72 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

acquire property is received from Federal Duck Stamp 

revenue. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act funds are from congressional appropriations, 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act fines, and various Federal 

accounts. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is 

derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the Outer 

Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel tax revenues, and 

sale of surplus Federal property.

There could be additional funds to acquire lands, 

waters, or interest therein for fish and wildlife conservation purposes through congressional appropriations, donations from nonprofit organizations, and 

other sources.

The basic considerations in acquiring interest in 

property are the biological significance of a wetland, the 

feasibility of restoring wetland habitat, and landowner 

interest in the program. Fee-title acquisition would 

focus on two areas: wetland portions that adjoin properties in fee title by the Service, and larger semipermanent wetlands located within a wetland complex 

of smaller seasonal wetlands. These properties, once 

acquired, would be managed as WPAs. 

Conservation easements would be purchased in 

perpetuity on privately owned property containing 

smaller wetlands located in cropland and grassland. 

The easements would protect the wetlands from being drained or filled. Surrounding upland buffer areas 

under easement would be planted and remain in grass. 

All other property rights, including grazing, haying, 

and public access, would remain with the landowner. 

Purchases would occur from willing sellers only 

and would be subject to available funding. 

A waterfowl production area in late spring.

USFWS
73

SECTION 2 — ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED 

ACTION

This section describes the two alternatives identified for this project that were developed according to 

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) § 102(2)

(E) requirements to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 

In addition, alternatives that were eliminated from 

detailed study are briefly discussed, including the 

reasons they were not further examined. The following alternatives were analyzed:

■ the no-action alternative 

■ the proposed action, which gives the Service the 

authority to expand its acquisition authority from 

its current level of 24,000 acres to 38,177 acres

The alternatives consider the effects of expanding land 

acquisition within the wetland management district 

boundary identified in this environmental assessment.

Alternative A (No Action)

Under alternative A, wetland acquisition would continue 

until the Service has reached its current authorization 

of 24,000 acres. After the authorization level has been 

reached, any additional acres that would come under 

Service ownership within the Rainwater Basin would 

come from donations or gifts from landowners, conservation organizations, and other government agencies. 

Wetland habitat management and restoration would 

continue on lands owned by the Service to help meet 

the needs of migratory birds. Refuge revenue sharing payments would continue to be made to counties 

with Service lands. 

Under this alternative, many of the privately 

owned wetlands that are vulnerable to drainage or 

other destruction may be lost. The burden to protect 

wetlands without compensation would lie more heavily on private landowners, and a majority of marginal 

cropland would not be restored.

Alternative B (Proposed 

Action)

Under alternative B, the Service would increase its 

land acquisition goal from 24,000 acres to 38,177 acres 

within the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management 

District. All lands would be acquired from willing 

sellers, with acquisition occurring over as many years 

as necessary to reach the new goal.

The Service would seek to purchase an additional 

9,177 acres in fee title and 5,000 acres in conservation 

easements over the existing goal. Lands targeted for 

acquisition would be according to a prioritization system established by the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture. 

This system was developed by biologists from different agencies and organizations to identify and ensure 

protection of those wetlands that best meet the biological needs of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. 

Within the rating system, fee-title acquisition will 

meet one of two criteria: privately owned portions of 

wetlands adjoining existing WPAs and large wetlands 

that are part of a complex of numerous small wetlands. 

Conservation easements purchased from willing sellers would focus on small wetlands that are part of a 

large complex of wetlands. 

Lands purchased in fee title would be managed as 

WPAs and be open to public use. 

Conservation easements purchased from willing 

sellers would prohibit destruction of wetland habitat. In addition, the surrounding upland included in 

the easement would be required to be maintained as 

grassland. The landowner would retain access, grazing, and haying rights. Easements would be managed 

by the Watershed Management District. Monitoring 

would include periodic reviews of land status through 

correspondence and meetings with landowners or land 

managers to ensure that the stipulations of the conservation easement are being met. Photographs would 

be taken at the time the easements are established in 

order to document baseline conditions.

Refuge revenue sharing would be paid to counties 

for Service lands in fee-title ownership. Taxes on lands 

containing a conservation easement would continue 

to be paid by the landowner. 

Alternatives Considered but 

Not Studied

There was no further analysis conducted for the following two alternatives for the reasons described below.

WETLAND PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT 

THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS

One alternative that was considered was developing 

a program similar to CRP that would pay landowners 

for protecting their wetlands from being altered or 

Appendix C — Environmental Assessment
74 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

destroyed for a period of 10 years. The contract would 

be available for renewal every 10 years. This alternative would not ensure the protection of wetlands for 

the long term. Like CRP lands, wetlands would become vulnerable to drainage when crop prices make 

it profitable to convert such wetlands to cropland. 

Furthermore, the Service has an active Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program in the area, which can be 

used if selling the land is not an option for a landowner.

COUNTY ZONING

In a traditional approach used by counties and municipalities, the local government would use zoning 

as a means of designating what type of development 

could occur in an area. Nebraska law grants cities and 

counties the authority to regulate land use, and engaging in planning and zoning activities is therefore 

optional. However, zoning may be subject to frequent 

changes and would not ensure the long-term protection of wetlands.
75

SECTION 3 — AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Biological Environment

CLIMATE

The region’s climate is semiarid, with annual precipitation ranging from 21 to 28 inches (west to east). Annual evaporation for small bodies of water averages 

46 inches; about 77 percent of that amount is lost from 

May through October. Most of the precipitation occurs 

in the springtime and during summer thunderstorms. 

Heavy rains fill the wetlands, but quickly dry in a matter of a few weeks. Wind scouring of wetland bottoms 

has removed the finer silts and loam soils, while the 

heavier silt clays remain in the wetland bottoms. In 

some wetlands, the impervious clay layer that has 

formed extends as deep as 72 inches.

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Current climate change projections for the Great 

Plains are for warmer temperatures and increased 

precipitation. The increase in precipitation is expected 

to be quite variable across the Great Plains, but will 

be less than what is needed to offset the increase 

in temperatures. The result will likely be warmer, 

drought-like conditions. Intense precipitation events 

are projected to increase, causing more runoff, pollution, and soil erosion problems. Droughts and floods 

are expected to occur more frequently. The problems 

caused by climate change will be further compounded 

by invasive species that will be able to adapt quickly 

to fluctuating extreme water conditions. 

ADAPTATION, MITIGATION, AND ENGAGEMENT

The Service’s strategic response to climate change 

involves three core strategies: adaptation, mitigation, 

and engagement (USFWS 2009). Through adaptation, the impacts of climate change on wildlife can be 

reduced by conserving habitats that are expected to 

be resilient. The Rainwater Basin Expansion Project 

would provide an anticipatory, rather than a reactive, 

response. As preserving migratory corridors becomes 

increasingly important, the Rainwater Basin will continue to provide a stopover area for shorebirds and 

waterfowl within the central flyway. 

Under the expected changes in climate, waterfowl 

use of the area may increase significantly because most 

precipitation occurs in early spring and because precipitation events are expected to be more intense in 

the future. Another factor that may play a significant 

role in bird use will be the anticipated decline in precipitation and wetlands in other portions of the country.

Carbon sequestration forms one of the key elements 

of mitigation. The Rainwater Basin Expansion Project 

would have a mitigating effect on climate change by 

capturing carbon. Wetlands that are currently drained 

and being farmed at the time of purchase would be 

restored to wetland habitat. Surrounding upland buffer areas would be restored to native warm-season 

grasses and forbs. Prairie vegetation stores carbon in 

its deep fibrous roots, with approximately 80 percent 

of the plant biomass located below ground. Since the 

land would no longer be farmed, a large amount of 

carbon is expected to be sequestered. 

Engagement involves cooperation, communication, 

and partnerships to address the conservation challenges presented by climate change (USFWS 2009). 

The Rainwater Basin Expansion Project would serve 

as a model for engagement by working with farmers 

and landowners; nongovernmental organizations such 

as The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and 

Pheasants Forever; State and local agencies such as 

the NGPC and local natural resource districts; and 

Federal agencies including the NRCS.

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

The Rainwater Basin lies in the flat to gently rolling, 

mixed-grass, loess plains of south-central Nebraska. 

This area is geologically new and has not developed 

a complete system of streams to drain surface water. 

It is from this characteristic that the area received 

its name: Rainwater Basin. 

Wind-deposited Peorian Loess occurs extensively 

across the basin and has been stable for about 10,000 

years (Keech and Dreezen 1959). Upland soils that 

formed in wind-deposited material include Crete, 

Hastings, Holdrege, Hord, and Uly (Kuzila 1984). The 

soils are suitable for farming, with about 80 percent 

of the land being planted with crops. The shallow, flat 

depressions formed predominantly by wind scouring 

are often referred to as playa wetlands because of 

their formation process and ephemeral (water levels 

lasting for a brief time) nature. Radiocarbon dating 

indicates that the wetlands were created near the 

end of the ice age, 20,000 to 25,000 years ago. Some 

depressions may have been enlarged and new ones 

created as recently as 3,000 years ago (Farrar 1996). 

Over thousands of years, minute clay particles accumulated in the bottoms of the depressions, allowing 

water to pond above the soil surface. The impervious 

clay layers are 6 to 72 inches thick. The wetland soils 

are predominantly Butler, Fillmore, Scott, and Massie 

(Kuzila and Lewis 1993, Kuzila 1994). 

Appendix C — Environmental Assessment
76 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

HABITAT

History of Land Development 

In contrast to the thick clay in the depressions, the 

upland soils are very productive silts and loams used 

for agriculture. At the end of the 1800s, the rich soil 

was being cultivated, and by the 1910s, larger wetlands were being converted to cropland. In the 1950s, 

irrigation canals and large-volume wells expanded 

gravity-flow irrigation, causing smaller wetlands to 

be filled and their watersheds to be reshaped.

Water concentration pits were constructed to collect irrigation runoff at the lowest parts of the fields 

in areas that would normally be wetlands. The pits 

were an effective way to both drain a wetland and 

gain excavated material to fill the remaining portion 

of the wetland. The use of concentration pits was extensive. The Service identified 11,859 concentration 

pits totaling 7,506 acres within the Rainwater Basin 

in 2004 (USFWS, Grand Island GIS Shop, unpublished). Their water storage capacity is estimated to 

be about two-thirds of the region’s historical wetland 

storage capacity. 

A 1984 (Schildman and Hurt 1984) wetland survey 

estimated that approximately 4,000 wetlands once existed that covered over 100,000 acres. More recent soil 

surveys, however, estimate that the original number 

of wetlands was much higher and covered about twice 

that number of acres.

In the early 1970s, the loss of wetlands further increased with the development of center pivot irrigation technology. Pasture ground containing wetlands 

was broken up, drained, and combined with other 

cropland to form large (160-acre) fields that would 

support center pivots. The 2004 assessment estimated 

that only 16 percent (1,693) of the historical wetlands 

retained some wetland function. Those wetlands total 

about 38,500 acres. 

Many of the former wetlands were intentionally 

leveled or have been filled with culturally accelerated 

sediment. Nearly all the remaining wetlands have been 

affected by surrounding land use. The greatest effect 

has been the reduction of the watershed’s ability to 

provide enough water to allow the wetlands to function naturally. As more upland has been converted 

to cropland, sedimentation caused by runoff has increased. In the last 40 years, the use of chemicals and 

fertilizers in crop production has brought pesticides 

and high levels of nutrients into the wetlands. 

Wetlands in larger watersheds used to retain water 

on a semipermanent basis. Now with the reshaping 

of the landscape, creation of roads and ditches, sedimentation, and cultivation practices, even unaltered 

wetlands cannot function properly and most of them 

have become more ephemeral.

The loss of pastureland not only affected water 

quality from runoff, it effectively reduced livestock 

available for grazing remaining wetlands. Wetlands 

that once supported livestock grazing and remained 

open for waterfowl became choked with cattail and 

bulrush. 

Past Wetland Protection and Land Use within 

Watersheds 

Many of the problems that are affecting the wetlands 

go beyond what is actually happening within each 

wetland to the surrounding land uses. These problems 

include intense cultivation, land leveling, large livestock confinement areas, and lack of grazing livestock. 

Cultivation of upland areas increases soil erosion 

and sedimentation of wetlands, a process that has 

been going on in some areas for more than 150 years. 

Runoff and erosion also transport pesticides and excessive levels of nutrients to the wetlands. In some 

larger watersheds, seasonal heavy rains are known to 

occur with enough intensity that residual cornstalks 

are transported to ditches and waterways. Restoration work on these wetlands often includes sediment 

removal, especially near the fluvial area of waterways. 

Land leveling, as discussed earlier, began with the 

conversion from dryland farming to gravity flow irrigation. Effective gravity-flow irrigation requires a 

uniform, gentle slope across the field to allow water 

released on the upper end of the field to flow gently 

down toward the lower end. Any wetland or depression in the middle of the field that pooled water was 

filled. The common practice was to dig large water 

concentration pits to collect any water that reached 

the lower end of the field. Soil material removed from 

the pit was used to fill the remaining portion of the 

wetland to allow more area to be farmed. The result 

of this practice was that only the larger wetlands that 

could not be economically filled or drained remained 

as wetlands. 

Both economic conditions and the availability of 

cheap corn for feed encouraged large livestock confinement facilities. Many of these were built on poorer, 

steeper land—often in close proximity to a wetland. 

Although State regulations control most of the contaminant concerns, large runoff events and operator 

violations sometimes place these contaminants in 

wetlands.

The ability of many of the remaining wetlands 

to function has deteriorated. Sedimentation has resulted in reduced water depth, loss of portions of the 

watershed’s runoff has shifted wetlands toward more 

seasonal water retention, aquatic vegetation has increased, and, with the absence of grazing livestock, the 

wetlands have become choked with monotypic stands 

of cattail, bulrush, and reed canarygrass. 

Wetland drainage and conversion is the main threat 

to the Rainwater Basin wetlands. Over the past decade, wetland loss from drainage and filling has been 

extensive. Wetland drainage was widespread even 
Appendix C — Environmental Assessment 77

before efforts were made to determine the number 

of wetlands that existed in the region. 

Estimates of the number of historical wetlands are 

based primarily on soils maps, which show the extent 

of hydric soils on the landscape. That estimate is 11,000 

historical wetlands totaling 204,000 acres (USFWS, 

Grand Island GIS Shop, unpublished). GIS analysis 

and high-resolution aerial photography allow for an 

accurate measure of wetland acres. Current estimates 

are that 38,500 acres of wetlands remain. The number 

of functional wetlands has declined to 1,693 (2004 data, 

USFWS, Grand Island GIS Shop, unpublished). This 

is about 16 percent of the historical number.

Each year, the slow degradation of wetlands continues. Shallow depressions that are being farmed are 

slowly filling with sediment from the adjacent upland. 

Years of farming and pesticide application have adversely affected native vegetation and invertebrates. 

Farming practices such as no-till farming reduce the 

amount of soil erosion, but may also reduce the amount 

of water runoff reaching the depression. 

Most of the larger wetlands have been fully or 

partially drained. Those that have retained some 

functionality are slowly being subjected to the same 

forces as the smaller depressions: sedimentation, 

agricultural chemical runoff, and decreased surface 

water running into the wetland. Years of no farming 

or grazing encourages invasion by reed canarygrass, 

cattail, bulrush, and trees. In general, lack of grazing, 

burning, and disturbance greatly reduces the value of 

the wetland for migratory birds. Wetlands that retain 

a higher level of functionality still capture enough of 

the watershed’s runoff to provide aquatic vegetation, 

invertebrates, and water for migrating birds, but 

these remaining wetlands are being subjected to the 

same adverse effects as the more disturbed wetlands. 

An additional threat to some of the wetlands is 

nutrient and waste runoff from large livestock confinement areas. Animal waste in feedlots is hauled to 

surrounding fields. Although State regulations are in 

place to control runoff, heavy rain events can cause 

rapid runoff carrying waste and chemicals that reach 

wetlands. Since the wetlands are within a closed drainage, the nutrients and pollutants are not flushed out 

but accumulate within the wetlands. 

There are many factors driving the continued 

conversion of wetlands within the Rainwater Basin. 

The assumption is that the wetlands that were easy 

and economically feasible to drain have already been 

drained and converted. Each year, however, additional 

wetlands are lost. Some of the common causes for the 

continuing loss of wetlands are changes in Farm Bill 

regulations, commodity prices, increased crop insurance subsidies, and new irrigation and farming technologies. Commodity prices and crop insurance serve 

as a safety net for farming the more risky lands. New 

irrigation technologies allow for chemigation, control 

of water delivery, and easier access across wet areas 

and steeper slopes. No-till farming allows for more economical farming in more arid areas than were possible 

in years past. In recent years, impending moratoriums 

on groundwater development have stimulated developers and producers to convert more land to cropland.

Property taxes, low livestock prices, and low production rates from dryland farming cause landowners to continually look for ways to make every acre 

financially productive, reducing the incentive to keep 

a privately owned wetland. 

The conversion of wetlands and grassland has also 

caused birds to concentrate into fewer areas, increasing the risk of disease outbreaks and competition for 

natural foods. Waste grain has replaced much of the 

natural foods in waterfowl diets. Although corn meets 

the caloric requirements, it is deficient in many of the 

nutrients found in natural foods (Baldassare and Bolen 

1994, Krapu et al. 2004). 

Current Protection Status

Service acquisition has focused on purchase and protection of the larger wetlands. Over the decades, as 

the smaller surrounding wetlands have been lost, 

the wetlands purchased by the Service have become 

isolated. In some portions of the Rainwater Basin, 

acquisition needs to focus on protecting the smaller 

wetlands that make up a complex, while in other portions, a larger core wetland needs to be restored to 

create a complex. Figure 4 shows the change in spatial 

distribution of wetlands throughout the region (USFWS, Grand Island GIS Shop, unpublished).

From 2000 to 2008, aerial surveys were conducted 

every spring by the station biologist to document the 

amount of migratory bird habitat available. A total of 

17,984 acres of public wetlands was surveyed. Of that 

total, the average amount of suitable habitat (described 

as any habitat containing water) was 5,582 acres. This 

means that an average of 32 percent of the public wetland acres was suitable migration habitat. Some of 

those wetlands were supplemented with groundwater 

pumped by the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management 

District and the NGPC. 

Groundwater 

Most of the groundwater in the Rainwater Basin 

area has little or no influence on maintaining wetland 

water levels. The majority of the groundwater is located more than 50 feet underground, and in some 

areas the groundwater is more than 400 feet deep. 

One area east of the Tri-County canal has groundwater 

levels that are less than 50 feet deep due to artificial 

groundwater mounds that have developed near the 

surface (Ekstein and Hygnstrom 1996).

The development of center pivot irrigation in the 

last third of a century has placed a great demand on 

the groundwater underlying Rainwater Basin. Irrigation, compounded by extensive drought, has caused 
78 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Figure 4. Historical (top) and current (bottom) wetland distribution and abundance (blue area) within the 

Rainwater Basin.
Appendix C — Environmental Assessment 79

the State legislature to pass legislation to help control 

groundwater declines. Only the extreme western edge 

of the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

lies within an over-appropriated natural resource district. Some of the natural resource districts located 

within the Rainwater Basin, however, have placed a 

moratorium on new wells and are requiring stricter 

monitoring of pumping. 

There is some groundwater recharge below Rainwater Basin wetlands. Percolation occurs as macropore 

flow through desiccation cracks that form during dry 

conditions (Wilson 2010). However, soil percolation decreases as clays expand and fill the desiccation cracks 

(Wood 2000, Wilson 2010). Research from playa lakes 

in Texas and New Mexico has shown similar recharge 

characteristics (Wood 2000).

Artificially pumping groundwater into the wetlands 

has made a dramatic difference in amount of habitat 

on WPAs. The average suitable habitat for WPA wetlands not pumped was 22 percent of the total wetland 

acres. For WPA wetlands pumped, the average suitable habitat was 39 percent of the total wetland acres.

WILDLIFE

Rainwater Basin serves as a critical resting and feeding stopover area for millions of waterfowl during 

spring migration. It is estimated that waterfowl using 

the area each spring include 7.5 million ducks and 2.1 

million geese. Gersib et al. (1989) documented that 50 

percent of the mid-continent mallards and 30 percent 

of the continental northern pintails migrate through 

during spring migration. Nearly 90 percent of the midcontinent population of greater white-fronted geese 

has been documented to use this region during their 

spring migration.

A total of 329 species of birds have been observed 

within the Rainwater Basin, including 41 species of 

shorebirds and 35 species of waterfowl. Between 

200,000 and 300,000 shorebirds migrate through in the 

spring. Common grassland species include northern 

harrier, northern bobwhite, ring-necked pheasant, 

greater prairie-chicken, dickcissel, western meadowlark, bobolink, field sparrow, and grasshopper sparrow. 

Spring migration usually starts with a buildup of 

Canada geese on the Platte River until the Rainwater 

Basin wetlands begin to thaw. Snow geese, greater 

white-fronted geese, and mallards begin to peak by 

mid- to late February. In early March, northern pintail 

numbers peak, followed by Ross’s geese and greenwinged teal. The remaining divers and puddle ducks 

usually peak during mid- to late March. 

Most shorebirds pass through between April 15 

and May 15. According to Jorgensen (2004), the most 

common spring shorebird migrants are black-bellied 

plover, American golden-plover, semipalmated plover, 

greater yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, willet, upland 

sandpiper, Hudsonian godwit, dunlin, white-rumped 

sandpiper, Baird’s sandpiper, semipalmated sandpiper, 

least sandpiper, stilt sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, 

long-billed dowitcher, buff-breasted sandpiper, Wilson’s snipe, and Wilson’s phalarope. Rainwater Basin 

has the largest known concentration of buff-breasted 

sandpipers during spring migration (Jorgensen 2007). 

Common late-summer migrants are greater and lesser 

yellowlegs, solitary sandpiper, upland sandpiper, 

pectoral sandpiper, semipalmated sandpiper, least 

sandpiper, stilt sandpiper, long-billed dowitcher, and 

Wilson’s snipe. 

Rainwater Basin is identified as a landscape of 

hemispheric importance by the Western Hemisphere 

Shorebird Reserve Network. It also lies within the Geographic Framework of Bird Conservation Region #19.

Peregrine falcons frequent wetlands during peak 

shorebird migration periods. Prairie falcons, on the 

other hand, are most numerous in late winter when 

horned larks and meadowlarks are common. Merlin 

are primarily winter visitors and spring migrants 

(Johnsgard 1997). Bald eagles are most common during peak waterfowl migration. Burrowing owls nest 

on isolated prairie dog towns. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Three species listed under the Federal Endangered 

Species Act and the Nebraska Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act use the Rainwater 

Basin wetlands during migration: the State and Federally endangered whooping crane and least tern, and 

the State and Federally threatened piping plover. 

Forty-two percent of confirmed whooping crane 

observations in Nebraska have been at Rainwater 

Basin wetlands (Richert 1999). Most of these sightings 

occur during the first 2 weeks of April or from late 

October through mid-November. Piping plovers are 

rarely seen on Rainwater Basin wetlands due to their 

size and the number of other shorebirds that would be 

using mudflat habitats in late April through mid-May 

(Johnsgard 1997). Least terns have been documented 

at some wetlands, although their occurrence in the 

Rainwater Basin is rare. 

Other species that are proposed or are candidates 

for listing under the State and Federal Endangered 

Species Acts or are species of concern that use the 

Rainwater Basin include northern harrier, Swainson’s 

hawk, ferruginous hawk, long-billed curlew, black tern, 

short-eared owl, and Sprague’s pipit.

Mammals 

Large mammals common to the region are those associated with grasslands of the Great Plains. They 

include white-tailed deer, coyote, raccoon, striped 

skunk, eastern cottontail, American badger, and Virginia opossum. Mule deer have occasionally been seen 

in the western portion. Muskrat and mink may occur 

during wetter years but their populations have dropped 

dramatically with changes in land use and wetlands. 
80 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Isolated prairie dog towns are scattered throughout 

the region, with most of them smaller than 40 acres 

and located on public lands. Common small mammals 

include thirteen-lined ground squirrel, northern and 

plains pocket gopher, Ord’s kangaroo rat, meadow 

jumping mouse, meadow vole, northern grasshopper 

mouse, and white-footed mouse. Less common mammals are red fox, black-tailed jackrabbit, woodchuck, 

Franklin’s ground squirrel, and eastern fox squirrel. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Semipermanent wetlands provide habitat for painted 

and snapping turtles. Ornate box turtles may be found 

in grassland areas. Western garter snakes, bull snakes, 

and eastern yellowbelly racers are fairly common. 

Western hog-nosed snakes are less common and prefer 

dry sandy prairies. Smooth green snake and redbelly 

snake are rare in the region. The lesser earless lizard 

may occur in open sandy soil with sparse vegetation, 

while the six-lined racerunner can be found in both 

lowland and upland sites.

Amphibians that occur in the Rainwater Basin include plains spadefoot toad, Woodhouse’s toad, Great 

Plains toad, Blanchard’s cricket frog, boreal chorus 

frog, bullfrog, gray treefrog, plains leopard frog, and 

tiger salamander.

Fisheries 

Due to the hydrologic nature of the wetlands within 

the Rainwater Basin, there currently are no viable 

fisheries. Two native Missouri River basin cyprinids, 

the shoal chub and plains minnow, are of concern but 

have no legal protected status in Nebraska. Catfishes, 

sunfishes, darters, catastomids, and other minnows 

are part of the fish communities in this region that are 

also of concern and of interest to the National Fish 

Habitat Action Plan partnerships.

Cultural Resources

Archaeological and Native dwelling remains representing 12,000 years of human occupation have been found 

in the Rainwater Basin. Although there have been 

few formal investigations done in the area, evidence 

from the earliest paleo-Indian occupation through the 

rural and agricultural development of the early 20th 

century has been located in a variety of geographical 

settings. Although these sites exhibit a wide range 

of artifacts and features, definite trends in site types 

and changes through time are apparent. 

Current archaeological evidence indicates that the 

earliest humans, called paleo-Indians, migrated to the 

region near the close of the ice age approximately 

12,000 years ago. These people had a highly mobile 

lifestyle that depended on the hunting of big game, including mammoths and a species of huge, now-extinct 

bison. The hallmark of most paleo-Indian sites are the 

beautiful but deadly spear points that are generally 

recovered from animal kill and butchering sites and 

small temporary camps. Three late paleo-Indian sites 

in Frontier County, just to the west of the Rainwater 

Basin, date from 10,000 to 8,000 years ago and have 

provided the best evidence of actual living areas. Another well-known paleo-Indian site, the Meserve site, 

dating to approximately 9,400 years ago, is located in 

Hall County within the Rainwater Basin.

There was a gradual but definite shift in the pattern of human use of the area beginning about 8,000 

years ago. The changes were due to a combination 

of climatic fluctuations and an increasing population, 

coupled with tremendous social change and technological innovation. This stage is referred to as the Archaic stage and it lasted until about 1,500 years ago. 

Although the Archaic stage is better represented in 

the archaeological record than the preceding paleoIndian stage, interpretation of the remains is difficult. 

Evidence of a greater diversity of tools and increased 

use of native plants is found on many sites, but the 

remains also suggest a more localized and less mobile 

population. 

By 2,000 years ago, the populations of the area 

became increasingly influenced by the woodland cultures to the east. This period, referred to as the Plains 

Woodland period (2,000 to 1,000 years ago), brought 

great changes and innovation, including the advent 

of pottery, the bow and arrow, and semipermanent 

dwellings. Small villages began to be established, and 

evidence of early agriculture has been found along 

some of the waterways. 

Evidence of an increasingly sedentary population 

from approximately 1,000 years ago until approximately 400 years ago is found at many of the sites. 

This adaptation is referred to as the Central Plains village tradition and amplifies many of the trends began 

during the Plains Woodland period. Small villages of 

earthen structures with associated agricultural fields 

became more common. The increased use of pottery 

in conjunction with the construction of food storage 

pits reflect a population that was spending increasing 

amounts of time in one location. 

Early postcontact occupation of the area (400 to 

100 years ago) included the Pawnee with the Arikara, 

Arapaho, Cheyenne, Lakota, Oto, and Kansas peoples. 

Their settlements tended to be large villages with 

extensive agricultural fields and were often located 

along the major waterways. Bison hunting, fishing, 

and Euro-American trade were also primary components of the economy. Beginning in the early 1700s, 

Euro-American explorers began to make incursions 

into the area and by the mid-1800s, there was a regular stream of emigrants passing through on the way 

west. Many of these travelers chose to stay and settle 

in the area referred to today as the Rainwater Basin.
81

Socioeconomic Environment

LANDOWNERSHIP

The project area includes all or portions of 13 counties: Adams, Clay, Fillmore, Franklin, Gosper, Hall, 

Hamilton, Kearney, Phelps, Polk, Saline, Seward, and 

York. The total population of these counties is almost 

182,000 people, or roughly 10 percent of Nebraska’s 

population (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Numerous small 

communities of less than 1,000 people exist throughout 

the area. The five largest commercial hubs are Grand 

Island, Hastings, York, Holdrege, and Minden. The 

city of Kearney lies outside the Rainwater Basin immediately north of Kearney County. 

The population trend within the Rainwater Basin 

follows the trends seen throughout the State. From 

1980 to 2002, the number of farms in the Rainwater 

Basin region dropped from 4,585 to 3,280, representing a 28.5 percent decline, with the farms becoming 

larger (Nebraska Agricultural Statistics Service 2003). 

Between 2002 and 2007, the number of farms within 

the 13 Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

counties dropped by 6.3 percent, and the average farm 

size increased by 195 acres (USDA 2007). 

During the years 2000 to 2010, the collective population of the counties in the Rainwater Basin increased 

by 1.0 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The increase, however, was not uniform. Counties without 

a large commercial hub (9 of the 13 counties) showed 

significant declines. Fillmore and Franklin Counties 

each experienced about an 11 and 10 percent decline, 

respectively. Hall County, containing the city of Grand 

Island, showed nearly all of the gain (figure 5). 

 The well-being and stability of the small communities have depended on the farming economy, primarily 

irrigated corn and soybeans. As land becomes more 

concentrated in larger farm operations, fewer families 

remain in small communities to support businesses, 

schools, and churches. The trend is for people to move 

to larger nearby commercial hubs.

Approximately 1.6 percent of land in Nebraska is 

in either State or Federal ownership (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 1991). Only Iowa and Kansas have less government ownership by percentage. Within the Rainwater Basin, agriculture (79.9 percent cropland and 

10.5 pasture or CRP) is the dominant land use (USFWS, Grand Island GIS Shop, unpublished). Roads 

or communities make up 5.4 percent of the land area. 

Fish and Wildlife Service lands within the region total 23,855 acres, representing about 0.6 percent of 

the region. Clay County, with the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s 35,000-acre Roman L. Hruska Meat 

Animal Research Center, has a higher percentage of 

Federal ownership than the other Rainwater Basin 

counties. Located west of Clay Center, Nebraska, 

the research center is the largest Federally owned 

property in the project area. Nonfarmed wetlands 

represent 1 percent of the land use. See the Habitat 

Figure 5. Change in county population size in the Rainwater Basin from the 2000 to 2010 census.

Appendix C — Environmental Assessment
82 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

section in section 3 for additional information about 

agricultural development. 

PROPERTY TAX

Property tax is assessed on each property owner 

within each county. The amount is derived from the 

value of each parcel of land, based on the reasonable 

highest and most probable use. The assessed value of 

agricultural land is no more than 75 percent of market 

value (NEDOR 2011). 

The inflation in land value in recent years has caused 

taxes on agricultural land to go up disproportionately 

compared with nonagricultural property, such as homes 

within communities. For counties with low populations 

and few commercial properties, agricultural lands may 

represent well over half of the county’s total assessed 

value. As costs in low-population counties continue to 

go up, populations go down, and because no new industries are being created, agricultural land claims a 

higher percentage of the county’s total assessed value, 

placing more of the burden of financing the county on 

the shoulders of farmers.

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act provides for 

payments to counties by the Service in lieu of taxes. 

Revenues for these payments are derived from the 

sale of products from refuges, including animals, 

timber, and minerals, or from leases and other privileges. If there is not enough money in the National 

Wildlife Refuge Fund to cover payments, Congress is 

authorized to appropriate money to make up the difference. If the amount that Congress appropriates is 

not enough, the units of local government receive a 

pro-rata share. Payment is calculated three different 

ways, with the amount due being the highest of the 

three methods. The three methods are 0.75 percent 

of the appraised property value, 25 percent of the net 

receipts produced on the property, or $0.75 per acre. If 

the funds in the special Treasury account fall short of 

100 percent payment, each county receives payment at 

a lower percentage. In 2009, refuge revenue-sharing 

payment to Rainwater Basin counties averaged only 

32.3 percent ($90,983) of full payment. 

PUBLIC USE AND WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT 

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

For much of the past century, access to private property was relatively easy to obtain. Most of Nebraska’s 

population was somehow connected to the land, either 

by family or by acquaintances. Hunting was seen as 

recreation that provided little opportunity for revenue to the landowner, and access was freely granted 

as a neighborly gesture. In the past few decades, this 

trend has changed. Urban populations are no longer 

closely connected to the land, and access to private 

land is more commonly being denied or allowed only 

on a fee basis. 

The result is that the public is relying more on 

public lands for wildlife-dependent recreation. Within 

Rainwater Basin, 32 wildlife management areas are 

managed by the NGPC, and the Service manages 59 

WPAs. A total of 31,823 acres is available for public use 

(USFWS, Grand Island GIS Shop). Pheasant hunting 

is the most common recreational activity, followed by 

waterfowl hunting and birdwatching. It is estimated 

that 81,880 use-days are spent annually on waterfowl 

and upland bird hunting on State and Federal properties in the Rainwater Basin (Mark Vrtiska, biologist, 

NGPC; personal communication; May 12, 2010).
83

SECTION 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section assesses the environmental impacts expected to occur from the implementation of alternatives A and B, as described in section 2. Environmental 

impacts are analyzed by issues for each alternative 

and appear in the same order as discussed in section 2.

Effects on the Biological 

Environment

This section describes the effects on wildlife habitat 

and water and soil resources of carrying out alternatives A and B.

WILDLIFE HABITAT—ALTERNATIVE A (NO 

ACTION)

Under alternative A, land acquisition by the Service 

would continue until the original authorization level 

of 24,000 acres is reached. At that time, future wetland acquisition would depend on other conservation 

agencies and nongovernmental organizations. Since 

the existing authorization limits only the purchase of 

property, the Service would continue to accept gifts 

from other entities. For example, the Service could 

enter into an agreement with a donor to accept ownership of a piece of property to be managed as part of 

the Refuge System. 

Most of the Rainwater Basin wetlands have been 

determined to be nonjurisdictional wetlands under 

the Clean Water Act as it is currently being administered. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Swampbuster Act does not prohibit alteration of wetlands, 

but it withholds Federal farm program benefits from 

any person who plants a commodity crop in a wetland that has been converted. Changes in agricultural 

economics will continue to influence the existence of 

privately owned wetlands. Over a period of time, total wetland acres and quality are expected to decline 

under alternative A. 

Migratory waterfowl use the numerous shallow, 

temporary wetlands for feeding and resting, but prefer the larger nearby wetlands for roosting. As the 

presence of temporary wetlands declines, the value of 

larger wetlands located in a wetland complex would 

decline due to fewer food resources. 

Wetlands with ownership split between the Service 

and private landowners would likely remain unrestored 

because complete restoration would be less likely due 

to conflicting land uses. These wetlands could also be 

undermanaged, because in many cases the portion 

of wetlands in private ownership would remain idle 

and become dominated by late-successional wetland 

plants that provide little to no benefit to migratory 

waterfowl. The Service would continue to work with 

neighboring landowners to manage these areas for 

waterfowl. Participation level, however, would be 

expected to remain low. 

Waterfowl nutritional needs derived from natural wetland foods would remain unmet. As little as 

14 percent of the waterfowl diet, as estimated by the 

Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, would come from 

wetlands under this alternative. The remainder would 

continue to come from waste grain, which does not 

provide needed amino acids and minerals. Over time, 

as more wetlands are lost, the percentage of natural 

foods in waterfowl diets would be expected to decline 

even further.

Because any decline in roosting areas would cause 

bird populations to become more concentrated on the 

remaining wetlands, the potential for a major avian 

disease outbreak would remain high and would be 

expected to increase over time. Groundwater pumping would be expected to play a more critical role in 

keeping birds dispersed throughout the region. 

WILDLIFE HABITAT—ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED 

ACTION)

Under alternative B, the expansion of land acquisition 

across the Rainwater Basin would ensure that critical 

wetlands are protected in perpetuity. It would allow 

the Service greater flexibility to consider fee-title or 

easement acquisition as potential land management 

strategies. GIS modeling would help to identify wetlands with key biological characteristics that are best 

suited for fee-title and easement acquisition. This approach would help to ensure that funding is directed 

to where it can provide the most benefit to priority 

species. 

Purchase of roundout properties would in many 

ways multiply the benefits of the wetlands beyond 

what they currently provide in split ownership. It 

would be easier to use management strategies such 

as grazing, prescribed burning, restoration, and water 

management. The Service would continue to partner 

with neighboring landowners to enhance privately 

owned wetlands for the benefit of migratory birds. 

Natural foods from wetlands would increase, bringing the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture closer to its goal 

of having 28.2 percent of waterfowl energetic needs 

met by natural foods rather than waste grain. Birds 

would be expected to leave the Rainwater Basin region 

in better body condition, which would in turn mean 

better production on their northern nesting grounds.

The potential for a major avian disease outbreak 

would be reduced as more wetlands would be better managed for waterfowl migrations. Pumping and 

Appendix C — Environmental Assessment
84 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

other forms of water management would remain as 

management options.

Acquisition and protection of wetlands within the 

Rainwater Basin would indirectly provide improved 

water quality to the headwaters of several streams, 

such as the Big Blue and Little Blue rivers, that currently provide fish habitat. 

WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES—ALTERNATIVE A 

(NO ACTION)

Under alternative A, water quality and quantity would 

decline and sedimentation would increase over time. 

It is expected that future wetland loss would increase 

agricultural and sediment runoff. Runoff flowing out 

of watersheds would increase, thereby increasing erosion and nutrient loading. The ability of altered wetlands to contribute to groundwater recharge would 

also decline.

WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES—ALTERNATIVE B 

(PROPOSED ACTION)

Under alternative B, wetlands that are protected in 

perpetuity would exist for the long term, providing 

many of the benefits attributed to wetlands, including entrapment of agricultural fertilizers, chemicals, 

and sediment. Wetland plants would help convert 

fertilizers and other farm chemicals into nonpolluting forms. The preserved wetlands would continue to 

provide groundwater recharge to a currently declining groundwater table. 

Alternative B, which would increase the land base 

of the Service in the Rainwater Basin, would likely 

reduce long-term management costs; therefore, shortterm acquisition costs would likely be made up over 

the long term by reducing the cost of per acre management. Having management control of a full wetland 

would allow the Service to restore natural hydrologic 

function, thereby reducing management costs by allowing the wetland to flood and dry out on its own. 

In addition, full management of a wetland would reduce potential conflict with neighbors who could have 

different management plans for use of that wetland.

Effects on the 

Socioeconomic Environment

The socioeconomic impact of land acquisition within 

the Rainwater Basin counties is hard to measure with 

a high degree of certainty. What is known is that there 

would be reduction in agricultural production and tax 

revenue associated with Federal acquisition. What is 

poorly determined or immeasurable are the environmental and social benefits provided by wetlands, especially those located in close proximity to each other 

or near a community. Economists often refer to these 

benefits as nonexcludable (available to all) goods that 

have a value to the public that exceeds their value to 

the landowner. For Rainwater Basin wetlands, this 

value extends beyond the local residents to a much 

larger area. For example, the birds that use the Rainwater Basin during spring migration are of international value for birdwatching and hunting. 

Some local residents perceive themselves as having 

to unfairly shoulder the burden of maintaining these 

wetlands for the benefit of others. Their concerns 

are expressed in the belief that Service acquisition of 

wetlands contributes to declining county populations, 

leading to increased land prices and taxes. 

POPULATION DECLINE

A review of population changes within counties located 

in the Rainwater Basin between 2000 and 2010 shows 

that the greatest decline has been in counties with 

low (<10,000) populations (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

Fillmore County, which does not have a large 

commercial hub, showed the greatest reduction in 

population (11 percent), declining by 744 people from 

2000 to 2010. In contrast, those counties with a larger 

commercial hub showed an increase in population. 

Hall County, which includes the community of Grand 

Island, showed over a 9 percent increase during the 

same period, increasing by 5,073 people. This trend in 

population shift among counties was common throughout the State, where counties with small populations 

and small commercial hubs showed a decrease while 

counties with larger populations and larger commercial hubs showed an increase. 

Even though some residents are concerned that 

Federal acquisition may lead to a decrease in population, there does not appear to be a correlation between the two. Clay County, for example, showed a 

population decline of over 7 percent between 2000 

and 2010. During that period of time, only 32.5 acres 

were acquired by the Service. A comparison of Clay 

County with a nearby county of similar population 

without Federal lands would help determine if Service 

ownership may be a contributing factor to population 

declines. Antelope County, which is comparable to 

Clay County, does not have a large commercial hub or 

Federal lands, and it showed a decline of 11 percent. 

Other Nebraska counties that met the same criteria 

as Antelope County showed similar trends.

RISING LAND PRICES

Regarding the concern that Service acquisition drives 

up land prices, a 2010 UNL (University of Nebraska, 

Lincoln) survey reported that agricultural land values 

in the Rainwater Basin region increased an average of 

2.6 percent annually between 2005 and 2010 (Johnson 

et al. 2010). During those same 5 years, only 513 acres 

were acquired in fee title by the Service. In 2009, 74 
Appendix C — Environmental Assessment 85

percent of agricultural lands sold in the Rainwater 

Basin region were purchased by active farmers, 21 

percent were purchased by nonfarming Nebraska 

residents, and 5 percent were purchased by nonfarming out-of-state buyers. 

UNL’s survey asked 150 land-market observers to 

rank the importance of 16 factors in determining land 

prices. The top three factors listed were purchasing 

for farm expansion, the limited amount of land offered 

for sale, and the financial health of the current owners. Property tax levels were ranked 15th out of 16. 

In 2009, 68 percent of land purchases in the Rainwater Basin area were cash purchases and 27 percent 

involved a mortgage; 5 percent of ownership changes 

involved other types of transactions (e.g., gift, inheritance, etc.). During the last decade, the average rate 

of return on assets of agricultural land in the Rainwater Basin region dropped from 5.5 to 4.9 percent. 

Nationally, farmland values rose throughout much 

of the post-World War II period, and from 1969 to 1978, 

farmland prices increased 73 percent as agricultural 

producers responded to high returns and various 

Federal policies that increased incentives for investing in agriculture. In 1980, farmland prices began to 

decline in response to Federal monetary policy that 

raised interest rates to help resolve high inflation. In 

addition to rapidly rising interest rates, higher energy 

prices contributed to a significant financial crisis in the 

farm sector during the 1980s, leading to farm bankruptcies and bank failures. Since the farm crisis of the 

mid-1980s, farmland real estate values (including land 

and buildings) have been rising in both nominal and 

real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) terms. Between 1994 and 

2004, real values increased between 2 and 4 percent 

annually (figure 6) and in 2005 and 2006 experienced 

sharp annual increases of 16 percent and 11 percent, 

respectively, before slowing to 7 percent and 6 percent annual growth in 2007 and 2008 (USDA 2011).

Figure 6. Funds distributed from the National Revenue Sharing program in comparison to national land values, 

1972–2009.

INCREASING PROPERTY TAXES

Tax increases are a very contentious issue across the 

State, including in the Rainwater Basin. While land 

brought into Federal ownership is no longer on the 

tax roll, it does not result in an increase in personal 

property taxes paid to the counties. 

For counties with low populations and no commercial hub, agricultural lands represent well over 

half of the county’s total assessed value (Johnson et 

al. 2006). When county costs continue to go up, populations go down, and no new industries are being created, agricultural land claims a higher percentage of 

the county’s total assessed value, shifting the burden 
86 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

of financing the county to the shoulders of farmers. 

A contrast that demonstrates this concept is that 57 

percent of the total assessed value in Clay County is 

agricultural land, but it is only 22 percent in adjoining Adams County.

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Program has increased payments made to local governments over 

the long-term; these rates have actually increased 

at a faster rate than inflation (figure 6). However, 

payments due to the local governments have risen 

substantially more, primarily due to increasing land 

prices, as described in the prior section. This is particularly evident in the period from 2004 to 2008, when 

land prices rose approximately 10 percent annually, 

but receipts from the National Wildlife Refuge Fund 

rose at a substantially lower rate (figure 6). However, 

the difference between what is paid by the revenue 

sharing program and what is due does result in lower 

revenue for local governments. Nonetheless, substantive social benefits are provided by public lands to local 

communities and economies (see below). 

SOCIAL BENEFITS

Although Service lands do not provide the same property tax revenue to the counties that the land would 

generate in private ownership, there are goods and services produced by these lands that benefit the general 

public. Some benefit the local community directly in 

terms of flood control, groundwater recharge, increased 

water quality, and sediment or fertilizer entrapment. 

Recreation, aesthetics, and health and production of 

wildlife may serve the local community as well as a 

much larger society. Other benefits include reduced 

need for water and sewer services and increased law 

enforcement in the local area, thereby reducing costs 

to local communities. 

It is difficult to assign dollar values to these public benefits. The social and environmental benefits 

provided by the wetlands have very little economic 

value to an individual buyer; in comparison, the assessed value reflects the land’s value for agricultural 

production. In addition, each wetland provides a specific level of benefits, depending on its unique characteristics, location in the watershed, and proximity to 

larger communities. For example, WPAs located in 

the more populated eastern portion of the Rainwater 

Basin receive much more use, and therefore provide 

a greater recreational benefit to the local area, than 

those in the western portion.

Studies exist, however, that suggest some of the 

value wetlands provide to the public. In 1978, the Little 

Blue Natural Resources District hired an engineering 

firm to provide a cost-benefit analysis of a watershed 

plan in Clay County. The analysis reported that a 650-

acre impoundment would have an estimated annual 

benefit value of $97.37 per acre. This value was based 

on only three benefits: $52.75 per acre for groundwater 

recharge, $41.14 per acre for flood control, and $3.46 

per acre for recreation. The $97.37 in 1978 is equivalent to approximately $320 in today’s economy. The 

estimate did not include the value of other services 

provided, such as capturing and transforming agricultural runoff or sustaining migratory bird populations. 

A limited amount of agricultural benefit is provided 

by WPAs. In 2009, approximately 12,600 animal-unit 

months of grazing were provided. An additional 1,150 

acres were hayed. 

Publicly owned wetlands within the Rainwater 

Basin bring many hunters and birdwatchers to the 

region. The 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation reports that 

the average hunter in Nebraska spends about $25 

per day on trip expenses (food, lodging, and fuel). 

For birdwatchers, that number is $31.50 per day. The 

Service estimates that there are approximately 80,000 

visitor-days within basin WPAs each year. Using the 

$25 per visitor-day figure, that number of visitor-days 

brings $2 million of commerce to the region. NGPC 

estimates that upland game and waterfowl hunting 

provides $2,374,520 of economic activity to the Rainwater Basin (Mark Vrtiska, biologist, NGPC; personal 

communication; 2011). 

These figures demonstrate that the value of benefits provided by WPAs is significant. 

LANDOWNERSHIP AND LAND USE—

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Under alternative A, many of the wetlands targeted 

for acquisition under this proposal would remain in 

private ownership and on the county tax rolls. An unknown number of them would be converted to cropland 

during drier conditions, but there could be significant 

variations in production between wet and dry years. 

LANDOWNERSHIP AND LAND USE—

ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED ACTION)

Under alternative B, 14,177 additional acres of land 

(0.36 percent of the Rainwater Basin region) would 

be permanently protected. The adjoining upland and 

drained portions of wetlands would be converted from 

cropland back to grassland and wetlands. Agricultural 

income from the 5,000 acres of easements would be 

derived from livestock grazing and haying. 

The 9,177 acres purchased in fee title would be 

taken off the county tax rolls with the counties receiving refuge revenue sharing funds to help compensate 

for the loss of tax money. 

Lands with a conservation easement would remain on the tax rolls, and the taxes would be paid by 

the landowner. Land use on these properties would 

be limited to the terms of the easement, which would 

allow haying, grazing, and control of public access.
87

PUBLIC USE—ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Under alternative A, public use would remain relatively unchanged. Public access to wetlands targeted 

for acquisition under this proposal would be limited, 

with the property owner deciding the level of access. 

Public pressure on those wetlands currently in public 

ownership would increase, potentially affecting wildlife use of wetland areas.

PUBLIC USE—ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED 

ACTION) 

Under alternative B, additional fee-title properties 

would be open to public recreation, including hunting, birdwatching, and environmental education. An 

increase in direct and indirect revenue from recreation would increase. Public pressure on and wildlife 

disturbance to individual wetlands would lessen as 

more areas would be available for use. 

Properties with conservation easements would 

remain in private ownership. Access to the property 

would be at the discretion of the landowner since the 

easement would not include public use.

VALUE OF THE RAINWATER BASIN ECOSYSTEM—

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Under alternative A, the level of wetland protection 

would remain relatively unchanged. Wetlands with 

split ownership between the Service and private 

landowners would continue to have limited benefits, 

especially for waterfowl. Over time the number of 

wetlands regionwide would be expected to continue 

to decline both in numbers and functionality.

VALUE OF THE RAINWATER BASIN ECOSYSTEM—

ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED ACTION)

Alternative B would not completely restore the Rainwater Basin ecosystem, but it would help to reduce the 

threat of further wetland losses in the area. Nearly 

90 percent of the region’s wetlands would remain 

lost. Wetlands that are permanently protected would 

help ensure that the region continues to play a critical role in the migration of millions of ducks, geese, 

shorebirds, and other birds. The wetland values of 

the acquired areas would continue to provide better 

water quality, quality of life, and wildlife habitat for 

many generations. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

Any adverse effects that may be unavoidable while 

carrying out alternatives A and B are described below.

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Under alternative A, the adverse impact of habitat 

degradation and fragmentation would be expected to 

be more widespread and prevalent. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED ACTION)

Under alternative B, the expansion of land acquisition 

would cause a direct decline in taxes paid to counties. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

Any commitments of resources that may be irreversible or irretrievable as a result of carrying out alternatives A and B are described as follows.

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Under alternative A, there would be no additional 

commitment of resources by the Service. Wetlands 

converted to cropland, especially irrigated cropland, 

would be irretrievable because their natural function 

would be lost, contributing to the overall loss of migration habitat.

ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED ACTION)

Under alternative B, there would be an irretrievable 

and irreversible annual commitment of funds to protect 

and manage these lands. The potential for properties 

to be used for crop production by private landowners 

would be removed in perpetuity, unless the Service 

divested interest in such lands in the future.

Short-Term Use versus LongTerm Productivity

This section describes the effects of short-term use 

versus long-term productivity of alternatives A and B.

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Under alternative A, landowners would be able to 

convert wetlands to cropland, which would boost agricultural production but would also have a long-term 

negative effect on migratory bird habitat. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED ACTION)

Under alternative B, land acquisition would preserve 

wetlands and adjoining grasslands in perpetuity. The 

loss of direct tax revenue to the affected counties would 

have a long-term impact. 

Appendix C — Environmental Assessment
88 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are defined by NEPA as the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to the other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 

CFR § 1508.7)

PAST ACTIONS

Past land acquisition by the Service and the NGPC has 

included 31,823 acres of wetland and grassland. The 

Wetlands Reserve Program administered by NRCS 

has added 7,077 acres in conservation easements. The 

total of these acres represents approximately 1.0 percent of the Rainwater Basin. These lands are managed 

primarily for the social benefits that wetlands provide, 

especially habitat for wetland and grassland birds. 

PRESENT ACTIONS

The Service’s proposed action to expand land acquisition authority to 38,177 acres would add an additional 

14,177 acres to the Refuge System, 5,000 of which 

would be conservation easements. Land acquisition by 

NGPC is limited and is driven by available funds and 

willing sellers. The Wetland Reserve Program continues to be an active program. The Wetlands Reserve 

Program areas, however, are not open for public use. 

Ducks Unlimited is actively seeking willing sellers 

and is obtaining both fee-title and easement properties. Its acquisitions are directed toward purchasing 

property, restoring the wetland and upland, protecting 

the property with a conservation easement, and then 

selling the property. Present actions by conservation 

groups support the goals of the Service and the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture.

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS

Reasonably foreseeable actions are actions and activities that are independent of the proposed expansion 

addressed in this document. They are anticipated to 

occur regardless of which alternative is selected. Increased production of ethanol and demand for corn 

and soybeans are expected to encourage increased 

acreage of, and production from, farmland. A significant portion of that increased acreage can be expected 

to come from the conversion of wetland to farmland. 

Future wetland conservation will be done primarily 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and nongovernmental conservation organizations. 

Wind energy development is currently being considered for the region. The potential for this development is speculative at this time. 

Development—Alternative A 

(No Action)

Much of the development within the Rainwater Basin 

has been and would continue to be related to agriculture. Since 90 percent of the historical wetlands have 

already been converted or lost, the number of wetlands 

that would be affected by additional development would 

be small, but would significantly affect the wetlands 

that remain. For example, over 2,300 acres of grassland were converted to cropland in just four counties 

within the basin in 2009. The long-term, cumulative 

effect would likely be the continuation, and possible 

acceleration, of the decline in waterfowl, shorebird, 

and other migratory bird populations. 

Development—Alternative B 

(Proposed Action)

The proposed action would restore and protect an additional 14,177 acres of wetland and grassland areas 

for the benefit of the public and wildlife. 

Conservation Efforts—

Alternative A (No Action)

Under alternative A, current Service programs such 

as Partners for Fish and Wildlife would continue. The 

Service would continue to work cooperatively with 

landowners to voluntarily improve habitat on private land through various conservation means, such 

as prescribed fire or native plantings. Landowners 

wishing to sell off unproductive wetland acres would 

have fewer options for selling.

Conservation Efforts—

Alternative B (Proposed 

Action)

Alternative B would allow for the protection of an 

additional 14,177 acres of wetland and grassland 

habitats. These acres would be added to the 23,855 

acres currently owned and managed by the Service. 

The action would have a long-term positive impact on 

wildlife habitat, significantly add to the management 

capability for existing wetlands, and help the Service 

meet the goals in the North American Waterfowl Plan.
89

SECTION 5 — COORDINATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

REVIEW

Agency Coordination

The Service has discussed the proposal to expand land 

acquisition in the Rainwater Basin with landowners; 

conservation organizations; other Federal agencies; 

tribal, State, and county governments; and other interested groups and individuals. 

The Service held two public meetings, in Holdrege 

and Clay Center, Nebraska, in January 2011 to provide 

information and discuss the proposal with landowners 

and other interested citizens. Information on the proposal has been made available to county commissioners 

in each of the 13 counties included in the project area.

The Service released the draft EA and LPP on 

May 31, 2011, for a 30-day public review period. This 

period was extended 2 weeks until July 15, 2011, allowing a 45-day public review period. In total, the Service received 7 letters from agencies, organizations, 

and other entities; 58 general public comments; and 3 

phone calls. After all comments were received, each 

was reviewed and incorporated into the administrative 

record (appendix D). A separate request for further 

discussion with the Clay County Board of Supervisors 

was met on August 16, 2011.

At the Federal level, information was provided 

to the Congressional delegation, as well as to representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(NRCS). At the State level, information was provided 

to Governor Heineman’s staff and Nebraska’s State 

senators. Information was also provided to tribes 

within the State. 

Nongovernmental conservation groups are vital to 

the success of the proposed project. Service staff has 

coordinated with partner organizations such as The 

Nature Conservancy, natural resource districts, and 

Ducks Unlimited. 

Contaminants and Hazardous 

Materials

Surveys for contaminants would be conducted before 

any land interests are acquired. Field work for the 

preacquisition surveys would be conducted on a tractby-tract basis. Any suspected problems or contaminants requiring additional surveys would be referred 

to a contaminant specialist located in the Service’s 

Ecological Services office in Grand Island, Nebraska.

National Environmental 

Policy Act

As a Federal agency, the Service must comply with 

the provisions of NEPA. An EA is required under the 

act to evaluate reasonable alternatives that will meet 

stated objectives and to assess the possible impacts to 

the human environment. The EA serves as the basis 

for determining whether implementation of the proposed action would constitute a major Federal action 

that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment and the need for an environmental 

impact statement. 

The analysis for, and development of, this EA facilitated the involvement of government agencies and 

the public in the decision-making process.

Strategic Habitat 

Conservation and Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives 

SHC (strategic habitat conservation) is a means of applying adaptive management across large landscapes. 

LCCs (landscape conservation cooperatives) facilitate 

strategic habitat conservation (USFWS 2008).

STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION

The Rainwater Basin expansion proposal would apply 

the SHC framework outlined in the National Ecological 

Assessment Team report (National Ecological Assessment Team 2006). SHC involves an ongoing cycle of 

biological planning, conservation design, conservation 

delivery, outcome-based monitoring, and assumptionbased research (figure 7). It is the process by which 

the Service continues to develop and apply science in 

a way that is focused on improving the ability to apply 

conservation delivery actions and create landscapes 

that are capable of supporting populations of priority species at desired levels. Additionally, SHC provides the framework by which the Service develops 

and applies science to inform and continually improve 

conservation delivery by addressing landscape-level 

population-limiting factors in an adaptive manner.

The Service’s Region 6 Refuges Program has established a GIS office in Grand Island that works 

closely with the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture and 

the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

Appendix C — Environmental Assessment
90 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

to provide support for the biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, and monitoring/

research elements of SHC necessary to implement 

the proposed action. This EA addresses the four key 

SHC elements: planning, design, delivery, and monitoring and research.

Figure 7. The elements of strategic habitat 

conservation.

BIOLOGICAL PLANNING

Priority resources were described in earlier sections of 

this document. Biological planning requires the identification of priority species, development of population objectives, and identification of landscape-level 

limiting factors that keep the populations of priority 

species below desired levels. Initial biological planning 

was done using dabbling ducks and a subset of goose 

populations as focal species. This approach was based 

on the assumption that protection and management of 

wetlands in a manner that meets the biological needs 

of the focal species will also adequately meet the needs 

of other wetland species. 

Conceptual and quantitative models have been 

developed to identify specific wetlands and wetland 

complexes. Priority species would continually be defined and updated throughout the implementation of 

the proposed action, and additional landscape models would be developed for priority species. Biological planning will continue into the future, engaging 

partners in the population objectives and developing 

biological models that will be directly linked to conservation delivery actions.

CONSERVATION DESIGN

Land acquisition is most effectively completed using 

biologically driven, spatially explicit models. During 

the past decade, the Service, in cooperation with the 

Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, has used GIS to extensively map the Rainwater Basin region. This modeling has enabled the Service to identify and rank each 

hydric soils area, including both drained and existing 

wetlands. Key spatial and biological characteristics of 

each area were scored to determine which wetlands 

are cost effective to acquire and restore. The analysis 

considered the impacts of geographic features, such 

as the proximity of other wetlands, roads, and power 

lines to individual wetlands. Color-coded maps reflect 

an individual wetland’s priority for fee-title acquisition, 

easement, and other types of conservation programs. 

The information obtained from the models was also 

used in conjunction with the management history of 

existing WPAs to identify where roundout acquisition is most needed.

CONSERVATION DELIVERY

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

has worked with neighboring landowners, conservation 

organizations, and government agencies for almost 5 

decades to preserve and enhance wetlands throughout the region. Beginning in the early 1990s, Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife biologists have worked with the 

same partners to bring conservation programs to wetland owners regardless of their proximity to existing 

Service properties. Application of the SHC framework will build on existing partnerships and support 

the development of new partnerships for delivering 

conservation throughout the region. 

It is recognized that the past practice of opportunistic acquisition will not result in the best use of 

conservation dollars. The function of some wetlands 

can best be used or enhanced by short-term conservation programs. Computer modeling of waterfowl 

energetic needs as well as wetland priority mapping 

allow for greater flexibility, increased responsiveness, 

and improved efficiency in meeting Service and partner conservation delivery needs.

Conservation design will continue to involve the 

development of spatially explicit decision support tools 

for targeting conservation delivery actions. Research 

and monitoring will help update the modeling parameters used to develop conservation priorities.

MONITORING AND RESEARCH

The success of the proposed action would depend 

on its ability to adapt to new and better information 

gathered through monitoring and research. Currently, 

monitoring and research are being done on a variety 

of subjects to provide for better decision making in 

the future. At the end of each growing season, wetlands are examined to assess the response of plant 

communities and seed production to different management actions. This information is being used to 

develop a strategic decision-making matrix to guide 
91

future management. Bird use associated with wetland 

juxtaposition is being analyzed to confirm if our current understanding of wetland complexes aligns with 

what occurs in the field. A study of the relationship 

between groundwater recharge and wetland characteristics was recently completed. Research related 

to grazing intensity and its impact on the control of 

reed canarygrass is beginning its final year. Information from these studies and future work on landscape 

ecology will be incorporated into the SHC process to 

further refine biological planning.

LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION COOPERATIVES

The Service will use LCCs as a means of implementing 

strategic habitat conservation. LCCs will be formal 

scientific and management partnerships between the 

Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, other Federal 

agencies, States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and others to increase the capacity for applied conservation science in support of fish 

and wildlife management in specific landscapes (Secretarial Order Number 3289). The tools developed 

by the LCCs will allow Service offices, and our many 

partners, to implement on-the-ground actions in the 

most effective locations to meet conservation goals. 

The Rainwater Basin Expansion Project is part of 

the Great Plains LCC, which was recently developed. 

The project meets the criteria of the LCC initiative: 

cooperation among private landowners and other 

agencies (Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental 

organizations). In addition to fostering partnerships, 

the LCCs provide science support to managers. 

The Secretary of the Interior recently outlined the 

importance of LCCs as a response to climate change 

(USFWS 2009). LCCs reach across broad landscapes, 

involve many partners, and function at a scale necessary 

to address wildlife adaptation in response to climate 

change. The Rainwater Basin Expansion Project would 

contribute to the wetland protection projects of Ducks 

Unlimited, NGPC, natural resource districts, and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

These cooperatives will continue to grow as a 

means of delivering strategic habitat conservation. The 

Service and the U.S. Geological Survey have signed 

a memorandum of understanding to strengthen the 

science–management relationship in landscape-level 

conservation. This further commitment to strategic 

habitat conservation improves the basis for the type 

of landscape conservation being proposed.

Distribution and Availability 

Copies of this EA were sent to Federal and State 

legislative delegations, tribes, agencies, landowners, 

private groups, and other interested individuals.

Additional copies of the document are available 

from the following offices and Web sites:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

P.O. Box 8

Funk, Nebraska 68940

308 / 263 3000

http://rainwater.fws.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning

Branch of Land Protection Planning

P.O. Box 25486–DFC

Denver, Colorado 80225 

303 / 236 4345

303 / 236 4792 fax

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning/lpp.htm

Appendix C — Environmental Assessment

Appendix D

Comments and Responses

Summary

The Service released the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Land Protection Plan (LPP) on 

May 31, 2011. for a 30-day public review period. This 

period was extended 2 weeks until July 15, 2011, allowing a 45-day public review period. In total, the Service received 7 letters from agencies, organizations, 

and other entities; 58 general public comments; and 3 

phone calls. After all comments were received, each 

was reviewed and incorporated into the administrative 

record. A large majority of comments received were 

supportive (>88 percent) and highlighted the importance of the Rainwater Basin to migrating birds and 

secondary uses such as hunting and bird watching. One 

letter requested further information and discussion 

with the local county government. That request was 

honored by the Service on August 16, 2011.

Comments were reviewed for substantive information that should be incorporated into the analysis. 

Comments were considered substantive if they met 

one of the following criteria:

1. Questions, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of 

information in the EA;

2. Questions, with reasonable basis or facts, the adequacy of, methodology of, or assumptions used 

for the environmental analysis;

3. Presents reasonable alternatives other than those 

presented in the EA;

4. Or prompts the Service to consider changes or revisions in one or more of the alternatives.

The following numbered comments were considered 

substantive comments from the general public; letters 

from agencies or organizations containing comments 

follow the letters from the general public. All comments received on the Service’s NEPA documents 

become part of the official public record. Requests 

for information contained in comments are handled 

in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 

NEPA (40 CFR § 1506.6(f)), and other Department 

of the Interior and Service policies and procedures. 

In compliance with Service policy about disclosure of 

personal information, the Service will not publish in 

this document the name, address, or other personal 

information about an individual who commented unless 

that information was spoken in a public meeting; this 

non-disclosure policy does not apply to agencies or 

organizations.

Public Comments and 

Service Responses

Comment 1.1. “From what I understand the goal of the 

increased land base is to focus on “rounding out” existing WPAs so the WMD can have full management control of the wetland. Obtaining full management control 

over entire wetland footprints through ownership or 

easements will allow the WMD to better manage the 

properties for waterfowl, shorebirds, and whooping 

cranes. This plan increases the land base of the WMD 

but will likely reduce long term management costs - 

therefore short term acquisition costs will likely be 

made up over the long term by reducing the cost of 

per acre management. Having management control of 

a full wetland will allow the WMD to restore natural 

hydrologic function, therefore letting the wetland help 

manage itself by naturally flooding and drying out on its 

own. Also, without having to work around neighbors, 

remnant hydrologic modifications, and other management impediments the entire wetland can likely be 

managed with the same staff time and management 

cost as a partially controlled & unrestored wetland.”

Response 1.1. The Service agrees with this comment 

and has modified the EA (Section 4 – Water and Soil 

Resources) to reflect this point. 

Comment 1.2. “The WMD owning the entire wetland 

footprint will likely help improve public relations with 

local residents and the general public. Owning the entire wetland may help reduce potential conflict with 

neighbors that may have different management/use 

priorities of the wetland. The general public will see a 

more aesthetically pleasing and better managed property. Hunters will have more and better public access.”

Response 1.2. The Service agrees with your analysis 

and has modified the EA (Section 4 – Social Benefits) 

to reflect this point.

Comment 1.3. “The economic impact the acquisitions may 

have on the local tax base should be minimal. Wetlands 
94 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

likely targeted for expansion are not productive agricultural land likely do not currently contribute much 

in the way of local tax revenue due to the land being 

classified as marginal, pasture, or waste land. Using 

easements on the more productive land and acquisition of the least productive could help keep as much 

land on the tax roles. Increasing local government aid 

payments on FWS owned land would go a long way to 

help improve relations with local government entities 

and offset the minimal economic loss.”

Response 1.3. The Service has developed prioritization models in partnership with the Rainwater Basin 

Joint Venture and uses those models in connection 

with the Strategic Habitat Conservation model outlined in section 5 of the EA.

Comment 2. “My only specific comment is about “Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources”. 

I’m not sure either alternative result in absolutely 

irreversible consequences. Under Alternative A, No 

action, though unlikely, wetlands converted to cropland may still be restorable by a future owner if the 

hydrology alteration would be a rather simple ditch, 

pipe, and/or pit that could be closed. Wetlands obliterated by earth fill are much more irreversibly gone. 

Under Alternative B, Proposed Action, you assume 

management of these lands as habitat is perpetual. 

Availability for use as cropland would be changed, 

but not capability. The designation of land as habitat 

is a paper exercise of ownership and easements that 

could change in the distant future, if priorities in our 

society change. The land is not physically changed, 

therefore capable of possible conversion to cropland 

any time in the future if made available. Rather than 

irreversible habitat designation, I see this as passing 

choices to future generations in hopes that keeping 

some of these special habitat areas will remain a priority for them.”

Response 2. The Service agrees that hydrology of a 

disturbed wetland can be restored in certain circumstances, which were identified. Language in the EA 

(section 4 – Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources) has been modified to reflect this 

point. In regards to easement terms, it is the Service’s 

policy that easement terms and conditions cannot be 

modified without coordination and just compensation 

to the private landowner. 

Comment 3.1. “The gifted acres (4,505) are not listed 

in the accounting of the land owned or its type. How 

are these acres used and why aren’t they part of the 

accounting?”

Response 3.1. The Service has added clarification 

to section 1 of the EA regarding gifted acres. The 

management of these properties was transferred 

from other Federal agencies, primarily the Farmers 

Home Administration. Although the Service owns and 

manages these properties, there were not acquired 

under the authorities of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and therefore are not considered part of the 

total acreage.

Comment 3.2. “I agree that wetland habitat is important, 

TOO important to delay management of wetlands as 

in this example 90% of the wetland is owned by USFWS. Management of land already owned should be 

first priority. Find a way to do it. Turn over a new leaf 

and figure out how it CAN be done. Acquiring more 

property is not the answer, when you cannot find a 

way to manage what you already have.”

Response 3.2. Waterfowl production areas are currently managed according to the Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that was approved in 2007. This 

plan, which incorporated public input and ideas, guides 

the direction and management of all properties within 

the District. The CCP identified land acquisition as one 

of the implementation strategies to properly manage 

wetlands in the Rainwater Basin.

Comment 3.3. “I am concerned about the ability and 

commitment of owners (local and absentee) to provide 

future management. Arranging for haying or grazing, 

fencing, control of weedy species and other invasive 

species and overall management. What happens when 

the money is all gone? Will taxes continue to be paid? 

Will management be done? Will it become a burden to 

the county? I see too many examples of owners who 

do not control noxious weeds. Who is going to monitor 

these properties for compliance with their contract? 

Who is going to pay the costs of this monitoring? Those 

who own the easements would like to turn those responsibilities over to the local government, but make 

no mention of paying the costs.”

Response 3.3. The Service assumes this comment 

is directed toward purchase and future management 

of conservation easements. Conservation easements 

purchased by the Service typically prohibit the alteration of wildlife habitat and/or wetland hydrology. 

Property taxes remain a responsibility of the private 

landowner, and landowners defaulting on property 

taxes would be handled by the appropriate agency. 

The Service monitors each easement for compliance 

with easement terms on an annual basis. If a situation such as a noxious weed invasion is documented, 

the Service will attempt to work with that landowner 

through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

to enhance the easement property. However, the Service can only legally enforce the terms set forth in the 

easement contract.

Comment 3.4. “Meeting wildlife nutritional needs. What 

practices need to be implemented? Improved management is a pretty broad term, and I use it myself 
Appendix D — Comments and Responses 95

without defining my intentions. The only identifiable 

action suggested, is the acquisition of more wetlands. 

If we don’t understand the practices needed on current 

wetlands, how do we know what to do in the future? 

Are there practices that I could apply to my wetland? 

How does current management score in a critical review of implementation and success of practices being 

applied? Is USFWS meeting management goals on all 

properties now under its control?”

Response 3.4. The CCP mentioned in Response 3.2 

outlines the detailed management direction, implementation strategies, and course to monitor the effectiveness of those strategies. The CCP outlines 

various actions outside of wetland acquisition to improve wetland condition and health. In regards to the 

commenters question about what can be done on the 

commenter’s wetland, the CCP and the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program offer several management 

scenarios that can be developed for a particular wetland. The Service has recently expanded its Inventory 

and Monitoring Program to look at refuge management practices across the nation and effectiveness of 

various techniques.

Comment 3.5. “This draft downplays the opportunities 

that exist through shorter contracts. In short USFWS 

wants ownership or permanent easements. It misses 

the opportunity to get a landowner started on the right 

path to wetland improvement. It may or may not be 

successful for long term protection. But not starting 

to protect the wetland is worse. If the landowner had 

enough interest in habitat to enter the initial contract, 

there is a chance he will be willing to continue. It will 

depend on his experience with the contract. That landowner will be responsible for ongoing management 

and taxes, in return he will receive annual payment.”

Response 3.5. The LPP developed for this project 

is designed to be one of several options for willing 

private landowners. The Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program is a private lands program that 

works with landowners to evaluate the many different conservation projects that are available, some of 

which have term contracts. Conservation easements 

or fee-title acquisition are just one of the tools that are 

available to willing landowners in the Rainwater Basin. 

Comment 3.6. “Does Antelope County have a government 

owned facility comparable to the U.S. Meat Animal 

Research Station?”

Response 3.6. No, the purpose of comparing Antelope 

County to Clay County was to illustrate that many 

rural areas in Nebraska are unfortunately showing 

population declines, even without the presence of 

Federal land ownership such as Antelope County.

Comment 3.7. A comment was received showing an 

analysis of taxes paid by private landowners in Clay 

County versus the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act. To 

paraphrase, their analysis showed that $99,882 in taxes 

was made up by Clay County taxpayers in 2009, versus 

that land being in private ownership. The commenter 

further states that $1,200,000 is lost in agricultural production and that the Refuge Revenue Sharing funds 

are inadequate to meet obligations as landowners.

Response 3.7. The Service understands that the 

Revenue Sharing Act does not typically provide funds 

similar to those that private landowners would pay. 

Refuge revenue sharing funds are obtained from the 

net income the Service receives from products or 

privileges like timber sales, grazing fees, and right-ofway permit fees, which are deposited in the National 

Wildlife Refuge Fund for revenue sharing payments. 

If there is not enough money in the National Wildlife 

Refuge Fund to cover payments, Congress is authorized to appropriate money to make up the difference. 

If the amount Congress appropriates is not enough, 

the units of local government receive a pro-rata share. 

The Service is also mandated to provide habitat for 

and protect migratory bird species for the greater human environment. Although agricultural lands may 

produce more economic revenue than wildlife habitat, 

section 4 of the EA (Social Benefits) outlines the social 

benefits of wildlife habitat, many of which are difficult 

or impossible to assign dollar amounts to. These include groundwater recharge, flood control, increased 

water quality, sediment and nutrient entrapment, 

recreation, aesthetics, and health and production of 

wildlife, all of which are important and necessary for 

the American public.

Comment 4.1. “There is no scientific proof which documents a ‘need.’ ”

Response 4.1. The Service respectfully disagrees 

with this comment and encourages the commenter to 

thoroughly review section 1 (Purpose and Need for the 

Proposed Action) of the EA. This section outlines extensive waterfowl energetic models that show energy 

sources are highly dependent upon agricultural fields. 

The proposed action attempts to reduce the heavy use 

of agricultural fields by waterfowl by shifting them 

to public wetlands. Furthermore, the EA identifies a 

large loss in wetland numbers and function that are 

extremely important for migrating birds.
96 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion Letter #1—Ducks Unlimited Service Response to Letter #1 Thank you for your comments.
Appendix D–Comments and Responses 97

Letter #2—Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma

Service Response to Letter #2

Thank you for your comments.
98 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion Letter #3—The Nature Conservancy (page 1 of 2) Service Response to Letter #3 1 Thank you for your comments. .3 3 .1
Appendix D–Comments and Responses 99

Letter #3—The Nature Conservancy (page 2 of 2)

3 .2 3 .3 3 .2

3 .33 .43 .5

3 .4 . 3 .5

The Service agrees with action 1 and will coordinate with 

enture on prioritization of land 

net 

ildlife Refuge Fund 

for revenue sharing payments. If there is not enough money 

ildlife Refuge Fund to cover payments, 

be 

-

the from 

is authorized to appropriate money to 

lands will 

etland Manage

obtained 

acquired 

Basin W

are funds sharing 

income the Service receives from products or privileges like timber sales, grazing fees, and right-of-way permit fees, 

make up 

which are deposited in the National Wthe difference. If the amount Congress appropriates is not enough, the units of local government receive a pro-rata 

-

biological 

, and 

for framework 

and of existing lands 

under the Rainwater 

s Comprehensive Conservation Plan. This 

Service Response to Letter #3

provides a 

the Rainwater Basin Joint V

revenue 

acquisitions. Refuge in the National W

EA the 

Congress share Management administered ment District’plan was approved in 2007 with a 15-year revision time

2 

 4

The Strategic Habitat Conservation model outlined in 

of 

frame. 

Chapter 5 

planning, conservation design, conservation deliverymonitoring and research.

 3

 .

 .

 .

5 .

3

3

3

3
100 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion Letter #4—Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (page 1 of 2)

1 

Comments on the USFWS’s Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

Preliminary Project Proposal

Submitted by the Nebraska Game and Parks CommissionJune 30, 2011 Contact person: Jim Douglas, Deputy DirectorP.O. Box 30370Lincoln, NE 68503Phone: (402) 471-5436

e-mail: jim.douglas@nebraska.gov

The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (“Commission”) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Draft Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan for the proposed Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion dated August 2011.Our Agency recognizes the international importance of Rainwater Basin wetlands in supporting millions of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds, including Whooping Cranes and Buff-breasted Sandpipers, both designated as Tier I species by the Nebraska Natural Legacy Project. Many of the bird species using Rainwater Basin 

wetlands are also indentified as being in need of conservation in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, or the North American Landbird Conservation 

Plan. Rainwater Basin wetlands and their surrounding uplands also provide important habitat for resident wildlife and overall regional bio-diversity. These wildlife resources 

attract many hunters and wildlife watchers who spend time and money in the Rainwater Basin. In addition, Rainwater Basin wetlands have recently been demonstrated to provide important ground-water recharge and water quality benefits.The Commission, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a partner in the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture (RWBJV) that is working to achieve landscape conservation objectives for the Rainwater Basin. We have signed the existing RWBJV Implementation Plan, and are working closely with the RWBJV in updating the existing plan. We recognize the need to provide enough habitat in the right places and conditionin order to meet plan objectives. The acreage targets proposed in the Draft Environmental Assessment are in line with the conservation needs of the Rainwater 

Basin. We believe that the focus on “round-out” acquisitions is appropriate and that this has the potential to increase management efficiency and capabilities. In addition, we recognize that numerous tools are needed to achieve conservation, and that both feetitle and easement acquisition are tools that should be available, along with other tools such as private lands projects and improved management, to meet both conservation and landowner needs.

4.1 our letter confirms 

-

Service Response to Letter #4

Thank you for your comments. Ythat, together with our State partners, we are working in concert to protect those resources necessary for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people within these states and to those well beyond our borders.

 1 .4
Appendix D–Comments and Responses 101

Letter #4—Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (page 2 of 2)

2 

We recognize local concerns about the amount of land under federal ownership in some 

counties, and the impact that this may have on local property taxes. We are willing to 

assist the Service in exploring ways to address this issue, as we have experience making in lieu of property tax payments to the local counties for Commission owned 

properties. However, the value that the conservation of wetlands can provide towardthe overall quality of life, in generating tourism dollars, and contributing to groundwater recharge and water quality improvement should not be overlooked.Finally, we recognize the need for intensive management of Rainwater Basin wetlands to achieve migratory waterbird habitat benefits. The Commission also supports

management of associated uplands to benefit grassland songbirds and upland game birds, which also require periodic and at times intensive management activities. We will 

continue to partner with the Service and the RWBJV in the future to evaluate management effectiveness, and to make recommendations on ways to improve management of the wetlands and associated uplands.
102 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion Letter #5—Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation (page 1 of 2)

5.15.2 - production is 

the 

par-

-

vi

and 

but 

System the 

communities 

difficult 

are important and 

agricultural 

tally important to the nation, and feels conservation easements provide a viable partnership where agricultural production and wildlife conservation can coexildlife Refuge System Improvement Act provides clear direction to the Service to “plan and direct the continued growth of the System in a manner this is best designed to accomplish the mission of the 

-

or impossible 

- groundwater re

, sediment and 

for 

local 

support 

in 

These include 

of which 

Service Response to Letter #5

Thank you for your comments.

of which are 

The Service agrees that 

only 

to. 

wildlife, all 

ist. The National W

increase 

not 

amounts 

to 

production 

and 

ticipation from conservation partners and the public.”

dollar assign 

1 

System, The Service understands and recognizes the importance of agricultural nation as a whole. The Service is mandated to provide habitat for and protect migratory bird species for the greater human environment. Although agricultural lands may produce more economic revenue than wildlife habitat, chapter 4 of the EA (Social Benefits) outlines the social benefits of wildlife habitat, many to charge, flood control, increased water qualitynutrient entrapment, recreation, aesthetics, and the health and production of necessary for the American public.

 .

2 .

3 .

5

5

5 5.3

5.15.25.3
Appendix D–Comments and Responses 103

Letter #5—Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation (page 2 of 2)

5.4 net the 

make up 

-

-

and can provide 

- for conserva

landowner 

-

ac

from 

a proposed 

ildlife Pro-

. Conserva

willing 

local tax roles. 

obtained 

on the 

are 

income the Service receives from products or privileges like timber sales, grazing fees, and right-of-way permit fees, 

ildlife Refuge Fund 

for revenue sharing payments. If there is not enough money 

ildlife Refuge Fund to cover payments, 

is authorized to appropriate money to 

which are deposited in the National Wthe difference. If the amount Congress appropriates is not enough, the units of local government receive a pro-rata share. The Service respectfully disagrees that economic impact to local communities has been dismissed in the EA. 

to analyze 

tion and determine if significant impacts to the human environment exist. This analysis was explained thoroughly in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) of the EA.The Service does have a Partners for Fish and W

the Rainwater Basin 

landowners 

any 

to 

open to 

funds 

is designed 

Service Response to Letter #5

Thank you for your comments.

funding 

is 

sharing 

program 

process 

revenue 

This 

A 

is active in 

and assistance 

projects. 

Refuge 

in the National WCongress The NEP

4

 5

gram that technical tion if acquisition is not an option for that landownertion easements (part of the proposed action) do keep land in the hands of private citizens and land 

 .

 .

6 .

5

5

5

5.55.6

5.55.6
104 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion Letter #6—Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Service Response to Letter #6 Thank you for your comments.
Appendix D–Comments and Responses 105

Letter #7—Nebraska Chapter, The Wildlife Society

Service Response to Letter #7

Thank you for your comments.

Appendix E

Finding of No Significant Impact
108 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion
Appendix E — Finding of No Significant Impact 109
110 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion
Appendix F

Environmental Action Statement

Appendix G

Environmental Compliance Certificate
114 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion
Appendix G — Environmental Compliance Certificate 115

Appendix H

Director’s Approval
118 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion
 Appendix H — Director’s Approval 119

Appendix I

Section 7 Biological Evaluation
122 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion
Appendix I — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 123
124 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion
Bibliography

Baldassare, G.A.; Bolen, E.G. 1994. Waterfowl ecology 

and management. New York: John Wiley. 567 p. 

Devries, J.H.; Brook, R.W.; Howerter, D.W.; Anderson, M.G. 2008. Effects of spring body condition 

and age on reproduction in mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). The Auk 125:618–628.

Ekstein, J.D.; Hygnstrom, S.E. 1996. Fate of wetlands 

associated with the Central Nebraska Irrigation 

Canal System. Great Plains Research 6:41–60.

Farrar, J. 1996. Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin. NEBRASKAland. March. Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission. pp. 18–35.

Gersib, R.A.; Dinan, K.F.; Kauffeld, J.D.; Onnen, M.D.; 

Gabig, P.J.; Cornely, J.E.; Jasmer, G.E.; Hyland, 

J.M.; Strom, K.J. 1992. Looking to the future: An 

implementation plan for the Rainwater Basin Joint 

Venture. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission. 56 p.

Gersib, R.A.; Elder, B.; Dinan, K.F.; Hupf, T.H. 1989. 

Waterfowl values by wetland type within Rainwater Basin wetlands with special emphasis on 

activity time budget and census data. Lincoln, NE: 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission; and Grand 

Island, NE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 105 p.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1997. The birds of Nebraska and adjacent plains states. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Game 

and Parks Commission. Nebraska Ornithologists’ 

Union Occasional Papers, No. 6. 

Johnson, B.B.; Blomendahl, B.; Overturf, K. 2006. 

Nebraska Farm Real Estate Market Highlights 

2005–2006. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, 

Lincoln, Department of Agriculuture Economics. 56 p.

Johnson, B.B.; Lukassen, R.; Rosener, T. 2010. Nebraska 

Farm Real Estate Market Highlights: 2009–2010. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Department of Agriculuture Economics. 33 p.

Jorgensen, J.G. 2004. An overview of shorebird migration in the eastern Rainwater Basin, Nebraska. 

Nebraska Ornithologists’ Union Occasional Papers, No. 8. 

Jorgensen, J.G.; McCarty, J.P.; Wolfenbarger, L.L. 

2007. Landscape and habitat variables affecting 

buff-breasted sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) distribution during migratory stopover in the 

Rainwater Basin, Nebraska, USA. Wader Study 

Group Bulletin 112:45–51.

Kartesz, John T.; Thieret, John W. 1991. Common 

names for vascular plants: Guidelines for use and 

application. Sida 14:421–434. 

Kaul, R.B.; Sutherland, D.; Rolfsmeier, S. 2006. The 

flora of Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Lincoln, School of Natural Resources. 966 p.

Keech, C.F.; Dreeszen, V.H. 1959. Geology and groundwater resources of Clay County, Nebraska. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey. U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Supply Paper 1468. 57 p. 

Krapu, G. L.; Brandt, D.A.; Cox, R.R, Jr. 2004. Less 

waste corn, more land in soybeans, and the switch 

to genetically modified crops: Trends with important implications for wildlife management. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 32:127–136.

Kuzila, M.S. 1984. Genesis and morphology of soils 

in and around large depressions in Clay County, 

Nebraska. [Ph.D. dissertation.] Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska. [Pages unknown].

Kuzila, M.S. 1994. Inherited morhpologies of two large 

basins in Clay County, Nebraska. Great Plains Research 4:51–63.

Kuzila, M.S.; Lewis, D.T. 1993. Properties and genesis 

of loessial soils across a south central Nebraska 

basin. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 

37:155–61.

LaGrange, T.G. 2005. A guide to Nebraska’s wetlands 

and their conservation needs. 2nd edition. Lincoln, 

NE: Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 59 p.

National Ecological Assessment Team. 2006. Strategic 

Habitat Conservation: Final report of the National 

Ecological Assessment Team. <http://www.fws.gov

/science/shc/index.html> [access date unknown].

NatureServe Explorer. 2010. An online encyclopedia 

of life. <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/> accessed April 2011.

NAWMP. 1986. North American waterfowl management plan. Canadian Wildlife Service; and Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Nebraska Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. Nebraska agricultural statistics, 2003. USDA, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://www.nass.

usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Nebraska/index.asp> 

accessed 2005.

[NEDOR] Nebraska Department of Revenue. 2011. 

[Chapter 22. Measurement of Special Valuation 

Regulations]. <http://www.revenue.ne.gov/index.

html> accessed May 2, 2011.
126 Land Protection Plan, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District Expansion

Richert, A. 1999. Multiple scale analyses of whooping crane habitat in Nebraska [master’s thesis]. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.

Schildman, G.; Hurt, J. 1984. Update of Rainwater 

Basin wetland survey. Survey of habitat work plan 

K-83. W-15-R-40. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 13 p.

Schneider, R.; Humpert, M.; Stoner, K.; Steinauer, 

G. 2005. The Nebraska Natural Legacy Project: 

A comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. 

Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 245 p.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1991. Statistical Abstract of the 

United States: 1991. 11th edition. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Census Bureau. p. 201. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. <http://quickfacts.census.

gov/qfd/states/31000.html> accessed January 12, 

2011.

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Census 

of Agriculture: Nebraska State and County Data, 

<http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/

Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/

Nebraska/st31_2_008_008.pdf> accessed January 

2011.

 [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2011. Land 

use, value, and management: Agricultural land 

values, <http://www.ers.usda/Briefing/LandUse/

aglandvaluechapter.htm> accessed July 2011.

 [USDA, NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. The 

Wetlands Reserve Program supports migrating 

waterfowl in Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin Region. 

CEAP Conservation Insight. September 2008. 7 p.

 [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District. U.S. Department 

of the Interior. 198 p.

———. 2008. Strategic habitat conservation handbook: A guide to implementing the technical elements of SHC. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior. 22 p.

———. 2009. Strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate change in the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 41 p.

Wilson, R.D. 2010. Evaluating hydroperiod response 

in the Rainwater Basin wetlands of south-central 

Nebraska [master’s thesis]. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska. 163 p.

Wood, W.W. 2000. Ground-water recharge in the 

southern high plains of Texas and New Mexico. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:65–72.