Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

August 2007

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

2610 Avenue Q

Kearney, NE 68848

308/236 5015

and

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300

Lakewood, CO 80228

303/236 4305

Approved by

J. Mitch King Date

Regional Director, Region 6

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

Submitted by 

Gene Mack Date

Project Leader

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

Kearney, NE

Concurred with by

Rod Krey Date

Refuge Supervisor (KS,NE, ND, SD)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

and

Richard A. Coleman, PhD Date

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Contents 

Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................................. ix

Summary..................................................................................................................................................................... xi

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ........................................................................ 4

1.3 National and Regional Mandates ...................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 District Contributions to National and Regional Plans ................................................................................ 5

1.5 Ecosystem Description and Threats ................................................................................................................ 11

1.6 The Planning Process ......................................................................................................................................... 14

2 The District ............................................................................................................................................................... 19

2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History ................................................................................ 19

2.2 Special Values of the District ............................................................................................................................ 19

2.3 Purposes for the District .................................................................................................................................... 21

2.4 Vision ..................................................................................................................................................................... 34

2.5 Goals ...................................................................................................................................................................... 34

2.6 Planning Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 34

3 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................................................... 39

3.1 Physical Environment ........................................................................................................................................ 39

3.2 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 49

3.3 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 54

3.4 Special Management Areas ............................................................................................................................... 54

3.5 Visitor Services ................................................................................................................................................... 54

3.6 Partnerships ......................................................................................................................................................... 55

3.7 Socioeconomic Environment ............................................................................................................................. 55

3.8 Operations ............................................................................................................................................................ 58

4 Management Direction ........................................................................................................................................ 59

4.1 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationale .................................................................................................. 59

Wetland Goal ........................................................................................................................................................ 59

Upland Goal ......................................................................................................................................................... 68

Water Rights Goal ................................................................................................................................................ 71

Invasive Plant Species Goal ............................................................................................................................... 72

Wildlife Diseases Goal ......................................................................................................................................... 72

Research and Science Goal ................................................................................................................................. 73

Cultural Resources Goal ..................................................................................................................................... 74

Visitor Services Goal ............................................................................................................................................ 75

Partnership Goal .................................................................................................................................................. 77

Socioeconomics Goal ............................................................................................................................................ 78

Operations Goal ................................................................................................................................................... 78

4.2 Staff and Funding................................................................................................................................................ 79

4.3 Step-down Management Plans .......................................................................................................................... 79

4.4 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 79

4.5 Plan Amendment and Revision ......................................................................................................................... 80

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 81
vi CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Appendixes

A. Key Legislation and Policies ........................................................................................................................ 89

B. Compatibility Determinations ..................................................................................................................... 95

C. Preparers ........................................................................................................................................................101

D. Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................................103

E. Environmental Compliance .........................................................................................................................113

F. Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Plan ..............................................................................................115

G. Section 7 Biological Evaluation ...................................................................................................................131

H. List of Plants ..................................................................................................................................................135

I. List of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals .............................................................................................149

J. List of Birds ....................................................................................................................................................153

K. Rainwater Basin Vegetation Classifi cation ...............................................................................................159

L. Fire Management Program .........................................................................................................................173

M. Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Private Lands Program: Best Management Practices 

 Eligibility Criteria and Cost Share .............................................................................................................177

N. Wetland Management District Ditch and Tile Maintenance Policy .......................................................185

 O. RONS and SAMMS Projects .......................................................................................................................187

Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................................................191
Figures and Tables

FIGURES

 1 Vicinity map for the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, Nebraska ............................. 2

 2 Waterfowl production areas in the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska ........................................................... 3

 3 Physiographic areas of the United States ................................................................................................. 6

 4 “Hourglass” fl ight path of migratory birds ............................................................................................... 7

 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ecosystem map ........................................................................................ 12

 6 Platte-Kansas rivers ecosystem and Arkansas-Red rivers ecosystem map ........................................ 13

 7 Steps in the planning process ...................................................................................................................... 14

 8 Waterfowl production areas in Adams County, Nebraska ...................................................................... 22

 9 Waterfowl production areas in Clay County, Nebraska .......................................................................... 23

 10 Waterfowl production areas in Fillmore County, Nebraska ................................................................... 24

 11 Waterfowl production areas in Franklin County, Nebraska................................................................... 25

 12 Waterfowl production areas in Gosper County, Nebraska ..................................................................... 26

 13 Waterfowl production areas in Hall County, Nebraska........................................................................... 27

 14 Waterfowl production areas in Hamilton County, Nebraska ................................................................. 28

 15 Waterfowl production areas in Kearney County, Nebraska ................................................................... 29

 16 Waterfowl production areas in Phelps County, Nebraska ...................................................................... 30

 17 Waterfowl production areas in Saline County, Nebraska ....................................................................... 31

 18 Waterfowl production areas in Seward County, Nebraska..................................................................... 32

 19 Waterfowl production areas in York County, Nebraska ......................................................................... 33

 20 Land cover in the western portion of the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska ................................................ 41

 21 Land cover in the northeastern portion of the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska ....................................... 42

 22 Land cover in the southeastern portion of the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska ....................................... 43

 23 Groundwater-level changes in Nebraska—predevelopment to spring 2006 ........................................ 46

 24 Historical wetlands in the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska .......................................................................... 47

 25 Current wetlands in the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska ............................................................................. 48

 26 Populations of Nebraska and the 17 counties in the Rainwater Basin ................................................. 56

 27 Age composition within the 17 counties in the Rainwater Basin .......................................................... 57

 28 Farm count for the 17 counties in the Rainwater Basin ......................................................................... 57

 29 Rainwater Basin duck use-days .................................................................................................................. 63

 30 Time required for replenishment of endogenous fat reserves following an 8-hour migratory move ...... 63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLES

 1 Planning process summary .......................................................................................................................... 15

 2 Waterfowl production areas in the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District ........................ 20

 3 2004 Land cover within the Rainwater Basin ........................................................................................... 45

 4 Habitat types at the district in 2004 ........................................................................................................... 50

 5 Nebraska’s state-listed and federally listed species ................................................................................ 53

 6 Current, preferred, and achievable plant composition at WPA wetlands ............................................ 60

 7 Current, preferred, and achievable plant composition at WPA uplands .............................................. 69

 8 Habitat requirements for selected grassland birds ................................................................................. 70

 9 Key grassland species found in the Rainwater Basin .............................................................................. 70

 10 Current and proposed staff for Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, Nebraska ........... 80

 11 Step-down management plans for Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, Nebraska ..... 80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abbreviations

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

ATV all-terrain vehicle

the basin Rainwater Basin

CAFO concentrated animal-feeding operation

CCP comprehensive conservation plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COMLG Conservation Order for Mid-continent Light Geese

CP/PLR Central Plains/Playa Lakes Region

CWCS comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy

the district Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

DUD duck use-day

EA environmental assessment

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

FMP fi re management plan

GIS Geographic Information System

GS general pay schedule

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

IPM integrated pest management

ME metabolized energy

NASS Natural Agricultural Statistics Service

NAWCP North American Waterbird Conservation Plan

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan

NDEQ Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGPC Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

NOI notice of intent

NVCS National Vegetation Classifi cation System

NWR national wildlife refuge

ORP outdoor recreation planner

PILT payments in lieu of taxes

PL public law

PM particulate matter

RWBJV Rainwater Basin Joint Venture

refuge national wildlife refuge

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SWG state wildlife grant

UNL University of Nebraska–Lincoln

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USGS–BRD U.S. Geological Survey’s biological resources division

WG wage grade pay schedule 

WMA wildlife management area

WMD wetland management district

WPA waterfowl production area

Summary

Millions of ducks and geese glide into the fl at plains of 

south-central Nebraska each spring. These migrants 

take their rest at the few remaining oases that dot the

Rainwater Basin, where they fi nd sanctuary and

nourishment before continuing their annual migration. 

Conserving the integrity of these important stopovers

is the role of the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management 

District. The foundation for management, over the 

next 15 years, of these public wetlands known as 

waterfowl production areas is this comprehensive 

conservation plan approved in August 2007.

THE DISTRICT

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

is a part of the National Wildlife Refuge System of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The district, which

covers 13 Nebraska counties, manages 230 tracts of 

land (more than 24,000 acres) that form 61 waterfowl 

production areas. In addition, the district manages 35 

conservation easements (2,476 acres). 

Each waterfowl production area typically contains 

wetlands that are managed for waterfowl and 

shorebirds. Most of the wetlands in the Rainwater 

Basin are small and surrounded by cropland. Extensive 

wetland drainage and alteration have reduced the 

number of wetlands in the basin to a level that 

threatens waterbird populations. Upland areas are 

managed for a high diversity of native vegetation to 

sustain grassland birds. 

Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin is internationally known 

for its spectacular bird migrations—329 species of 

birds have been observed. Common waterbirds 

include snow goose, northern pintail, green-winged 

teal, and solitary sandpiper. Grasshopper sparrow, 

bobolink, and ring-necked pheasant are common 

grassland species.

Of the estimated 80,000 visitor days per year at the

district, about 60% come for hunting and 40% for 

wildlife viewing. Hunting seasons include opportunities 

to harvest waterfowl, pheasant, and deer. Every 

spring and fall, thousands of tourists and locals visit 

the district to observe and enjoy the semiannual 

migration of cranes, waterfowl, and other birds.

VISION FOR THE DISTRICT

The Rainwater Basin provides critical habitat 

for millions of migratory birds. 

The basin’s name refl ects both the basis of its 

wetland hydrology and natural precipitation 

cycles. A network of functioning wetland 

and prairie plant ecosystems provides a 

native grassland mosaic that gives the local 

community a sense of pride and connection to 

the Great Plains fl ora and fauna. The lands 

managed by the wetland management district 

serve as an example of land stewardship 

mimicking natural processes, and they 

provide an array of wildlife-dependent 

educational and recreational opportunities. 

It is only through partnerships with 

individuals, agencies, and organizations that 

this vision can be achieved and maintained.

Due to its unique location on the Central Flyway, 

millions of birds funnel into the district’s waterfowl 

production areas. 

USFWS
xii CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

GOALS FOR THE DISTRICT

The following goals refl ect the vision for the district—

providing for healthy ecosystems and compatible 

opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the 

natural environment. 

WETLAND HABITAT GOAL

Restore, enhance, and maintain the hydrology and 

early successional vegetation conditions essential to 

the conservation of migratory birds.

UPLAND HABITAT GOAL

Reestablish and maintain native grassland communities

of the Rainwater Basin.

WATER RIGHTS GOAL

Develop partnerships to protect the natural hydrology

of WPA watersheds and ensure the necessary water 

rights are in place to protect future use of both 

ground and surface water. 

WILDLIFE DISEASES GOAL

Work with partners to prevent or control the outbreak

and spread of wildlife-borne diseases to protect human

and migratory bird populations.

INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES GOAL

Reduce and control the spread of nondesirable, 

nonnative plant species within wetland and upland 

habitats for the benefi t of native plant and wildlife 

communities.

RESEARCH AND SCIENCE GOAL

Encourage and support research that substantially 

contributes to the understanding and management of

the Rainwater Basin wetland and grassland ecosystem.

CULTURAL RESOURCES GOAL

Identify and evaluate the cultural resources in the 

district and protect those that are determined to be 

signifi cant.

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL

Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation and

educational opportunities by instilling an understanding

of basic ecological processes, purpose of the Rainwater

Basin Wetland Management District, and mission of 

the Service for persons of all abilities and cultural 

backgrounds.

PARTNERSHIP GOAL

Promote and develop partnerships with adjacent 

landowners, public and private organizations, Native 

American tribes, and other interested individuals to 

protect, restore, enhance, and maintain a diverse and 

productive ecosystem.

SOCIOECONOMICS GOAL

Obtain a better understanding of the social and 

economic contribution WPAs make to the people and 

communities within the Rainwater Basin.

OPERATIONS GOAL

Safely and effi ciently use funding, staffi ng, 

infrastructure, and partnerships to achieve the 

purpose and objectives of the Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District.

THE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION 

PLAN

The Service prepared this fi nal comprehensive 

conservation plan in cooperation with the Rainwater 

Basin Joint Venture, the Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission, and the Biological Resources Division 

of the U.S. Geological Survey—along with public 

participation. 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

The management direction of the district will be to 

manage the district’s resources in a holistic manner. 

There will be a focus on cooperation, coordination, 

and better exchange of information. An expanded 

district staff will work with partners to improve the 

waterfowl production areas across the landscape 

of the Rainwater Basin. The emphasis will be on 

adaptive management—as more information is 

known, management will be changed to improve 

effects on the environment.
1 Introduction

Northern pintails are abundant at the waterfowl production areas.

© Mike Vesey

In August 2007, the regional director of region 6 of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) approved 

this comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the 

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

(district), Nebraska.

Over the next 15 years, this CCP will serve as the 

working guide for management programs and use of 

public lands within the district, which is located in 

south-central Nebraska (see fi gure 1, vicinity map). 

Chapter 4, “Management Direction,” of this CCP 

specifi es the necessary actions to achieve the vision 

and purposes of the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District, which Congress established 

to manage waterfowl production areas (WPAs) in 

the Rainwater Basin (basin) (see fi gure 2, waterfowl 

production areas). Wildlife and their habitats is the 

fi rst priority in refuge management and public use 

(wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and 

encouraged as long as it is compatible with the 

district’s purposes. 

This CCP was developed in compliance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 of “The Fish 

and Wildlife Service Manual.” The actions described 

within this CCP meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

Appendix A contains more detail on these laws and 

policies. Public involvement and the planning process 

are described in “1.6 The Planning Process.”

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

The purpose of the planning process that led to 

development of this CCP is to identify the role that 

the district will play in support of the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), 

and to provide long-term guidance for management 

of district programs and activities. 

The CCP is needed

Q to communicate with the public and other 

partners in efforts to carry out the mission of 

the Refuge System;

Q to provide a clear statement of direction for 

management of the district’s WPAs;

Q to provide neighbors, visitors, and government 

offi cials with an understanding of the Service’s 

management actions on and around the district’s

WPAs; 

Q to ensure that the Service’s management actions

are consistent with the mandates of the 

Improvement Act; 

Q to ensure that the management of the district’s 

WPAs is consistent with federal, state, and 

county plans; 

Q to provide a basis for the development of budget 

requests for the district’s operation, maintenance, 

and capital improvement needs. 

Sustaining the nation’s fi sh and wildlife resources is a 

task that can be accomplished only through the 
Figure 1. Vicinity map for the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, Nebraska.
Figure 2. Waterfowl production areas in the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska.
4 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

combined efforts of governments, businesses, and 

private citizens. 

1.2 THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE AND THE REFUGE SYSTEM

The Service is the principal federal agency responsible

for fi sh, wildlife, and plant conservation. The Refuge 

System is one of the Service’s major programs. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The mission of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

working with others,

is to conserve, protect, and enhance

fi sh and wildlife and their habitats

for the continuing benefi t of

the American people.

Over a century ago, America’s fi sh and wildlife 

resources were declining at an alarming rate. 

Concerned citizens, scientists, and hunting and angling 

groups joined together to restore and sustain America’s 

national wildlife heritage. This was the genesis of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Today, the Service enforces federal wildlife laws, 

manages migratory bird populations, restores 

nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores

vital wildlife habitat, protects and recovers endangered 

species, and helps other governments with 

conservation efforts. In addition, the Service 

administers a federal aid program that distributes 

hundreds of millions of dollars to states for fi sh and 

wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, 

and related programs across America. 

The Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge 

System including thousands of WPAs and other 

special management areas. It also operates 66 national 

fi sh hatcheries and 78 ecological services fi eld stations.

Service Activities in Nebraska

Service activities in Nebraska contribute to the state’s 

economy, ecosystems, and education programs. The 

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

contributes to the economic benefi ts of hunting, 

wildlife observation, and photography in Nebraska. 

A report titled, “Banking on Nature 2004: The 

Economic Benefi ts to Local Communities of National 

Wildlife Refuge Visitation,” evaluated the effects of 

refuges on local economies. 

Based on fi gures from 2004, the district is estimated 

to have generated $900,000 in local economic effects 

from recreation visits (BBC Research and Consulting 

2006). The majority of effects were associated with 

expenditures by nonresident visitors. In addition, the

district’s budget contributes a stimulus to the local

economy with a signifi cant portion of payroll, 

maintenance, and operation expenditures spent locally.

The district employs 12 full-time employees, has a 

current budget of $1.8 million, and has an annual 

visitation of 80,000. The budget includes funds for the 

fi re program and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program. In addition, volunteers contribute 240 hours

to the district’s operations.

The Nebraska Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration 

Program is a source of federal excise taxes paid by 

hunters, anglers, and boaters on fi shing and hunting 

equipment. The monies generated from this tax have 

economic benefi ts to Nebraska. In 2001, the economic 

impact of angler expenditures was $146 million and

hunters contributed $198 million to the overall economy

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2000). 

THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt designated the

5.5-acre Pelican Island in Florida as the nation’s fi rst 

wildlife refuge for the protection of brown pelicans 

and other native, nesting birds. This was the fi rst time

the federal government set aside land for wildlife. 

This small but signifi cant designation was the 

beginning of the Refuge System. 

One hundred years later, the Refuge System has 

become the largest collection of lands in the world 

specifi cally managed for wildlife, encompassing over 

96 million acres within 546 refuges and over 3,000 

small areas for waterfowl breeding and nesting. Today, 

there is at least one refuge in every state including 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

In 1997, the Improvement Act established a clear 

mission for the Refuge System. 

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 the fi sh, wildlife and plant 

resources and their habitats within

the United States for the

benefi t of present and future

generations of Americans.

The Improvement Act states that each national 

wildlife refuge (that is, each unit of the Refuge System, 

which includes wetland management districts) shall 

be managed

Q to fulfi ll the mission of the Refuge System;

Q to fulfi ll the individual purposes of each refuge 

and district;
Chapter 1 — Introduction 5

Q to consider the needs of fi sh and wildlife fi rst;

Q to fulfi ll the requirement of developing a CCP 

for each unit of the Refuge System, and fully 

involve the public in the preparation of these 

plans;

Q to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge System;

Q to recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities including hunting, fi shing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation are legitimate and 

priority public uses; 

Q to retain the authority of refuge managers to 

determine compatible public uses.

In addition to the mission for the Refuge System, the 

wildlife and habitat vision for each unit of the Refuge 

System stresses the following principles:

Q Wildlife comes fi rst.

Q Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are

vital concepts in refuge and district management.

Q Habitats must be healthy.

Q Growth of refuges and districts must be strategic.

Q The Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others.

Following passage of the Improvement Act, the 

Service immediately began to carry out the direction 

of the new legislation, including preparation of CCPs 

for all national wildlife refuges and wetland 

management districts. Consistent with the 

Improvement Act, the Service prepares all CCPs in 

conjunction with public involvement. Each unit of the

Refuge System is required to complete its CCP within

the 15-year schedule (by 2012).

People and the Refuge System

The nation’s fi sh and wildlife heritage contributes to 

the quality of American lives and is an integral part 

of the country’s greatness. Wildlife and wild places 

have always given people special opportunities to 

have fun, relax, and appreciate the natural world. 

Whether through bird watching, fi shing, hunting, 

photography, or other wildlife pursuits, wildlife 

recreation contributes millions of dollars to local 

economies. In 2002, approximately 35.5 million people

visited the Refuge System, mostly to observe wildlife

in their natural habitats. Visitors are most often 

accommodated through nature trails, auto tours, 

interpretive programs, and hunting and fi shing 

opportunities. Signifi cant economic benefi ts are being

generated to the local communities that surround 

refuges and wetland management districts. Economists

report that Refuge System visitors contribute more 

than $792 million annually to local economies. 

1.3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL 

MANDATES

Refuge System units are managed to achieve the 

mission and goals of the Refuge System, along with 

the designated purpose of the refuges and districts 

(as described in establishing legislation, executive 

orders, or other establishing documents). Key concepts

and guidance of the Refuge System are in the Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration 

Act), Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), 

“The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,” and the 

Improvement Act. 

The Improvement Act amends the Administration Act 

by providing a unifying mission for the Refuge System, 

a new process for determining compatible public uses 

on refuges and districts, and a requirement that each 

refuge and district be managed under a CCP. The 

Service has made compatibility determinations 

(see appendix B) for the following uses at the district: 

haying, grazing, farming, environmental education, 

interpretation, wildlife observation, photography, 

recreational fi shing, recreational hunting, and timber 

harvest.

The Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation 

is the priority of Refuge System lands and that the 

Secretary of the Interior will ensure that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of 

refuge lands are maintained. Each refuge and district 

must be managed to fulfi ll the Refuge System’s 

mission and the specifi c purposes for which it was 

established. The Improvement Act requires the 

Service to monitor the status and trends of fi sh, 

wildlife, and plants in each refuge and district. 

A detailed description of these and other laws and 

executive orders that may affect the CCP or the 

Service’s implementation of the CCP is in appendix A.

Service policies on planning and day-to-day 

management of refuges and districts are in the “Refuge

System Manual” and “The Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual.”

1.4 DISTRICT CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANS

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

contributes to the conservation efforts described here.

FULFILLING THE PROMISE

A 1999 report, “Fulfi lling the Promise, The National

Wildlife Refuge System” (USFWS 1999), is the 

culmination of a yearlong process by teams of Service 

employees to evaluate the Refuge System nationwide. 

This report was the focus of the fi rst national Refuge 

System conference (in 1998)—attended by refuge 

managers, other Service employees, and 

representatives from leading conservation 

organizations. 
6 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

The report contains 42 recommendations packaged 

with three vision statements dealing with wildlife and

habitat, people, and leadership. This CCP deals with 

all three of these major topics. The planning team 

looked to the recommendations in the document for 

guidance during CCP planning. 

PARTNERS IN FLIGHT

The “Partners in Flight” program began in 1990 with 

the recognition of declining population levels of many 

migratory bird species. The challenge, according to 

the program, is managing human population growth 

while maintaining functional natural ecosystems. To 

meet this challenge, Partners in Flight worked to 

identify priority land-bird species and habitat types. 

Partners in Flight activity has resulted in 52 bird 

conservation plans covering the continental United 

States.

The primary goal of Partners in Flight is to provide 

for the long-term health of the bird life of this continent.

The fi rst priority is to prevent the rarest species from 

going extinct. The second priority is to prevent 

uncommon species from descending into threatened 

status. The third priority is to “keep common birds 

common.” 

There are 58 physiographic areas, defi ned by similar 

physical geographic features, wholly or partially 

contained within the contiguous United States and 

several others wholly or partially in Alaska. The 

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District lies

within physiographic area 34 (see fi gure 3, 

physiographic areas). 

The source of the following description is from the

Partners in Flight website (Butcher, no date). 

Physiographic area 34, known as the “Central Mixedgrass Prairie,” includes the central portion of Nebraska 

and Kansas, and a small portion occurs in southern 

South Dakota. The Nebraska Sandhills cover the 

northern and western portions of the area. The sandhills 

are an area of rolling, irregular dunes interspersed 

with gently sloping valleys and numerous small 

wetlands. The remainder of the physiographic area 

is a dissected loess plain, drained by several major 

rivers. All of the uplands are natural mixed- and tallgrass prairie communities, and the larger river valleys 

support northern fl oodplain forests.

The Nebraska Sandhills is one of the few, large, 

productive areas for grassland birds on the continent. 

It remains in excellent condition due to long-term use

of virtually 100% of private lands for grazing livestock.

Historical grazing practices have been, largely, 

benefi cial. To keep the area healthy for birds, it is 

important to maintain the health of the ranching 

economy. 

Figure 3. Physiographic areas of the United States. 

 (Source: Partners in Flight.)
Chapter 1 — Introduction 7

Priority bird species and habitats of the Central 

Mixed-grass Prairie are listed below:

Grassland

lesser prairie-chicken

greater prairie-chicken

Swainson’s hawk

dickcissel

long-billed curlew

Bell’s vireo

Smith’s longspur

Big River Sandbars

piping plover

Wetlands

American white pelican

black rail

Large wetland-grassland complexes benefi t all of the

high-priority birds and are essential to some. It is 

important to maintain all existing complexes. The 

black rail is a species that uses wet meadows; its 

ecology remains largely unknown and more survey 

work and retention of potential habitat are needed.

One of the most important features of the physiographic 

area is the close proximity of the Platte River to the 

district’s wetlands, which combine to form a large and 

diverse habitat complex. This complex provides 

midlatitudinal, migrational habitat for midcontinental 

populations of sandhill cranes (86%), snow geese (90%), 

white-fronted geese (90%), and mallards (50%). About 

30% of the continental population of northern pintails 

migrate through the district’s habitats. In addition, 

impressive numbers of shorebirds annually stop in 

the area. 

Key areas are receiving attention through the RWBJV

and other endeavors. The efforts—some of which 

involve repeated removal of woody vegetation from

sandbars that have stabilized with altered hydrology—

are important to continue to keep the area attractive 

for these birds.

Maintenance of large, unfragmented, grassland 

ecosystems is the conservation objective for areas 

such as the Missouri Coteau where agriculture is not 

dominant. On the drift prairie and other agricultural 

areas, it is important to conserve discrete blocks of 

grassland-wetland complexes. 

NORTH MERICAN ATERFOWL ANAGEMENT

PLAN

 A W M

The Rainwater Basin is located in the Central Flyway,

which is one of four administrative waterfowl fl yways 

in North America. 

Due to its unique location in the Central Flyway, 

millions of birds—including sandhill cranes, Canada 

geese, snow geese, and mallards—funnel into the 

district’s WPAs to rest and eat before continuing on 

their journey (see fi gure 4, “hourglass” fl ight path of 

migratory birds).

Figure 4. “Hourglass” fl ight path of migratory birds.

The Central Flyway occurs in the following states

and provinces: 

Q United States—Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming

Q Mexico—Aguascalientes, Chihuahua, Coahuila, 

Colima, Distrito Federal, Durango, Guanajuato, 

Guerrero, Jalisco, Nayarit, Nuevo León, México, 

Morelos, Oaxaca, Puebla, Queretaro, San Luis 

Potosí, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tamaulipas, Veracruz, 

and Zacatecas

Q Canada—Alberta and Saskatchewan 

Federal, state, and provincial representatives from 

the United States and Canada make up the Central 

Flyway Council. The council meets regularly to 

coordinate population surveys, regulate and set 

hunting seasons, and plan for management of the 

migratory bird resource. 

Canada and the United States united in 1986 to form 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(NAWMP) (USFWS et al. 1998), designed to restore 

diminishing continental waterfowl populations to the 

levels of the 1970s. The NAWMP envisioned a 15-year 

effort to achieve landscape conditions that could 

sustain waterfowl populations. Specifi c NAWMP 

objectives are to increase and restore duck populations 

to the average levels of the 1970s: 62 million breeding 

ducks and a fall fl ight of 100 million birds. 

By 1985, waterfowl populations had plummeted to

record lows. Habitat that waterfowl depend on was 

disappearing at a rate of 60 acres per hour. Recognizing

the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North 
8 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Americans and the need for international cooperation 

to help in the recovery of a shared resource, the 

United States and Canada governments developed 

a strategy to restore waterfowl populations through 

habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. 

Mexico became a signatory to the plan in 1994. 

The plan is innovative because of its international 

scope, plus its implementation at the regional level. 

Its success depends on the strength of partnerships 

called “joint ventures,” involving federal, state, 

provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; 

conservation organizations; and individual citizens. 

Joint ventures are regional, self-directed partnerships

that carry out science-based conservation through a 

wide array of community participation in the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. Joint ventures develop 

implementation plans focusing on areas of concern 

identifi ed in the plan. The Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District lies within the administrative 

boundary of the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture.

Rainwater Basin Joint Venture

The Rainwater Basin Joint Venture (Gersib et al. 1992)

is one of 14 joint ventures formed to undertake 

conservation projects. The joint venture was founded 

in 1992 with a goal to restore and permanently protect

37,000 acres of high-quality wetlands and 25,000 acres

of associated uplands with adequate water and 

distribution to meet the needs of waterfowl and other 

migratory birds.

Location

Although the RWBJV’s focus is the basin, its boundary 

also encompasses that portion of “Bird Conservation 

Region 19” in Nebraska (see fi gure 1). Three prominent 

geographic features occur within the joint venture—

the basin in south-central Nebraska, the Nebraska 

Sandhills in north-central Nebraska, and the central 

portion of the Platte River. 

The Playa Lakes Joint Venture bounds the RWBJV 

on the west and south. On the east, the RWBJV 

borders the Upper Mississippi–Great Lakes Region 

Joint Venture. The RWBJV’s northern boundary is 

the Nebraska state line and it borders the Prairie 

Pothole Region and the Northern Great Plains Region

joint ventures.

Description

Land use in the basin portion of the RWBJV is almost 

entirely agriculture, with corn and soybeans being the 

dominant crops. The topography of the basin is fl at and 

it is poorly drained—forming thousands of shallow 

wetlands. Most of the wetlands are small and 

incorporated into cropland. Extensive wetland drainage 

and alteration has reduced the number of wetlands to 

a level that threatens populations of waterfowl and 

other waterbirds. The area is part of the tall- and 

mixed-grass prairie region of the Great Plains.

The sandhills portion is native, mixed-grass prairie 

that is used for livestock production. The topography 

is hilly, grass-covered, sand dunes. The porous sand 

allows for rapid percolation, forming a large 

groundwater reservoir. The groundwater is exposed 

in the low valleys and depressions—creating over a 

million acres of lakes, wetlands, and wet meadows.

The Platte River is a fl at, braided river that has 

become forested in the last century. It is historically 

signifi cant for settlement and for wildlife migrations. 

An approximately 150-mile stretch of the river 

transects the Central Flyway. Each spring nearly onehalf million sandhill cranes and millions of ducks and 

geese use the river. River use by spring-migrating 

waterfowl increases dramatically when the basin’s 

wetlands are dry or frozen.

Conservation

Each joint venture includes the participation of 

individuals, corporations, conservation organizations, 

and government agencies (USFWS et al. 1998). The 

district contributes to and participates in the RWBJV

through its Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program,

participation on various committees, and management 

of WPAs. 

UNITED STATES SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION PLAN

Partners from state and federal agencies and 

nongovernmental organizations from across the 

country pooled their resources and expertise to 

develop a conservation strategy for migratory 

shorebirds and the habitats upon which they depend. 

The “United States Shorebird Conservation Plan” 

provides a scientifi c framework to determine 

species, sites, and habitats that most urgently need 

conservation action. 

Main goals of the plan, completed in 2000, are to ensure 

that adequate quantity and quality of shorebird 

habitat is maintained at the local level and to maintain 

or restore shorebird populations at the continental 

and hemispheric levels. Separate technical reports 

were developed for a conservation assessment, 

research needs, a comprehensive monitoring 

strategy, and education and outreach. These national 

assessments were used to “step down” goals and 

objectives into 11 regional conservation plans. 

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

lies within the “Central Plains/Playa Lakes Region” 

(CP/PLR), which includes Texas (excluding the coast); 

eastern New Mexico and Colorado; western Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Nebraska; and the southeastern corner 

of Wyoming. Within the CP/PLR, there are fi ve bird 

conservation regions as part of the North American 

Bird Conservation Initiative. Shorebird habitat types 

within the CP/PLR include ephemeral wetlands such 

as playa lakes, semipermanent wetlands, seasonally 

fl ooded wetlands, mud and alkali fl ats, wet meadows, 

short-grass prairie, agricultural fi elds, reservoirs, 

rivers, and other shallow water sources such as 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 9

ditches and farm ponds. All shorebird habitats within 

the CP/PLR are important to their conservation, 

especially scattered and ephemeral wetlands. The most 

critical habitats in the CP/PLR for those species 

experiencing population declines are grasslands and 

other upland areas with low vegetation structure, 

rivers, and salt fl ats. The salt fl ats and river sandbars 

within the CP/PLR are used by migrating and nesting 

piping plovers and nesting snowy plovers. Shortstature grasslands, mowed areas, alfalfa fi elds, plowed 

agricultural fi elds, and sod farms in Oklahoma, Kansas, 

and Nebraska are important to migrating buffbreasted sandpipers. Short-grass prairies, grazed 

grasslands, and fallow agricultural fi elds in western 

Kansas and Nebraska and in the eastern portions of 

New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming are breeding 

sites for mountain plovers. Upland habitats, recently 

burned rangelands, and salt fl ats within the CP/PLR 

are used as staging areas for American golden-plovers. 

A particular challenge is that a high proportion of 

potentially important playa lakes, salt plains, and 

grasslands are either wholly or partly under private 

ownership (approximately 75%). The CP/PLR working 

group supports the hemispheric and national goals 

of the “United States Shorebird Conservation Plan,” 

to “restore and maintain populations of all species 

of shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere” and to 

“stabilize populations of all shorebird species known 

or suspected of being in decline due to limiting factors 

occurring within the U.S., while ensuring that common 

species remain common” (Brown et al. 2000). However, 

land managers and biologists within the CP/PLR 

cannot control some of the factors that affect 

population sizes such as conditions on the wintering 

and, in most species, on the breeding grounds. 

Therefore, the CP/PLR can best contribute to the 

above goals by concentrating on protecting, improving, 

and expanding the habitat available for migrating 

shorebirds within the region and protecting, improving, 

and expanding the habitat available for the species 

that breed in the region. 

Within the Rainwater Basin, shorebird habitat can 

be exceptional if rainfall coincides with shorebird 

migration. The basin is important to large numbers 

of migratory Hudsonian godwits; long-billed 

dowitchers; buff-breasted, white-rumped, stilt, 

least, and pectoral sandpipers; American avocets; 

lesser yellowlegs; semipalmated plovers; common 

snipe; Wilson’s phalaropes; and killdeer. However, 

shorebird numbers and stopover habitat may 

not be fully understood. With the cooperation of 

landowners, state and federal natural resource 

agencies are conducting wetland habitat restoration 

and improvement work on private lands as part of 

the RWBJV.

NORTH AMERICAN WATERBIRD CONSERVATION

PLAN

The “North American Waterbird Conservation 

Plan” (NAWCP) is the product of an independent 

partnership of individuals and institutions having 

interest and responsibility for conservation of 

waterbirds and their habitats in the Americas. 

This partnership—Waterbird Conservation for 

the Americas—was created to support a vision in 

which the distribution, diversity, and abundance of 

populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and 

nonbreeding waterbirds are sustained or restored 

throughout the lands and waters of North America, 

Central America, and the Caribbean. The NAWCP 

provides a continental-scale framework for the 

conservation and management of 210 species of 

waterbirds including seabirds, coastal waterbirds, 

wading birds, and marsh birds. These birds use 

aquatic habitats in 29 nations throughout North 

America, Central America, the islands and pelagic 

(open ocean) waters of the Caribbean Sea and 

western Atlantic, the United States–associated 

Pacifi c Islands, and pelagic waters of the Pacifi c. The 

waterbirds’ dependence on aquatic habitats—such 

as wooded swamps, stream corridors, salt marshes, 

barrier islands, continental shelf waters, and pelagic 

waters—make them especially vulnerable to the 

threats that face water and wetland resources globally.

The conservation of waterbirds faces signifi cant 

challenges. Eighty percent of the species considered 

in the NAWCP are colonial nesters—congregating 

at breeding sites in numbers ranging up to hundreds 

of thousands of birds. Of this group, the plan fi nds 

that one-third are considered to be at risk of serious 

population loss. Waterbird populations are subject 

to numerous threats, many of which are habitatbased and affect all aquatic birds and other aquatic 

resources. The threats that the NAWCP identifi es 

as requiring remedial action include destruction of 

inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators 

and invasive species, pollutants, mortality from 

fi sheries and other human industries, disturbance, 

and confl icts arising from abundant species.

The NAWCP identifi es strategies and opportunities 

for achieving its vision. The plan documents a 
10 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

dynamic process for species status assessment for 

use in setting conservation priorities at a regional 

scale and has identifi ed many of the key issues that 

require conservation action. In addition, the plan 

promotes habitat- and site-based conservation 

actions throughout the Americas, especially via 

the “Important Bird Areas” programs and similar 

efforts. Regional waterbird conservation working 

groups will “step down” the continental-level 

aspects of the plan to the regional and local levels. 

At all scales, the NAWCP advocates integration of 

waterbird conservation with other bird conservation 

initiatives, when appropriate, to effi ciently provide 

the best management options for local wildlife and 

habitat managers.

RECOVERY PLANS FOR FEDERALLY LISTED

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES

Where federally listed threatened or endangered 

species occur at the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District’s WPAs, management goals and

strategies in their respective recovery plans will be 

followed. The list of threatened or endangered species 

that occur at the district will change as species are 

listed or delisted, or as listed species are discovered 

on district lands.

The district lies within the historical range of the 

whooping crane, least tern (interior population), 

American burying beetle, and western prairie 

fringed orchid. All of these species have recovery 

plans. If these species are found in the district, the 

staff will follow recovery plan guidelines.

STATE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION WILDLIFE

STRATEGY

Over the past several decades, documented declines 

of wildlife populations have occurred nationwide. 

Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) 

program in 2001. This program provides states and 

territories with federal dollars to support conservation 

aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered 

and in need of protection under the Endangered Species 

Act. The SWG program represents an ambitious 

endeavor to take an active hand in keeping species 

from becoming threatened or endangered in the 

future. 

According to the SWG program, each state, territory, 

and the District of Columbia must have a completed 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy 

(CWCS) by October 1, 2005 to receive future 

funding. 

These strategies will help defi ne an integrated 

approach to the stewardship of all wildlife species, 

with additional emphasis on species of concern and 

habitats at risk. The goal is to shift focus from singlespecies management and highly specialized individual 

efforts to a geographically based, landscape-oriented, 

fi sh and wildlife conservation effort. The Service 

approves CWCSs and administers SWG program 

funding. 

In 2005, the NGPC developed a statewide CWCS 

called the Nebraska Natural Legacy Plan. The planning 

team reviewed the legacy plan and the information 

obtained was used during the development of the CCP. 

Implementation of the habitat goals and objectives in 

this CCP will support the goals and objectives of the 

legacy plan.

Nebraska Natural Legacy Plan 

The planning process for the legacy plan solicited 

public input and the help of state, federal, and 

nongovernmental agencies. One of the plan’s purposes

was to identify areas in the state that have unique 

wildlife and habitat characteristics. These unique 

areas—“biologically unique landscapes”—are focus 

areas for the conservation of the state’s rarest species

and natural habitats. 

Nebraska’s mission to “develop and implement a 

blueprint for conserving Nebraska’s fl ora, fauna, and

natural habitats” provides the state with a way to 

address pressing natural resource issues. When 

formulating proposed actions, planners must take into 

account the state’s strong agricultural background. 

Farms and ranches cover 93% of the total land area 

and support a signifi cant share of Nebraska’s overall 

biological diversity. Maintenance of biological diversity 

throughout the state requires that conservation efforts 

be directed at a broad range of land issues and 

management practices on public and private lands. 

Maintaining and improving existing habitat on working 

farms and ranches is essential to conserving biological 

diversity and offers the greatest hope for success.

Nebraska plans to improve the effi ciency and 

effectiveness of conservation by taking a more 

systematic approach to identifying and prioritizing the

components of biological diversity through a “course

fi lter/fi ne fi lter” approach. Monitoring of Nebraska

lands becomes a priority as the state begins 

implementation of the plan. Monitoring of management 

actions is conducted at two levels: (1) response of 

individual species, and (2) response of habitats or 

ecological communities. Monitoring trends in 

abundance and distribution of different habitat types 

can be used to detect land use changes and can help 

direct conservation action toward those types that 

are showing the steepest decline.

Nebraska divides the state into four ecoregions for 

management purposes: tall-grass prairie, mixedgrass prairie, sandhills, and short-grass prairie. The 

ecoregions that occur in the basin—mixed-grass 

prairie and tall-grass prairie—are further described.

Mixed-grass Prairie Ecoregion

The mixed-grass prairie ecoregion lies between the 

tall-grass prairie to the east and the short-grass 
Chapter 1 — Introduction 11

prairie to the west, acting as a transition zone for the

two. The region’s climate is semiarid with annual 

average precipitation ranging from 28 inches in the

east to 20 inches in the west. Average annual 

temperatures range from 52oF to 57oF. Starting in 1940, 

the government put in place policies to subsidize and

facilitate conversion of marginal land such as playa 

wetlands to croplands. Center-pivot irrigation 

facilitated cultivation of steeper slopes and lands 

isolated from surface irrigation sources. Two-thirds 

of the land in the ecoregion is engaged in cropland 

production with most of the remaining grasslands 

used for livestock grazing. 

Tall-grass Prairie Ecoregion

The tall-grass prairie ecoregion covers primarily the 

eastern quarter of the state, with parts extending 

further westward. Loess and organic matter form the

basis for the deep, fertile soils that typify eastern 

Nebraska. Annual precipitation ranges from 25–36 

inches, with summer temperatures reaching highs of 

90oF and dropping to lows of 10oF in winter. The tallgrass prairie ecoregion is considered to have more 

diversifi ed farming operations than the western part 

of the state. 

Ecoregion Threats

Native animal species and ecoregion threats are 

essentially the same for all four regions in Nebraska. 

More than 300 species of resident and migratory birds

have been found in the area. Most of the 55 mammal 

species are widespread with no distinct affi liation to 

the regions. Native, large predators have become 

extremely rare or extirpated from the regions. The 

75 species of fi sh present in the ecoregions are “big 

river” generalists that can withstand a wide variation 

of environmental extremes. Wetlands are used for 

breeding by all the amphibians and reptiles. Insects 

are the most diverse and perhaps the most important 

group ecologically and economically because they play

vital roles as herbivores, predators, pollinators, 

decomposers, soil aerators, and as food for other 

wildlife. 

Several stresses face and affect the ecoregions, as 

follows:

Q Conversion and fragmentation of natural habitats.

Q Wetland drainage.

Q Wetland sedimentation.

Q Altered hydrology of wetlands.

Q Fire plays an important role in prairie 

maintenance by promoting nutrient cycling, 

creating microhabitats, and increasing plant vigor 

and native plant diversity. Currently, less than 

1% of the state’s grasslands and woodlands are 

burned annually. Loss of fi re has resulted in the 

degradation of thousands of acres of prairie by 

invasive plant species. 

Q Most grazing takes place in the absence of fi re 

and with relatively little variation in timing and

intensity. Overgrazing can severely impact the

composition of grasslands, and increase the 

amount of sediment and other pollutants entering

waterbodies. Grazing systems used on prairie 

remnants cause losses of plant and animal 

diversity and ecological functions. 

Q Spread of invasive plants has threatened the 

ecoregions’ biological diversity. 

Q Altered hydrology and channel degradation of 

rivers and streams cause reductions in natural 

fl ows and reduce habitat available. 

Q Large-scale habitat fragmentation from 

conversion of native habitats to crop fi elds, 

housing developments, and roads has occurred 

over most of the state with the exception of the 

Nebraska Sandhills.

1.5 ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND 

THREATS

The Service has adopted watersheds as the basic

building blocks for carrying out ecosystem conservation 

(see fi gure 5, ecosystem map). The district is located 

within the Platte-Kansas rivers ecosystem. In addition, 

the Nebraska Natural Legacy Plan (2005) identifi es 

the Rainwater Basin as one of 40 “biologically unique 

landscapes.”

PLATTE-KANSAS RIVERS ECOSYSTEM

The Platte-Kansas rivers ecosystem includes almost 

all of Nebraska, southeast Wyoming, northeast 

Colorado, and northern Kansas (see fi gure 6). This 

ecosystem encompasses approximately 182,000 square

miles and is home to the Nebraska Sandhills, the

largest sand dune complex in the Western Hemisphere.

The sandhills and many other areas provide vital 

habitat for numerous threatened and endangered 

wildlife and plant species.

The ecosystem spans from snow-capped, barren 

mountain peaks in Colorado to lowland riparian 

cottonwood forests along the Missouri River in 

eastern Nebraska and Kansas. The mountainous 

regions are predominately a mixture of coniferous 

forests comprised of Douglas-fi r, ponderosa pine, 

lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fi r.

Pinyon pine and juniper woodlands and aspen 

communities are common throughout. Alpine meadows

and lakes, willow shrub lands, and barren rocky areas 

are common at high elevations. Forests generally 

transition into shrub communities dominated by 

sagebrush with short grasses and forbs in eastern 

Wyoming and western Nebraska. Farther to the east,

trees give way to short-grass prairie dominated by 

buffalograss, blue grama, hairy grama, and western 

wheatgrass. The short-grass prairie turns into mixedgrass prairie, due primarily to greater annual rainfall,

in central Nebraska and Kansas. 

Many federally listed endangered and threatened 

species including the piping plover, whooping crane, 
12 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Figure 5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ecosystem map.
Figure 6. Platte-Kansas rivers ecosystem and Arkansas-Red rivers ecosystem map.
14 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

and Eskimo curlew have sought out this area as a 

refuge.

Threats to the Platte-Kansas rivers ecosystem that

require attention include overgrazing, invasive plants,

population growth and housing development, and 

groundwater and surface water depletion. To overcome 

these threats, priorities for the ecosystem are to ensure

that (1) natural, healthy ecological processes dominate; 

and (2) economic development complements 

environmental protection.

The district contributes to the accomplishment of goals 

and objectives for this ecosystem through its Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program and existing 

partnerships.

1.6 THE PLANNING PROCESS

The steps involved in the development of this CCP 

are intended to comply with the Improvement Act, 

the NEPA, and the implementing regulations of 

the acts. The Service issued a fi nal refuge planning 

policy in 2000. This policy established requirements 

and guidance for refuge and district plans—including 

CCPs and step-down management plans—to ensure 

that planning efforts comply with the Improvement 

Act. The planning policy identifi ed several steps of 

the CCP and environmental analysis process (see 

fi gure 7, steps in the planning process). Table 1 

displays the planning process used by the Service in 

the development of CCPs for all units of the Refuge 

System. 

This CCP was prepared by a planning team 

composed of representatives from various Service 

programs including district and regional offi ce 

staffs and from the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture 

(RWBJV), U.S. Geological Survey’s biological 

resources division (USGS–BRD), Nebraska 

Game and Parks Commission (NGPC), and region 

6’s division of refuge planning (see appendix C, 

preparers).

Figure 7. Steps in the planning process.
Chapter 1 — Introduction 15

Table 1. Planning process summary for Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, Nebraska.

Date Event Outcome 

Initial conference call between the Initiated contacts to organize development of 

June 10, 2005 district staff and regional offi ce the CCP and an overview of district issues. 

planning staff. Started development of a mailing list.

Site visit to the district and initial Acquainted regional offi ce staff and state personnel 

July 13–15, 2005 meeting with the proposed planning with district activities and issues. Developed a 

team. preliminary list of qualities and issues.

October 13–14, 

2005

Purposes, vision, and goals 

workshop; Kearney, NE.

Reviewed purposes for the district. Developed 

a vision statement and set of goals for the draft 

CCP and EA.

December 5, 2005 

(5–8 p.m.)

Public scoping meeting; Kearney, 

NE.

Presented the district’s background information 

and the CCP process. The public queried staff 

and provided comments.

December 6, 2005 

(5–8 p.m.) Public scoping meeting; York, NE.

Presented the district’s background information 

and the CCP process. The public queried staff 

and provided comments.

December 7, 2005 

(5–8 p.m.)

Public scoping meeting; Clay Center, 

NE.

Presented the district’s background information 

and the CCP process. The public queried staff 

and provided comments.

December 8, 2005 

(5–8 p.m.)

Public scoping meeting; Holdrege, 

NE.

Presented the district’s background information 

and the CCP process. The public queried staff 

and provided comments.

December 6–7, 

2005 CCP kickoff meeting.

Finalized the planning team. Updated list of issues

and qualities. Identifi ed biological and mapping

needs. Determined the CCP steps and schedule.

February 28– Alternatives development workshop; Developed a range of alternatives for managing 

March 2, 2006 Grand Island, NE. the district.

Impacts assessment workshop via Assessed environmental impacts, by focus area,

March 23–24, 2006 conference calls: Kearney–Lincoln– from each alternative developed. Recommended 

Denver. a proposed action.

Biological objectives, strategies, and Drafted the biological objectives, strategies, 

August 1–3, 2006 rationale development workshop; rationale, and bibliography for the proposed 

Kearney, NE. action.

August 29–31, 

2006

Nonbiological objectives, strategies, 

and rationale development workshop; 

Kearney, NE.

Drafted the nonbiological objectives, strategies, 

rationale, and bibliography for the proposed 

action.

December–March 

2007 First draft CCP and EA preparation. Prepared the fi rst draft of the CCP and EA.

April–June 2007 Internal Service and state review of 

the draft CCP and EA.

Collected internal comments about the draft 

CCP and EA. Addressed comments; prepared 

the draft CCP and EA for public review. 
16 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Table 1. Planning process summary for Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, Nebraska.

Date Event Outcome 

July 18–August 

18, 2007

Public review of the draft CCP and 

EA; open house meeting in Hastings, 

NE, about the draft CCP and EA.

Met with interested public and collected public 

comments about the draft CCP and EA in 

person and via mail and email.

August 20– 

September 14, 

2007

Analysis of comments and fi nalization 

of the CCP.

Briefed the Service’s region 6 directorate 

on the outcome of the public review period. 

Finalized the plan with approval of the regional 

director.

The Service began the preplanning process in 

September 2005 (see appendix D, public involvement).

During preplanning, the team developed a mailing 

list, internal issues, and a special qualities list. The 

planning team identifi ed current district program 

status, compiled and analyzed relevant data, and 

determined the purpose of the refuge. 

Compliance with the NEPA was achieved through 

involvement of the public. After the notice of intent 

(NOI) to prepare the draft CCP and EA was published 

in the Federal Register in November 2005, scoping 

began in December 2005 with public meetings. 

Scoping is the process of obtaining information from 

the public for input into the planning process. Over 

the course of preplanning and scoping, the planning 

team collected information about resources of the 

district and the surrounding areas, which is summarized 

in chapter 3.

The Service developed alternatives for management 

of the district after reviewing a wide range of public 

comments and management needs. After careful 

consideration of the environmental consequences of 

the alternatives, the Service chose alternative B as 

the proposed action to be implemented. The evaluation 

of these alternatives was documented in the “Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District.” The Service published the 

notice of availability (NOA) for the draft CCP and 

environmental assessment (EA) on the same day it 

was released for public review—July 18, 2007. The 

draft CCP and EA outlined long-term guidance for 

management decisions, set forth proposed objectives 

and strategies to accomplish district purposes and 

meet goals, and identifi ed the Service’s best estimate 

of future needs. 

Public review of the draft CCP and EA concluded 

on August 18, 2007. After an analysis of the public’s 

comments, the Service’s regional director of region 6 

selected alternative B (the proposed action) as the 

preferred alternative for the fi nal CCP. Subsequently, 

the draft CCP was modifi ed in accordance with 

substantive public comments to produce this fi nal CCP, 

which the regional director approved in August 2007 

after documentation of a “fi nding of no signifi cant 

impact” (see appendix E, environmental compliance).

For further details of the planning process including 

comments and responses, see appendix D, public 

involvement.

The public came to four open houses to learn about the 

district and offer ideas and concerns.

USFWS

COORDINATION WITH THE PUBLIC

A mailing list was developed by the planning team, 

consisting of more than 500 names—private citizens; 

local, regional, and state government representatives 

and legislators; other federal agencies; and interested 

organizations (see appendix D, public involvement). 

The Service held four public scoping meetings, in 

open-house format, during December 2005 (see table 1 

for details). Attendees provided written and oral 

comments and were informed that comprehensive 

planning was an open process where they could submit 

their comments at any time and by any means (letter, 

telephone, or Internet) until the time the CCP was 

fi nal. 

The combined total attendance to these public meetings 

was 63 persons. The planning team received additional 

written comments via mail. Seventeen written 

comments were received throughout the scoping 

process. Input obtained from meetings and 

correspondence, including emails, were considered in 

development of this CCP. 

For information about the results of the public review 

period and the comments received, see appendix D.
Chapter 1 — Introduction 17

STATE COORDINATION

In November 2005, an invitation letter to participate 

in the CCP process was sent by the Service’s region 6

director to the director of the NGPC. Two 

representatives from the NGPC actively participated 

in the development of this CCP as part of the core 

planning team. Local NGPC wildlife managers and 

the district staff maintain excellent and ongoing 

working relations that precede the CCP process.

TRIBAL COORDINATION

The planning team contacted Native American tribal 

representatives of the Pawnee Tribe and OtoeMissouria Tribes. The tribal governments are part of 

the mailing list.

RESULTS OF SCOPING

Table 1 summarizes all scoping activities.Comments

collected from scoping meetings and correspondence, 

including comment forms, were used in the 

development of a fi nal list of issues that are addressed 

in the CCP. 

The Service determined which alternatives could 

best address these issues. The planning process 

ensured that issues with the greatest effect on the 

district were resolved or given priority over the life 

of the CCP. Identifi ed issues, along with a discussion 

of effects on resources, are summarized in chapter 2, 

section 2.6. 

In addition, the Service considered suggested changes 

to current district management presented by the 

public and other groups.

2 The District

A wetland management district includes land that 

the Refuge System acquires with Federal Duck 

Stamp and other funds. These districts, including 

the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, 

are to be restored and managed primarily as prairie 

wetland habitat, which is critical to waterfowl and 

other wetland birds.

This chapter describes the establishment, vision and 

goals, special values, and planning issues of the district.

2.1 ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION, 

AND MANAGEMENT HISTORY

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

was established in 1963 with the purchase of land on 

what is now Massie WPA. An area acquisition offi ce 

of the Service was located in Hastings from 1962 to 

1971, during a time when more than 14,000 acres were 

acquired to be managed as WPAs. Valentine National 

Wildlife Refuge, more than 200 miles from the nearest 

WPA, managed these WPAs from 1963 until 1966 when 

the wetland management district was staffed by one 

person. The district held the name of Hastings Wetland 

Management District until its name was changed to 

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District in 1981. 

The Rainwater Basin encompasses 17 counties in 

southern Nebraska. The district boundary includes 

all or portions of 13 of these counties. The district 

has land-purchasing authority within Adams, Clay, 

Fillmore, Franklin, Gosper, Hall, Hamilton, Kearney, 

Phelps, Polk, Saline, Seward, and York counties. The 

district manages WPAs in all of these counties except 

Polk County. In addition, the district manages one 

WPA that occurs outside the district boundary, in 

Cuming and Dodge counties.

Through the years, the Service has acquired 230 tracts 

of land that form 61 WPAs under the district’s 

management. The WPAs managed by the district total 

24,210.09 acres and occur across 14 Nebraska counties 

(see table 2). Figures 8–19 display the WPAs within 

each county, except for Cuming and Dodge counties, 

which lie outside the district boundary. 

The Service’s acquisition goal for the district is 24,000

acres. To date, the Service has acquired 21,703 acres 

of the 24,210 acres the district manages. The remaining 

2,507 acres under district management have been 

gifted or obtained from other agencies. Three of the 

areas managed by the district are atypical WPAs. 

McMurtrey WPA in Clay County was transferred to 

the Service from the Department of Defense 

(originally part of the Hastings Ammunition facility). 

McMurtrey WPA has no public access and is managed 

as a closed area. In addition, the Farmers Home 

Administration transferred to the Service the Haseman 

WPA (in Cuming and Dodge counties, northwest of 

Omaha) and Schwisow WPA (Saline County). These 

two properties are different from the other 59—they 

are not within the basin and they occur within 

fl oodplains of the Elkhorn and Big Blue rivers 

respectively. Although these two WPAs are outside 

the basin, they are managed in the same manner as the 

rest of the district’s WPAs and are open to public use.

Separate from the WPAs, the district contains 35 

conservation easements, which total 2,476 acres. The 

Farmers Home Administration transferred all these 

areas to the Service. While the easement restrictions 

vary, they generally prohibit wetland drainage, 

grassland conversion, and development. However, 25 

of the easements allow livestock grazing. Special use 

permits are generally required for vegetative 

manipulation. 

Snow geese congregate at Griess WPA (Fillmore County).

USFWS

2.2 SPECIAL VALUES OF THE DISTRICT

The planning team and the public identifi ed special 

qualities that make the district valuable for wildlife 

and the American people. Attributes identifi ed 

included the following:

Q The district provides a critical spring staging 

area for millions of migratory birds that gather 

from the coastal states, Mexico, and South 

America. 
20 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Table 2. Waterfowl production areas managed by Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, Nebraska.

County Name and WPA Summary WPA Name Acreage

Kenesaw 231.56 Adams: 2 WPAs; 391.56 acres Weseman 160.00

Eckhardt 175.21

Glenvil 119.46

Green Acres 63.66

Hansen 320.00

Harms 60.00

Harvard (all units) 1,484.00

Hultine (all units) 1,000.00

Lange 158.76 Clay: 16 WPAs; 6,374.48 acres Massie 853.00

McMurtrey 1,067.00

Meadowlark 80.00

Moger 196.70

Schuck 80.00

Smith 476.40

Theesen 80.29

Verona 160.00

Cuming and Dodge: 1 WPA, 229.11 acres Haseman 229.11

Brauning 240.00

County Line 408.00

Griess 20.00

Krause 534.26

Mallard Haven 1,087.00

Fillmore: 11 WPAs; 3,578.52 acres Miller’s Pond 130.78

Morphy 89.54

Rauscher 250.75

Real 160.00

Rolland 128.56

Wilkins 529.63

Macon Lakes 1,108.61

Franklin: 3 WPAs; 1,783.04 acres Quadhamer 593.56

Ritterbush 80.87

Elley 60.00

Gosper: 3 WPAs; 1,453.59 acres Peterson 1,156.09

Victor Lakes 237.50

Hall: 1 WPA, 627.81 acres Hannon 627.81

Nelson 160.00

Hamilton: 3 WPAs; 1,120 acres Springer 640.00

Troester 320.00

Bluestem 75.93

Clark 451.00

Frerichs 46.50

Gleason 569.58

Kearney: 9 WPAs; 2,873.75 acres Jensen 465.00

Killdeer 38.36

Lindau 152.38

Prairie Dog 892.00

Youngson 183.00
Chapter 2 — The District 21

Table 2. Waterfowl production areas managed by Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, Nebraska.

County Name and WPA Summary WPA Name Acreage

Atlanta 1,147.08

Cottonwood 560.00

Funk 1,996.40 Phelps: 6 WPAs; 4,606.89 acres Johnson 577.44

Jones 165.97

Linder 160.00

Polk: 0 WPA —— ——

Saline: 1 WPA, 61 acres Schwisow 61.00

Freeman Lakes 187.76 Seward: 2 WPAs; 471.14 acres Tamora 283.38

York: 3 WPAs, 639.2 acres County Line (see Fillmore 

(County Line WPA occurs in two counties, County) Fillmore and York. This WPA’s occurrence Heron 320.00

and acreage is reported in total under Fillmore Sinninger 160.00

County.) Waco 159.20

Q Large concentrations of migratory birds use the 

basin in the spring: 90% of the midcontinental 

population of white-fronted geese, 50% of the 

midcontinental population of mallards, 30% of 

the continental population of northern pintails, 

and 90% of the midcontinental population of 

snow geese.

Q The basin has the second highest number of 

confi rmed sightings of whooping cranes along 

their migration route. 

Q Five of nine grassland species of concern nest in 

the basin.

Q Two ecosystems, tall-grass prairie and mid-grass 

prairie, occur in the district.

Q Most of the remaining prominent wetlands in the 

basin are under ownership and management of 

the district.

Q The district has the ability to provide 

supplemental water to wetlands during migration.

2.3 PURPOSES FOR THE DISTRICT

The purposes for the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District are described in the following 

legislation and public land orders:

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

(7 United States Code [USC] 2002 [a])—“For 

conservation purposes any real property, or 

interest therein ... that has marginal value 

for agricultural production; is environmentally 

sensitive; or has special management importance.” 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (16 USC 3901 [b])

—“It is the purpose of this chapter to promote ... 

the conservation of the wetlands of the nation in 

order to maintain the public benefi ts they provide 

and to help fulfi ll international obligations in 

various migratory bird treaties and conventions 

with Canada, Mexico, Japan, the Union of Soviet 

Socialist Republics, and with various countries in 

the Western Hemisphere.” 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d [2])

—“For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715i [a])

—“Areas of lands, waters, or interests therein 

acquired or reserved pursuant to this subchapter 

shall ... be administered ... to conserve and 

protect migratory birds in accordance with treaty 

obligations with Mexico, Canada, Japan and the 

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and other 

species of wildlife found thereon, including species 

that are listed ... as endangered or threatened 

species, and to restore and develop adequate 

wildlife habitat.” 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (16 USC 718 [c])—“Small areas, to be designated 

as ‘Waterfowl Production Areas’ may be acquired 

without regard to the limitations and requirements 

of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, but all 

of the provisions of such Act which govern the 

administration and protection of lands acquired 

thereunder, except the inviolate sanctuary 

provisions of such Act, shall be applicable to areas 

acquired pursuant to this subsection.” 

Public Land Order 6979 (May 25, 1993)—“To 

protect waterfowl production areas.” 

Public Land Order 7206 (June 24, 1996)—“The 

following described public lands are hereby 

withdrawn from settlement, sale, location or entry 

under the general land laws, including the U.S. 

mining law, but not from leasing under the mineral 

leasing laws, to protect waterfowl production 

areas. This withdrawal will expire 50 years from 

the effective date of this order unless ... the 

Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be 

extended.” 
22 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Figure 8. Waterfowl production areas in Adams County, Nebraska.
Figure 9. Waterfowl production areas in Clay County, Nebraska.

Chapter 2 — The District 23
24 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Figure 10. Waterfowl production areas in Fillmore County, Nebraska.
Chapter 2 — The District 25

Figure 11. Waterfowl production areas in Franklin County, Nebraska.
26 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Figure 12. Waterfowl production areas in Gosper County, Nebraska.
Chapter 2 — The District 27

Figure 13. Waterfowl production areas in Hall County, Nebraska.
28 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Figure 14. Waterfowl production areas in Hamilton County, Nebraska.
Chapter 2 — The District 29

Figure 15. Waterfowl production areas in Kearney County, Nebraska.
30 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Figure 16. Waterfowl production areas in Phelps County, Nebraska.
Chapter 2 — The District 31

Figure 17. Waterfowl production areas in Saline County, Nebraska.
32 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Figure 18. Waterfowl production areas in Seward County, Nebraska.
Chapter 2 — The District 33

Figure 19. Waterfowl production areas in York County, Nebraska.
34 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

2.4 VISION

The Rainwater Basin provides critical habitat 

for millions of migratory birds. 

The basin’s name refl ects both the basis of its 

wetland hydrology and natural precipitation 

cycles. A network of functioning wetland 

and prairie plant ecosystems provides a 

native grassland mosaic that gives the local 

community a sense of pride and connection to 

the Great Plains fl ora and fauna. The lands 

managed by the wetland management district 

serve as an example of land stewardship 

mimicking natural processes, and they 

provide an array of wildlife-dependent 

educational and recreational opportunities. 

It is only through partnerships with 

individuals, agencies, and organizations that 

this vision can be achieved and maintained.

2.5 GOALS

The following goals refl ect the vision for the district—

providing for healthy ecosystems and compatible 

opportunities for the public to appreciate and enjoy the 

natural environment. 

WETLAND HABITAT GOAL

Restore, enhance, and maintain the hydrology and 

early successional vegetation conditions essential to 

the conservation of migratory birds.

UPLAND HABITAT GOAL

Reestablish and maintain native grassland communities 

of the Rainwater Basin.

WATER RIGHTS GOAL

Develop partnerships to protect the natural hydrology 

of WPA watersheds and ensure the necessary water 

rights are in place to protect future use of both ground 

and surface water. 

INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES GOAL

Reduce and control the spread of nondesirable, 

nonnative plant species within wetland and upland 

habitats for the benefi t of native plant and wildlife 

communities.

WILDLIFE DISEASES GOAL

Work with partners to prevent or control the outbreak 

and spread of wildlife-borne diseases to protect human 

and migratory bird populations.

RESEARCH AND SCIENCE GOAL

Encourage and support research that substantially 

contributes to the understanding and management of 

the Rainwater Basin wetland and grassland ecosystem.

CULTURAL RESOURCES GOAL

Identify and evaluate the cultural resources in the 

district and protect those that are determined to be 

signifi cant.

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL

Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation and 

educational opportunities by instilling an understanding 

of basic ecological processes, purpose of the Rainwater 

Basin Wetland Management District, and mission of 

the Service for persons of all abilities and cultural 

backgrounds.

PARTNERSHIP GOAL

Promote and develop partnerships with adjacent 

landowners, public and private organizations, Native 

American tribes, and other interested individuals to 

protect, restore, enhance, and maintain a diverse and 

productive ecosystem.

SOCIOECONOMICS GOAL

Obtain a better understanding of the social and 

economic contribution WPAs make to the people and 

communities within the Rainwater Basin.

OPERATIONS GOAL

Safely and effi ciently use funding, staffi ng, 

infrastructure, and partnerships to achieve the purpose 

and objectives of the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District.

2.6 PLANNING ISSUES

The Service held four public meetings, sent news 

releases to the local and regional press, published 

an announcement in the “Federal Register,” and 

sent numerous mailings to solicit public input on 

important issues. Following are the most signifi cant 

issues identifi ed, which are addressed throughout 

this CCP.

HABITAT MANAGEMENT

The district’s primary purpose is to provide optimal 

migration habitat for waterfowl, waterbirds, and 

other species that depend on a grassland-wetland 

ecosystem. To achieve goals and objectives set for 

the district’s habitats, there must be aggressive 

management. Nearly all lands bought for the district 

had been drained and farmed and have required 

extensive restoration. 

Restoration work is not achieved by merely 

plugging a drainage ditch or planting native grasses. 
Chapter 2 — The District 35

Kenesaw Waterfowl Production Area (Adams County).

USFWS

Restoration requires years of assertive management 

to establish native grasslands that can compete or 

withstand the infl uence of early succession, such 

as encroachment or dominance of weedy or woody 

plants. Planned grazing and burning are the two 

more common treatments used to reach a naturally 

dynamic grassland-wetland ecosystem. Staff levels 

are currently at a level that is more in line with 

managing a native grassland community rather than 

restoring drained and farmed lands.

There is a gap between the public’s perception 

of wetland ecology and an understanding of how 

managed disturbance mimics natural disturbance and 

creates a healthier ecosystem. When a WPA wetland 

goes dry, a portion of the public expects additional 

water pumping be done, another portion expects 

management to be changed to benefi t pheasants 

rather than waterfowl, and another portion simply 

concludes that no management is being done. 

Prescribed fi re and grazing are perceived by some as 

habitat destruction rather than a management tool 

that is benefi cial in sustaining these habitats.

WATER AND WETLAND MANAGEMENT

Wetlands within the Rainwater Basin are in multiple 

ownerships and the district has been unsuccessful in 

obtaining complete ownership of the wetlands at many 

WPAs. On some WPAs, the areas were bought with 

little or no adjacent upland. Without complete 

ownership, restoration and management of the wetland 

is diffi cult or not possible. The WPAs and their 

watersheds (the surrounding areas that naturally 

drain into the WPAs’ wetlands) are altered by land 

leveling, diversion of runoff water away from the 

wetland, and lowered water quality associated with 

agricultural runoff and sedimentation. Agricultural 

runoff includes effl uents from feedlots. Some of the 

WPAs contain legal drainage tiles (underground 

drainage systems that 

pre-date the WPAs’ 

existence) that prevent 

wetland restoration. 

Nebraska water laws 

do not protect WPAs 

from having the natural 

runoff captured before 

it reaches the wetland. 

Pumping groundwater 

to provide supplemental 

water to wetlands is 

critical to maintain 

habitat during the 

spring and fall 

migrations. However, 

the growing demand for 

groundwater is creating 

a confl ict between 

agricultural needs 

and wildlife needs. 

Increasing energy costs, antiquated equipment, 

and growing restrictions on groundwater usage are 

threatening the district’s ability to provide adequate 

water.

Pumping water to wetlands.

USFWS

INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL

Invasive plants, especially those designated as noxious 

weeds, have the ability to degrade wildlife habitat and 

to spread into adjacent lands. This has been a 

signifi cant issue for the district for years. The district 

directs a large portion of their resources for the control 

of invasive plants. Integrated pest management (IPM) 

strategies currently include prescribed fi re, grazing, 

mowing, herbicides, biological control using introduced 

insects, “interseeding,” and farming. 

The establishment of new invasive plants—such as 

salt cedar and purple loosestrife—is a constant threat. 

Generally, an immediate control response to new 

invasive plants is most effective in the long term.
36 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

WILDLIFE DISEASE CONTROL

Since 1975, the district has had a history of avian 

cholera. In 1980 and 1998, avian cholera outbreaks 

killed over 100,000 birds during the spring migrations. 

The high concentration of birds each spring poses a 

threat of disease outbreaks and the spread of disease 

in the Central Flyway. Management actions taken 

have included increased pumping to improve water 

quality and quantity and collection of infected 

carcasses to control the spread of disease. 

In 2005, there was a positive case of chronic wasting 

disease found in Hall County within the Rainwater 

Basin. The disease is expected to continue to spread 

eastward across Nebraska. 

In the future, the H5N1 strain of avian infl uenza is 

expected to migrate from the Eastern Hemisphere to 

the Western Hemisphere. Because of the high 

concentration of birds found throughout the basin 

during spring migration, there is a concern about the 

spread of the disease. 

SPECIES OF CONCERN

Species of concern are the prairie dog and federally 

listed threatened and endangered species.

In July 1998, the National Wildlife Federation 

petitioned the Service to list the black-tailed prairie 

dog as a threatened species under the Endangered 

Species Act. In the fall of 1999, the Service’s regional 

director (region 6) issued a moratorium on all control 

of black-tailed prairie dogs on Service lands. In 

February 2000, the Service concluded that this species 

warranted listing, but was precluded from being listed 

due to concerns and resource constraints related to 

other higher priority species. In August 2004, an 

updated evaluation of the best available scientifi c 

information led the Service to determine that the 

black-tailed prairie dog should be removed as a 

candidate for listing.

Prairie dog colonies are located on fi ve WPAs scattered 

throughout the district. The fi ve sites had historical 

use, and management has been done to allow the dog 

towns to continue. The spread of the populations to 

private lands has been controlled by two factors: 

(1) the sites are surrounded by cropland; and (2) the 

precipitation level causes native grasses to grow faster 

than the prairie dogs can remove it. The tall vegetation 

keeps the town to a manageable size. A management 

plan written in 2003 is included in appendix F.

The CCP will not address specifi cally this species any 

further because (1) the district currently manages 

black-tailed prairie dog colonies in accordance with the 

existing management plan (appendix F), and (2) the 

existing colonies within the district are stable.

The district staff, in consultation with staff from 

region 6’s ecological services, reviewed all threatened 

and endangered species with historical ranges on or 

near the district to determine if additional actions 

could be taken to restore or enhance habitat for 

endangered species. These species are the whooping 

crane, interior population of the least tern, American 

burying beetle, and western prairie fringed orchid. 

No species were identifi ed as requiring actions 

different from those being taken to meet the 

purposes of the district (see appendix G, section 7 

biological evaluation).

The “Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental 

Health Policy” (USFWS 2001) guides Service personnel 

in carrying out the clause of the Improvement Act 

that directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure the 

maintenance of the “biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health” of the Refuge System. This 

policy guides the Service to consider restoration of 

lost or severely degraded components of the Refuge 

System “where appropriate and in concert with refuge 

purposes and the Refuge System mission”; this 

includes federally listed species.

RESEARCH AND SCIENCE

The Rainwater Basin serves as a critical staging area 

during spring migration. While the birds are in the 

basin, they feed extensively in surrounding croplands 

and within the wetlands. When they are not feeding, 

these birds roost on the larger wetlands. There is 

little information to determine whether the basin is 

meeting the needs and energetics of waterfowl and 

other migratory birds. Such information will help 

direct management actions by the district. 

Water-pumping decisions rely heavily on intuition 

because of the limited scientifi c information that is 

available. The district’s intent for pumping is to provide 

water in those wetlands that provide the most food 

and resting area for birds. It is unknown how the 

hydrology of individual wetlands in the basin, in 

combination with water pumping, can provide optimal 

habitat conditions. For example, is it the wisest use of 

water to pump a wetland with wet soils and less 

preferred plant species or a wetland with dry soil and 

preferred plant species. 

The distribution and abundance of amphibians, reptiles, 

invertebrates, and small mammals on the WPAs is 

unknown. 

As part of the CCP development process, a Servicefunded socioeconomic study determined the extent to 

which the existence and operations of the district 

benefi t the local and state economies. Excerpts from 

this report are included in chapter 3, section 3.7.

VISITOR SERVICES

Hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation are all 

uses allowed on WPAs. The high concentration of birds 

and the limited public lands available for public 

recreation in the basin makes this an issue of interest. 
Chapter 2 — The District 37

There is a demand for increased and improved 

recreational hunting opportunities on the WPAs. By 

regulation, lands acquired as WPAs are open to public 

trapping as well.

The public has a signifi cant misunderstanding about 

the types and management of public lands in the basin, 

particularly those managed by the district and the 

NGPC. This is an issue because both agencies manage 

public uses differently and their respective missions, 

while complementary, are not exactly alike. This fact 

often causes confusion between wildlife enthusiasts 

and the public in general. 

Many people in the local communities are not aware 

of the district’s existence because district personnel 

are based more than 20 miles away from the WPAs. 

In addition, the district offi ce is not easily located in 

an older industrial portion of Kearney.

PARTNERSHIPS

The scattering of small public areas (WPAs) among 

privately owned lands increases the need to build 

partnerships throughout the Rainwater Basin. The 

district cannot address many of the opportunities 

without the help of partners. This is especially the case

for visitor services, particularly in environmental 

education. Public involvement will strengthen local 

interest and increase the district’s ability to manage 

and promote wildlife resources. The district is not 

fully using the skills and resources of other groups, 

organizations, and local communities. In turn, the 

district is not providing the resources and expertise 

that would help local conservation groups meet their 

objectives.

OPERATIONS

The basin encompasses 4,200 square miles in a 17-

county area of southern Nebraska. The district extends 

across 13 of those counties. The distance from the 

easternmost to the westernmost WPA is 133 miles. 

The logistics of transporting equipment and traveling 

to WPAs makes it diffi cult to effectively manage the 

properties. It takes the district staff 2 hours each way 

to reach the farthest WPA, which reduces to 4–6 hours 

the amount of time to work at an area. Because of the 

long distances, fuel costs are a major burden. In a 

typical year, the staff drives approximately 110,000 

miles.

The district faces immediate challenges with its 

headquarters. The Service leased the offi ce/shop facility 

in 1977 when the staff consisted of four people. The 

offi ce portion was an open foyer and three rooms. In 

1994, to accommodate the new private lands staff and 

migratory bird biologist, a portion of the shop was 

converted to offi ce space. In 2000, to accommodate the 

new fi re staff and station biologist, the library/

conference room was converted into a cramped, openoffi ce setting for four desks. There are currently 12 

people in the staff.

The heating system for the offi ce was installed in the 

shop portion of the building. The offi ce area has only 

one exit or opening leading to the outside. No windows 

exist in any of the offi ces. There is no exchange of 

fresh air, so the furnace recycles offi ce and shop air 

continually throughout the offi ce portion. 

The development of a fi re program brought with it two 

fi re engines that have to be stored inside at all times—

reducing the amount of working and storage area for 

other equipment. During the spring fi re program, the 

shop area is crowded with fi re engines, water tenders, 

and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) to prevent freezing 

during the cold nights. The shop is the only storage 

facility on the site and ATVs used for weed spraying 

have to be stored in the shop during summer months. 

The high temperatures inside the shop during the 

summer cause the herbicide mixture to volatize and 

enter the offi ce. 

The district headquarters facility is located in an urban 

setting that consists of a mixture of trailer homes and 

an industrial park. Its location does not invite the public 

to visit the offi ce and public visitation is very low. 

Theft and vandalism have increased.

The headquarters site does not include any cold storage 

facility and some equipment has to be stored at two 

WPAs—one in the eastern portion of the district and 

the other in the western portion. All heavy equipment 

is stored outside in an unsecured area. The storage 

facility in the east (McMurtrey WPA) has access only 

through a courtesy agreement with neighboring 

landowners.

3 District Resources and Description

The stiff sunfl ower is a native forb in the Rainwater Basin.

Gary Eslinger/USFWS

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

manages 61 noncontiguous tracts of federal land 

totaling 24,210.09 acres in south-central Nebraska. All 

of these lands within the Rainwater Basin are WPAs, 

which each typically contain one large wetland. 

Together, these WPAs are managed as a grassland 

ecosystem designed to provide optimal habitat for 

waterfowl and shorebirds. Uplands (nonwetlands) are 

managed for a high diversity of native grass species 

and grassland birds. The district also manages 35 

conservation easements totaling 2,476 acres. 

This chapter describes the physical environment and 

biological resources of the basin and the district. In 

addition, this chapter describes the district’s fi re 

and grazing history, cultural resources, special 

management areas, visitor services, socioeconomic 

environment, and operations.

3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The Rainwater Basin is located near the center of the 

Great Plains. Its geographical region encompasses 

approximately 4,200 square miles covering portions or 

all of 17 counties in south-central Nebraska. The 

widest span is 160 miles across, extending from Gosper 

County to central Seward County. The northern edge 

parallels the central Platte River. The southern edge 

lies about 10 miles from the Kansas border. 

GLOBAL WARMING

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued Order 

No. 3226 in 2001 requiring federal agencies under its 

direction that have land management responsibilities 

to consider potential climate change effects as part of 

long-range planning endeavors.

The Department of Energy’s report, “Carbon 

Sequestration Research and Development” (USDOE 

1999), concluded that ecosystem protection is important

to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent 

loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial 

biosphere. The report defi nes carbon sequestration as 

“the capture and secure storage of carbon that would 

otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”

The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2,) within the earth’s 

atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in 

surface temperature commonly referred to as “global 
40 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

warming.” In relation to comprehensive conservation 

planning for Refuge System units, carbon sequestration 

constitutes the primary climate-related effect to be 

considered in planning. 

Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon 

sequestration. Large, naturally occurring communities 

of plants and animals that occupy major habitats—

grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert—are 

effective both in preventing carbon emission and in 

acting as biological “scrubbers” of atmospheric CO2.

One Service activity in particular—prescribed 

burning—releases CO2, directly to the atmosphere 

from the biomass consumed during combustion. 

However, there is no net loss of carbon because new 

vegetation quickly germinates and sprouts to replace 

the burned-up biomass. This vegetation sequesters an 

approximately equal amount of carbon as was lost to 

the air (Dai et al. 2006).

Several other effects of climate change may need to 

be considered in the future:

Q Habitat available in lakes and streams for coldwater fi sh such as trout and salmon could be 

reduced.

Q Forests may change, with some plant species 

shifting their range northward or dying out and 

other trees moving in to take their place.

Q Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding 

habitat because of stronger and more frequent 

droughts.

Q Changes in the timing of migration and nesting 

could put some birds out of synchronization with 

the life cycles of their prey.

CLIMATE

The basin has a continental climate characteristic of 

extreme temperature changes through the seasons 

and relatively low precipitation rates. The district 

averages 21–28 inches (west to east) of precipitation 

annually. Eighty percent of the precipitation occurs 

between April and September. The change in 

precipitation amount across the district is primarily 

responsible for the shift from mixed-grass prairie in 

the west to tall-grass prairie in the east. 

Winter temperatures average 27o

F, while summer 

temperatures average 75oF. Daily minimum 

temperatures above 32oF occur 136–177 days. Relativ

humidity averages 55% at midafternoon and 80% at 

dawn across most of the basin. Annual evaporation i

the basin exceeds rainfall accumulations. Evaporativ

losses in Phelps County were computed by the 

Thornthwaite method. These losses average more 

than 5.3 inches per month (June–August). Annual free

water evaporation from small bodies of water averag

46 inches; about 77% of that amount is lost from May

through October. Evaporative losses can signifi cantl

reduce the amount of pooled surface water.

e 

n 

e 

-

e 

y 

PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY, AND SOILS

The 59 WPAs found within the basin contain the same 

geological and soil characteristics. The Rainwater 

Basin lies in the fl at 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 about 10,000 years of stability 

(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% of the land being 

cropped. 

The shallow, fl at depressions formed by wind scouring 

are often referred to as playa wetlands because of 

their ephemeral (lasting for a brief time) nature. 

Radiocarbon dating indicates the wetlands were 

created near the end of the Ice Age, 20,000–25,000 

years ago. Some depressions may have been enlarged 

and new ones created as recently as 3,000 years ago 

(Farrar 1996a). Over thousands of years, minute clay 

particles accumulated in the bottoms of the depressions, 

effectively sealing them off and preventing water from 

seeping away. The impervious clay layers are 6–72 

inches thick. The wetland soils are predominantly 

Butler, Fillmore, Scott, and Massie (Kuzila 1994, 

Kuzila and Lewis 1993). 

The Service and RWBJV grouped the basin’s land 

cover into 22 categories (see table 3). Cropland covers 

80% of the landscape. Grassland covers 10% and roads 

cover 2.6%. Nonfarmed wetlands represent 1%. 

Figures 20–22 show the land cover, grouped into 10 

simplifi ed categories, across the basin. 

WATER RESOURCES

This section describes the relationships between the 

hydrology, wetlands, and water quality in the basin in 

relation to the district’s WPAs. In addition, this section 

describes the water rights situation. 

Hydrology

As a whole, groundwater levels throughout most of 

the basin have little infl uence on wetlands. Artifi cial 

groundwater mounds occur near irrigation delivery 

canals and some wetlands do benefi t from this water 

source. Most of the basin has groundwater located 

more than 50 feet deep; some is 400 feet or deeper (see 

fi gure 23, groundwater map). One area east of the TriCounty canal (including Johnson WPA and Funk WPA) 

has groundwater levels that are less than 50 feet deep 

(Ekstein and Hygnstrom 1996), showing a rise of more 

than 50 feet from the period before development to 

now (see fi gure 23, groundwater map). Recent (2000– 

2006) groundwater levels have shown a decline from 
Chapter 3 — District Resources and Description 41

INSERT FIGURE 20

11X17 MAP

Figure 20. Land cover in the western portion of the Rainwater Basin.
42 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

INSERT FIGURE 21

11X17 MAP

Figure 21. Land cover in the northeastern portion of the Rainwater Basin.
Chapter 3 — District Resources and Description 43

INSERT FIGURE 22

11X17 MAP

Figure 22. Land cover in the southeastern portion of the Rainwater Basin.
BLANK BACK OF 

FIGURE 22
Chapter 3 — District Resources and Description 45

5–15 feet throughout most of the basin, with a few 

areas decreasing more than 25 feet (UNL 2006a).

Table 3. 2004 Land cover in the Rainwater Basin.

Land Cover Acres Percent

agriculture (crop) 3,114,972 79.9

Conservation Reserve Program 27,265 0.7

road 102,838 2.6

developed urban area 27,969 0.7

developed rural area 80,873 2.1

other developed area 3,041 0.1

woodland forest 48,325 1.3

range/grass/pasture 384,031 9.8

sand pit 84 0.0

lagoon 486 0.0

irrigation reuse pit 5,487 0.1

reservoir 3,887 0.1

stock pond 11,298 0.3

farmed wetland 7,424 0.2

early successional hydrophytes* 27,189 0.7

late-successional hydrophytes* 8,513 0.2

riparian canopy 45,253 1.2

riparian shrubland 245 0.0

river channel 249 0.0

sandbar 46 0.0

wet meadow 971 0.0

fl oodplain marsh 189 0.0

Total 3,900,635 100.0

(Source: Bishop and Reker 2006.)

*A hydrophyte is a plant that is adapted to grow in water.

The development of center-pivot irrigation in the last 

third of the century has placed great demand on the 

groundwater underlying the basin. Irrigation, 

compounded by extensive drought conditions, has 

caused the state legislature to pass legislation to begin 

to control the declines in groundwater. Eleven river 

basins within the state have been determined to be 

overappropriated (that is, permitted uses for the water 

in the stream or river exceeds the amount of water in 

the stream or river). Nebraska’s natural resource 

districts in those river basins are required to develop 

an integrated surface water and groundwater 

management plan for each river basin. Only the 

extreme western edge of the Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District lies within an 

overappropriated river basin. However, the natural 

resource districts within the basin have placed a 

moratorium on new wells and require stricter 

monitoring on water pumping. 

There are 71 registered groundwater wells scattered 

over 39 of the district’s WPAs. Only 26 WPAs have 

water-pumping capability and only 23 of these WPAs 

can pump water due to ownership issues relating to 

the “hydric footprint” (soil characteristics that indicate 

the existence of a wetland basin). These existing wells 

have the ability to deliver water to 2,230 wetland acres 

(approximately 20% of the total WPA wetland acres). 

Each well is metered and complies with state 

regulations for irrigation wells.

Groundwater recharge may occur in the basin and is 

being investigated in a 2-year research project. 

Research from playa lakes in Texas and New Mexico 

indicates that playas recharge groundwater by playa 

water percolating through the soils (referred to as 

“interstitial and macropore fl ow”) (Wood 2000).

Wetlands and Water Quality

Mapping done in the middle part of the last century 

indicated that the basin contained about 100,000 acres 

of wetland habitat in 4,000 basins (Schildman and 

Hurt 1984). However, modern soil surveys indicate 

two to three times as many wetlands existed (Gersib 

et al. 1990). Ducks Unlimited inventoried the hydric 

soils (those characterized by considerable moisture) 

and computed the historical number of wetlands to be

 204,436 acres (personal communication with Darin 

Blunk, Bismarck, ND, 2004). Figure 24 displays the 

historical wetlands in the basin.

In 2004, a spring habitat assessment by the Great 

Plains GIS offi ce found that only 1,693 basins (16% of 

the historical number) contained some wetland function 

in the form of retained water; the area totaled 27,839 

total acres. The public wetlands provided 45% of the 

waterfowl habitat but represented only 9% of the 

1,693 wetlands. Figure 25 displays the current wetlands 

in the basin.

Agricultural development has been responsible for 

most of the wetland loss (Schildman and Hurt 1984). 

Modifi cations within the watersheds and the wetlands 

have caused many wetlands to become more ephemeral 

in nature. Land leveling and the diversion of runoff to 

concentration pits and road ditches are the primary 

causes (Raines et al. 1990). The Great Plains GIS 

offi ce has identifi ed 11,859 concentration pits totaling 

7,506 acres within the basin. The pits’ water storage 

capacity is about two-thirds of the historical storage 

capacity of wetlands in the basin. There are 627 pits 

within individual WPA watersheds. Agricultural 

runoff has increased siltation and deposited related 

chemicals, which has resulted in poor water quality 

and partial fi lling of many wetlands (Gersib 1991, 

Frankforter 1996). 

In their natural state, the larger wetlands collected 

runoff from several square miles. If precipitation was 

adequate, the wetlands probably held water throughout 

most years. The most common wetlands are small—

covering less than 40 acres. The larger, less common 

wetlands reach nearly 1,000 acres.

On average, each WPA contains one large, seasonal or 

semipermanent wetland. Wetlands under district 

ownership total 11,117 acres. The ratio of wetland to 

upland is 1:1. The wetlands occupy about 16% of their 

watershed, with the wetland receiving its runoff water 

from agricultural lands. Waterfowl production area 

watersheds range in size from 153 to 15,852 acres, with 

an average size of 3,024 acres. 
Figure 23. Groundwater-level changes in Nebraska—predevelopment to spring 2006. 

(Source: University of Nebraska–Lincoln [UNL] 2006b.)
Figure 24. Historical wetlands in the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska.
Figure 25. Current wetlands in the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska.
Chapter 3 — District Resources and Description 49

Dikes, ditches, and water control structures exist at 

the larger WPAs. Divided ownership of a large wetland 

has caused the district to try to restore its portion of 

the wetland to the maximum level it can. For example, 

surface drains occur on 13 WPA wetlands and affect 

the hydrology to some degree. Most of the drains only 

function when the wetlands are more than 80% full. 

In the early 1900s, counties authorized drainage 

districts to facilitate wetland drainage. Each district 

was specifi c to one large wetland, with drainage being 

done with subsurface tile drains. Five WPAs—Miller’s 

Pond, Nelson, Springer, Troester, and Wilkins—have 

active tile drains. Tile drains as deep as 50 feet were 

tunneled though hills (Farrar 1982, 1996b). The age 

and structural integrity of the drains cause concern 

for their future. The district’s desire to abandon drains 

is in confl ict with other landowners owning a portion 

of the wetlands. 

This water control structure at Funk WPA (Phelps County)

helps direct water to three different units.

USFWS

Water Rights

The district does not have any surface water rights 

because no water from streams is diverted to wetlands. 

However, the district has water contracts with Central 

Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District for the 

delivery of 762 acre-feet annually to Funk WPA and 

Victor Lakes WPA. The water contracts transferred 

with the property when it was bought. The district 

has fi led to cancel the contracts because the timing 

and amount of water delivered does not benefi t 

waterfowl. These contracts are scheduled to end 

within 5 years.

There are no well-defi ned legal rights protecting 

surface water in wetlands. For example, where the 

Service owns half of a wetland, the neighboring 

landowner might dig a pit for irrigation re-use or for 

a more permanent source of livestock water or for 

hunting. The neighbor captures the fi rst runoff, and 

the Service-owned wetland will only receive runoff 

water after the neighbor’s pit is fi lled. If there is not 

enough runoff to overfi ll the pit, the Service-owned 

wetland will get little or no water, especially when 

most of the runoff comes from the neighboring land.

Nebraska’s water law requires irrigators to control 

irrigation runoff. Infractions are diffi cult to enforce 

and the irrigator often views the runoff fl owing onto 

public lands as a benefi t to wildlife. However, the law 

does allow natural runoff to be diverted or used by 

anyone within a closed watershed. A closed watershed 

does not drain into a perennial or permanent stream. 

In an open watershed, runoff from a normal rain 

event runs off the land into a stream. In the future, 

water may become valuable enough to cause landowners 

to capture and use runoff before it can get to the WPAs. 

Groundwater rights differ from surface water rights. 

Nebraska’s water law only requires that irrigation 

wells have a permit before being drilled. After well 

installation, the owner is allowed “reasonable and 

benefi cial use of the groundwater.” High water 

demands and drought conditions are expected to 

cause natural resource districts to place more 

restrictions on groundwater use. Currently, the 

natural resource districts have a moratorium on new 

wells.

AIR QUALITY

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards include 

maximum allowable pollution levels for particulate 

matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, 

and carbon dioxide. 

Particulate matter (PM) is a generic term for a broad 

class of chemically and physically diverse substances 

that exist as discrete particles (liquid droplets or 

solids) over a wide range of sizes. The smaller the size 

of the particle, the deeper it can penetrate into lung 

tissue. There are no standards for PM size in relation 

to prescribed fi re because prescribed fi res release 

many sizes of PM. However, there are regulations for 

the amount of different sizes of particles. The standards 

for PM2.5 (published in the Federal Register on 

October 17, 2006) set a 24-hour standard of 35 microns/

cubic meter, with an annual standard of 15 microns/

cubic meter.

The Rainwater Basin in general has good air quality, 

with no nearby manufacturing sites or major air 

pollution sources. Feedlots near the WPAs produce 

odors and can produce particulate matter. The state 

of Nebraska has minimal smoke management 

guidelines and regulations that pertain to 

agricultural burning and the prevention of smoke 

lingering on roadways and other sensitive areas. 

Windblown dirt from cropland and carbon from 

automobiles and diesel engines contributes to 

particulate matter.

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This section describes vegetation, wildlife, and their 

associated communities at the district. Species lists 

are found in appendix H (plants), appendix I 

(amphibians, reptiles, and mammals), and appendix J 

(birds).
50 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED VEGETATIVE

COMMUNITIES

The district manages 11,117 acres of hydrophytes 

(wetland plant species). During drawdown or drought, 

emergent vegetation dominates the wetlands. In wet 

years, submerged vegetation can occur. The 2004 

vegetation mapping established community names 

and determined the acreage for each vegetative zone 

(see table 4). These names or categories have been 

cross-referenced with the National Vegetation 

Classifi cation System (NVCS). Appendix K contains 

more explanation. 

Native wetland plants occur on 9,148 acres. Currently, 

cattail dominates 657 acres and river bulrush dominates 

1,145 acres. Moist-soil plants (5,014 acres) and wet 

meadow (1,718 acres) are the more prevalent 

associations. Reed canarygrass and reeds add an 

additional 1,965 acres of wetland habitat but are 

considered introduced species and are targeted for 

reduction (see table 4). Other invasive plants that 

occur in wetlands at the WPAs include Canada thistle, 

purple loosestrife, and “volunteer” deciduous trees. 

Table 4. Habitat types at the district in 2004.

Habitat Type Acres Percent

buildings 2.7 0.01

bull thistle 0.4 0.00

Canada thistle 67.1 0.29

cattail 656.6 2.83

leafy spurge 0.1 0.00

moist-soil plants 5,014.5 21.62

musk thistle 10.6 0.05

parking lot 0.3 0.00

reed species (Phragmites spp.) 1.1 0.00

reed canarygrass 1,963.8 8.47

road 3.2 0.01

bulrush species 1,145.0 4.94

trees 554.3 2.39

water or mud fl at 585.0 2.52

wet meadow 1,717.8 7.41

annual weeds 99.5 0.43

cropland 478.1 2.06

introduced forbs 4.4 0.02

invasive cool-season plants 3,192.9 13.77

native grassland 232.4 1.00

newly seeded 370.7 1.60

planted native cool-season plants 409.2 1.76

planted native warm-season plants 6,668.9 28.75

prairie dog town 14.9 0.06

Total 23,193.5 100.00

UPLAND AND ASSOCIATED VEGETATIVE

COMMUNITIES 

The district manages 12,044 acres of upland habitat at 

the WPAs. Vegetation includes native, cool- and warmseason grasses, forbs, planted and “volunteer” trees, 

and invasive plants. Native, warm-season grass stands 

are dominated by big bluestem, little bluestem, 

Indiangrass, switchgrass, Junegrass, needle and 

thread, and leadplant. Undesirable and invasive plant 

species include Canada thistle, musk thistle, leafy 

spurge, smooth brome, intermediate wheatgrass, and 

Kentucky bluegrass.

During the 1960s and ‘70s, the district planted native 

warm-season grass and dense nesting cover on many 

areas to promote waterfowl production. These plantings 

lacked vegetative diversity and frequently became 

dominated by one or two species, which reduced the 

grassland’s attractiveness to a variety of wildlife 

species. Most of these stands have been “interseeded” 

with a high-diversity (more than 80 species) 

grassland mix. 

Between 400 and 700 acres are farmed, usually with 

soybeans. Farming is done for 2–4 years to reduce the 

seed source of weed seeds in the soil and to prepare 

the land to reseed with native grasses and forbs. 

The WPAs have undesirable woody species—green 

ash, cottonwood, willow, eastern red cedar, and elm. 

These species are continually controlled or removed 

throughout the district. Native tree species such as 

buffaloberry, mulberry, chokecherry, and American 

plum occur and are not targeted for removal; however, 

some of these native trees may be inadvertently 

cleared during large-scale reduction treatment of 

undesirable trees.

SHRUB AND TREE PLANTINGS (SHELTERBELTS) 

Shelterbelts were planted along the boundaries of 

many of the district’s WPAs in the 1970s. The 

shelterbelts are mostly mature eastern red cedars 

that have shaded out native vegetation. Since that 

time, the district has realized that tree planting is not 

compatible with the purposes of the district. 

FIRE AND GRAZING HISTORY

Historically, grassland species in the northern Great 

Plains co-existed or adapted to various disturbance 

regimes such as fi re and large-scale grazing. 

Settlement and the expansion of agriculture have 

removed fi re and high-intensity, short-duration grazing 

from the basin. 

Fire

Whether lightning-induced or deliberately set by 

Native Americans, fi re has infl uenced the grassland 

ecosystem of the basin. A handful of fi re-tolerant 

shrubs such as chokecherry, American plum, and 

leadplant are present; other woody species that are 
Chapter 3 — District Resources and Description 51

killed by fi re are now restricted to areas protected 

from fi re. 

It is estimated that presettlement (historical) fi re 

frequency on mixed-grass prairie was 5 –7 years. 

These fi res sustained diverse and healthy grasslands. 

The district uses prescribed fi re to simulate the 

historical infl uence wildland fi res had on the plant 

communities. Most prescribed fi re treatments are 

completed during late winter through green-up in 

spring. Spring presents opportunities to complete 

prescribed burns when temperatures are low, humidity 

is high, and the fi re is easier to control. In addition, 

the timeframe coincides with other district 

management activities. During the last 10 years, 

district fi re treatments have increased from about 6 

prescribed burns to 25–35 burns each year, covering 

4,000–5,500 acres. District experience has shown that 

prescribed burning of residual wetland vegetation 

helps promote annual plants during drier years.

Grazing

Similar to fi re, grazing greatly infl uenced the structure 

and composition of grassland communities. Herbivores 

such as the bison, elk, deer, pronghorn, and blacktailed prairie dog maintained grassland vigor and 

created patches of varying stand height and density. 

Grazing infl uenced the soil productivity, plant diversity, 

animal diversity, and other processes to produce 

unique successional patterns in the landscape at 

multiple scales. 

Vegetation in grassland communities has developed 

growth strategies that allows for grazing at or near 

the ground without killing the plants. Some plant 

species contain bitter or toxic substances that cause 

animals to avoid grazing on them. Some species have 

spines that cause injury to a grazing animal’s mouth. 

Small mammals and deer “naturally” graze at the 

WPAs. Additional grazing by large herbivores such 

as cattle is needed, at times, to maintain wetland and 

upland vegetation. 

The district staff works with local cattle producers to 

provide grazing disturbance. Upland grazing is 

generally conducted during spring and early summer, 

and again in fall, to (1) stress exotic cool-season grasses 

or invasive plants, and (2) increase the vigor of native 

warm-season grasses and forbs. Wetland grazing occurs 

for much of the growing season to stress and 

physically injure invasive or aggressive wetland 

species such as cattail. This grazing strategy favors 

early successional species that provide wildlife food, 

create diverse habitats, and limit the expansion of 

invasive plants. 

WILDLIFE

This section describes the animals that are common 

at the WPAs, as well as those that are uncommon, 

threatened, or endangered.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Amphibians that occur in the basin include the plains 

spadefoot toad, Woodhouse’s toad, Great Plains toad, 

Blanchard’s cricket frog, western chorus frog, bullfrog, 

and plains leopard frog. Appendix I contains a list of 

amphibians and reptiles that occur in the basin.

Semipermanent wetlands provide habitat for the 

painted turtle, chorus frog, common gray treefrog, and 

snapping turtle. The ornate box turtle lives in grassland 

areas. The western garter snake, red-sided garter 

snake, bullsnake, and eastern yellowbelly racer are 

common. The western hog-nosed snake occurs less 

frequently and prefers dry sandy prairies. The two 

rare snakes that can occur are smooth green snake 

and red-bellied snake. 

The lesser earless lizard may occur in open sandy soil 

with little or sparse vegetation. The six-lined 

racerunner can be found in both lowland and upland 

sites. 

Mammals

The most common, larger mammals found at the WPAs 

are white-tailed deer, coyote, raccoon, striped skunk, 

eastern cottontail, American badger, and Virginia 

opossum. Mule deer have been seen at the western 

WPAs but are uncommon. During wet periods, 

muskrat and mink are common. The black-tailed 

prairie dog occurs at fi ve WPAs: McMurtrey, Prairie 

Dog, Atlanta, Hultine, and Clark. Appendix I contains 

a list of mammals that occur in the basin.

Muskrat

Dave Menke /USFWS

Less common mammals are red fox, black-tailed 

jackrabbit, woodchuck, Franklin’s ground squirrel, 

and eastern fox squirrel. Small mammals that are 

common include thirteen-lined ground squirrel, 

northern pocket gopher, plains pocket gopher, Ord’s 

kangaroo rat, meadow jumping mouse, meadow vole, 

northern grasshopper mouse, and white-footed mouse. 
52 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Birds

The Rainwater Basin is internationally known for its 

spectacular bird migrations—not only numbers of 

birds but also the large proportion of the continental 

population of prominent species. Thirty species of 

shorebirds use wetlands in the basin. Of the 329 

species of birds that have been observed in the basin 

(Sharpe et al. 2001), 96 species nest (Mullhoff 2001). 

Appendix J contains a list of birds that occur in the 

basin.

Common grassland species include grasshopper 

sparrow, dickcissel, western meadowlark, bobolink, 

northern bobwhite, ring-necked pheasant, fi eld 

sparrow, and northern harrier. The greater prairiechicken is becoming more common and is found at 

these WPAs: Harvard, Hultine, Funk, Quadhamer, 

Prairie Dog, Lindau, and Jensen.

The spring migration chronology usually starts with 

a buildup of Canada geese on the Platte River until 

the basin’s wetlands begin to thaw. Numbers of snow 

geese, 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 

green-winged teal. The numbers of other divers and 

puddle ducks usually peak during mid- to late-March. 

Cinnamon teal may be seen as far east as Harvard WPA 

in late March, but is more common west of Hastings.

Most shorebirds pass through the basin between 

April 15 and May 15. According to Jorgensen (2004), 

the most common, spring, shorebird migrants are the 

following species: 

black-bellied plover

American golden-plover

semipalmated plover

greater yellowlegs

lesser yellowlegs

willet

upland sandpiper

Hudsonian godwit

dunlin

short-billed dowitcher

long-billed dowitcher

Wilson’s snipe

Wilson’s phalarope

semipalmated sandpiper

least sandpiper

white-rumped sandpiper

Baird’s sandpiper

stilt sandpiper

buff-breasted sandpiper

Rainwater Basin has one of the largest concentrations 

of buff-breasted sandpiper during its spring migration. 

Common, late-summer migrants are the following: 

greater yellowlegs; lesser yellowlegs; Wilson’s snipe; 

long-billed dowitcher; and sandpipers (solitary, upland, 

least, semipalmated, stilt, and pectoral).

The peregrine falcon frequents wetlands during peak, 

shorebird migration periods. In contrast, the prairie 

falcon is most numerous in late January when horned 

lark and meadowlark are common. The merlin is 

primarily a winter visitor and a spring migrant 

(Johnsgard 1997). The burrowing owl nests at Prairie 

Dog WPA and Atlanta WPA. The short-eared owl is 

common at many of the larger WPAs during the winter 

months.

The Harris’s sparrow can be seen at the eastern WPAs 

that have brushy growth or American plum thickets.

Threatened and Endangered Species

In Nebraska, there are nine state- and federally listed 

endangered species, three state- and federally listed 

threatened species, fi ve state-listed-only endangered 

species, and nine state-listed-only threatened species 

(see table 5). 

The state- and federally endangered whooping crane 

and piping plover use wetlands at the basin. Forty-two 

percent of confi rmed observations of whooping crane 

in Nebraska have been at the basin’s wetlands (Richert 

1999). Most of these sightings occur the fi rst two weeks 

of April, or late October through mid-November. 

Piping plovers are rarely seen at the basin’s wetlands 

due to their size and the number of other shorebirds 

that use mud fl at habitats in late April through midMay (Johnsgard 1997). 

The Service removed the bald eagle from the 

endangered species list on August 8, 2007. However, 

the district and its partners will follow the bald eagle 

management guidelines recently published by the 

Service.

Greater Yellowlegs

 Donna Dewhurst/USFWS
Chapter 3 — District Resources and Description 53

Table 5. Nebraska’s state-listed and federally listed species.

Common Name Scientifi c Name State Status Federal Status

PLANTS—7 Species 

Hayden’s (blowout) penstemon Penstemon haydenii endangered endangered

Colorado butterfl y plant Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis endangered endangered

saltwort Salicornia rubra endangered —

western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara threatened threatened

Ute lady’s tresses Spiranthes diluvialis threatened threatened

ginseng Panax quinquefolium threatened —

small white lady’s slipper Cypripedium candidum threatened —

INSECTS—2 Species 

American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus endangered endangered

Salt Creek tiger beetle Cincindela nevadica lincolniana endangered —

REPTILES—1 Species

massasauga Sistrurus catenatus threatened —

FISH—7 Species 

pallid sturgeon Scaphirhyncus albus endangered endangered

Topeka shiner Notropis topeka endangered endangered

sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gelida endangered —

blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis endangered —

lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens threatened —

northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos threatened —

fi nescale dace Phoxinus neogaeus threatened —

BIRDS—5 Species

Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis endangered endangered

whooping crane Grus americana endangered endangered

interior least tern Sterna antillarum athalassos endangered endangered

piping plover Charadrius melodus threatened threatened

mountain plover Charadrius montanus threatened —

MAMMALS—4 Species 

black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes endangered endangered

swift fox Vulpes velox endangered —

river otter Lutra canadensis threatened —

southern fl ying squirrel Glaucomys volans threatened —
54 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archaeological and architectural remains representing 

12,000 years of human occupation are potentially 

located in the district. There has been very limited, 

formal, cultural resource survey done in the area. 

However, sites in the surrounding areas span the time 

from the earliest Paleo-Indian occupation through the 

rural and agricultural development of the early 

twentieth century. Nearby sites are located in a 

variety of geographical settings and exhibit a wide 

range of artifacts and features, but defi nite trends in 

site types and changes through time are apparent.

Archaeological evidence indicates that the earliest 

humans, called the 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 the 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.

There was a gradual but defi nite shift in the pattern 

of human use of the area beginning about 9,000 years 

ago. The changes were due to a combination of climatic 

fl uctuations and an increasing population, coupled with 

tremendous social change and technological innovation. 

This stage is referred to as the Archaic and lasted 

until about 2,000 years ago. Although the Archaic 

stage is better represented in the archaeological 

record than the preceding Paleo-Indian stage, the 

interpretation of the remains is diffi cult. 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 infl uenced by the woodland cultures to the 

east. This period, referred to as the Plains Woodland 

(1,000–2,000 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 is found along some of the waterways.

Beginning approximately 1,000 years ago until 

approximately 600 years ago, evidence of an 

increasingly sedentary population is found at many of 

the sites. This adaptation is referred to as the Central 

Plains village tradition and amplifi es many of the 

trends began during the Plains Woodland period. 

Small villages of earthen structures with associated 

agricultural fi elds were more common. The increased 

use of pottery in conjunction with the construction of 

food storage pits refl ect a population that was spending 

increasing amounts of time in one location.

Early postcontact occupation of the area (100–400 years 

ago) included the Pawnee and possibly the Arikara 

peoples. Their settlements tended to be large villages 

with extensive agricultural fi elds—often located along 

the major waterways. Bison hunting, fi shing, and EuroAmerican trade were also primary components of the 

economy. Beginning in the early 1700s, explorers 

began to make incursions into the area and by the mid1800s 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 today as 

the Rainwater Basin. 

3.4 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS

McMurtrey WPA, which lies adjacent to the Meat 

Animal Research Center, is closed to public use 

because no public access exists. The WPA contains 

1,067 acres (513 wetland acres). Land and vegetation 

management is the same as for other areas managed 

by the district. The WPA has two wells and water is 

pumped during dry years to provide a refuge area for 

migratory birds.

The district manages two additional areas that are 

located outside the basin. Schwisow WPA, in Saline 

County (within the district’s boundary), is 61 acres. 

Haseman WPA is located on the border of Cuming 

and Dodge counties, outside of the district’s boundary. 

The Farmers Home Administration transferred both 

properties to the district. Schwisow WPA is primarily 

riparian habitat along the Little Blue River with some 

oak-timbered upland. Haseman WPA covers 229.11 

acres, with 160 acres of riparian wetland along State 

Highway 275. Both areas are open to the public uses 

allowed at the district’s other WPAs. The Service is 

considering these WPAs for property exchange or 

divestiture for the following reasons: (1) the lands do 

not meet the purpose of the district, (2) the distance 

of the WPAs is so far from the district’s facilities that 

staff visits require overnight lodging, and (3) another 

agency may be able to more effi ciently manage the 

riparian habitats. 

3.5 VISITOR SERVICES 

The district has 60 of the 61 WPAs it manages open 

to the public; McMurtrey is the only WPA closed to 

all public use. The Improvement Act outlines wildlifedependent and wildlife-compatible uses. These uses 

include hunting, trapping, fi shing, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation. Hunting and wildlife observation 

are the most popular activities, accounting for 80% 

of annual visitation. (BBC Research and Consulting 

2006.) 

There are no offi cial visitation data available for the 

district. All visitation fi gures refl ect best available 

estimates by district staff. Visitation levels fl uctuate 

between 60,000 and 80,000 visitor days per year, 

depending on the water level and habitat quality. 

A typical breakdown of annual visitation by use is 

about 60% hunting and 40% wildlife viewing. (BBC 

Research and Consulting 2006.) 
Chapter 3 — District Resources and Description 55

All WPAs are marked with boundary signs. Proper 

signs identify four of the most prominent WPAs in the 

district. The other WPAs are unmarked and the only 

locator for these areas is a district brochure map that 

shows their locations within the district. 

HUNTING, TRAPPING, AND FISHING

Visitors generally hunt various waterfowl, pheasant, 

and deer at the district. The major hunting season for 

all species is October through December, although 

there is a light-goose-hunting season in the spring. 

(BBC Research and Consulting 2006.)

Hunting, trapping, and fi shing are allowed in accordance 

with state regulations. There is a viewing blind at Funk 

WPA, which is accessible to hunters with disabilities. 

The WPAs, other than McMurtrey, are open to fi shing. 

However, the physical characteristics and hydrologic 

conditions of the wetlands in the WPAs do not provide 

for a viable fi shery.

WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND PHOTOGRAPHY

The most popular wildlife-viewing season is during 

spring migration, which lasts from mid-February 

through April (BBC Research and Consulting 2006).

Every spring and fall, thousands of tourists and locals 

visit the district to observe and enjoy the semiannual 

migration of waterfowl and other birds from the 

southern United States and Mexico to Canada and viceversa. As a result, ornithologists, amateur birders, 

hunters, and the general population are witness to a 

remarkable natural phenomenon. (BBC Consulting 2006.)

There are two viewing blinds, one each at Funk WPA 

and Massie WPA. Funk WPA has approximately 2 miles 

of developed trail (constructed in 2006).

Visitors can view fl ocks of snow geese (seen in the distance) 

from this blind at Massie WPA (Clay County). An 

interpretive sign provides information.

USFWS

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

The district does not provide any public environmental 

education programs. It is only on rare occasion that 

district staff is available to conduct a wetland tour. 

One reason for that is the long distance between the 

offi ce and the WPAs. The district’s offi ce is located in 

an industrial park in Kearney, approximately 20 miles 

from its closest WPA. 

INTERPRETATION

There are information kiosks at four WPAs: Mallard 

Haven, Massie, Funk, and Harvard. Plans for 2007 

include additional interpretive signs.

3.6 PARTNERSHIPS

The district is engaged in various partnerships that 

allow the district to pursue the purposes for the 

district. While these partnerships help the district to 

conserve habitats, the district will benefi t from 

expansion in the number and variety of partnerships. 

Current formal and informal partnerships include 

those with groups such as the RWBJV, Ducks 

Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and The Nature 

Conservancy.

3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

A socioeconomic study prepared by BBC Consulting 

(2006) is the source for information in this section. 

The Rainwater Basin supports hunting, trapping, 

photography, wildlife observation, and environmental 

education for the public. These recreational activities 

attract both visitors and dollars from outside the 17-

county basin that benefi ts the local communities. 

Ancillary visitor activity—such as spending on food, 

gasoline, and overnight lodging in the local area—

provides local businesses with supplemental income 

and increases the local tax base. District management 

decisions regarding public access, expansion of services, 

and other district-related operations may affect 

recreational traffi c and thus visitor expenditure levels.

POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS

Nebraska’s population in 2006 was estimated at 

1,768,331, a 3.4% increase from 2000. The reported 

population for the basin in 1999 was 201,245. Rural 

emigration is a concern with 89% of Nebraska’s cities 

having fewer than 3,000 people. Fifty-three of the 93 

counties have reported declining populations between 

1990 and 2000. The three major cities of Grand Island, 

Kearney, and Hastings contribute to 48% of basin’s 

2004 population (U.S. Census Bureau 2000–2007). 

These cities’ populations totaled 157,662 in 2004 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000–2007).

The 17 counties encompassing the basin are currently 

neither losing nor gaining population. In comparison, 

the population of Nebraska has increased at a steady 

pace since 1980 (see fi gure 26). While the population 

retention of the 17 counties is better than many rural 

Midwestern counties, the gradual loss of residents 

undoubtedly affects the socioeconomic conditions of 

the area. 
56 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Figure 26. Populations of Nebraska and the 17 counties in the Rainwater Basin. 

 (Note: 2004, 2009, and 2014 populations are estimates. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PCensus, 2006.)

B B

B

B

B

B

J J J J J J 1980 Census 1990 Census 2000 Census 2004 Estimate 2009 Projection 2014 Projection

0

200,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

Total Population

B Nebraska

J 17-county District

Nebraska

17-county basin

Figure 27 illustrates the aging population within the 

17 counties. In 1980, about 26% of the population was 

between 18 and 34 years old, while that same 

demographic constituted only 22% of the population 

in 2004. The median age for the 17 counties has 

increased by about 6 years since 1980, a trend that is 

found throughout the state.

EMPLOYMENT

The civilian workforce for the 17 counties within the 

basin has increased by about 250 workers per year 

since 2000, and it is predicted to increase by another 

1,000 workers to 107,980 by the year 2009. Estimates 

from the year 2004 calculated the unemployment rate 

for the 17 counties within the basin at 3.4%. This is on 

par with the state of Nebraska, whose 2004 estimate 

calculated the statewide unemployment rate at 3.5%. 

Agricultural row cropping is the main economic 

enterprise throughout the basin. Eighty percent of the 

land base is cropland. Major crops are corn and 

soybeans. Other crops that may occur include wheat, 

milo, sorghum, and alfalfa. Ranching is a secondary 

enterprise with 10% of the area being grassland. The 

number of farms per county in the basin range from 

345 in Gosper County to 974 in Seward County. The 

average-sized farm in the basin in 1987 was 506 acres.

While agriculture has been the traditional mainstay 

of the state’s economy, new industries such as health 

care and services now employ an increasing portion 

of the state’s residents. In the 17 counties within the 

basin, the total number of farms has decreased at a 

notable rate. In 1964, the 17 counties supported over 

16,500 farms. That number of farms declined to just 

over 9,200 in 2002 (see fi gure 28). 

BUSINESS CONCENTRATION

The 17 counties within the basin employ a large number 

of white-collar workers, with over 13% of its total 

workforce in the offi ce and administrative support 

occupations. However, the basin also contains a large 

manufacturing sector, with 12% of its total workforce 

employed in production occupations. Other highranking occupations include sales and related 

occupations, education training and library occupations, 

and food preparation. It should be noted that only 6% 

of the entire workforce is employed in the agricultural 

industry.

RAINWATER BASIN WETLAND MANAGEMENT

DISTRICT CURRENT CONDITIONS

About 60% of district visitors live in the 17 counties 

within the basin. Most destination visitors come for 

the weekend and stay 1–2 nights, usually in Grand 

Island, Kearney, Hastings, or York. 

Visitor Spending

Off-site spending by visitors helps support local lodging 

and retail establishments in surrounding towns. 

Approximately 40% of the district’s visitor days, or 

about 30,000 visitor days, are from nonlocal visitors. 

If 50% of these guests spend the night locally in 

commercial lodging or campgrounds—and, on average, 

nonlocal visitors spend $60 per day for lodging, food, 
Chapter 3 — District Resources and Description 57

1980 Census1990 Census2000 Census

2004 Estimate

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% of Total Population

28%

26%

30%

16%

26%

22%

33%

19%

25%

19%

37%

19%

25%

22%

37%

16%

0 to 17

18 to 34

35 to 64

65 and 

over

Figure 27. Age composition within the 17 counties in the Rainwater Basin. 

 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PCensus, 2006.) 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

# of Farms

1964

1969

1974

1978

1982

1987

1992

1997

Figure 28. Farm count for the 17 counties in the Rainwater Basin. 2002

 (Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.) 
58 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

and supplies—the district’s activity spurs about 

$900,000 of new annual spending in the regional 

economy. 

Other Economic Considerations

The purchase of additional farmland for conversion 

into wildlife habitat by the district is sometimes 

problematic for local governments. National legislation 

requires the district to receive permission from the 

governor before purchasing additional lands. The 

governor, in turn, often seeks the advice of local county 

commissioners. In the past, county commissioners 

have expressed concerns about the conversion of local 

farmland to wildlife habitat because the land is retired 

from agricultural production and local purchases for 

fertilizer, grain, and farming supplies are reduced. 

Conversion from agricultural designation to public 

ownership reduces tax revenue. 

While county commissioners may not always wholeheartedly support public land acquisition, there has 

never been a formal denial of land acquisition by the 

Service on record. Local authorities generally balance 

the modest loss of business activity against the prospect 

of additional visitors and the business activity 

associated with wildlife viewing and hunting. A citizen’s 

broader right to sell his or her personal property to 

whomever they choose is also a consideration.

To address the issue of lost tax revenues, Congress 

passed the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (revised in 

1964), which mandated 3⁄4 of 1% of the current appraised 

value of land bought for use by the Service be paid to 

the counties in which the land was bought, a form of 

payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). These payments are 

designed to help the counties recoup lost tax revenue. 

The Service fi nances these reimbursements with 

revenues generated from permits sold and services 

rendered on Service-controlled land nationwide (such 

as a permit sold for the right to drill for oil on a refuge 

in Texas). Although land values of refuges have risen 

over time, the annual revenues used to reimburse the 

counties have not kept pace. As a result, the participants 

currently only receive approximately 40% of the money 

they are owed annually by the Service. Increased 

tourist spending can mitigate some of this shortfall. 

3.8 OPERATIONS

The Service achieves the purposes of the district 

through effective use of available funding, staff, 

partners, and facilities. 

STAFF AND FUNDING

Spring migration is the primary season of aggressive 

habitat management, which includes extensive waterpumping operations and shoreline habitat enhancement. 

Off-season management activities include (1) wetland 

restoration efforts on public and private agricultural 

lands, and (2) vegetation management using a 

combination of prescribed fi re, grazing, haying, resting, 

and grassland reseeding. (BBC Research and 

Consulting 2006.) 

Current federal employment at the district is 12 

permanent full-time employees and 3 seasonal 

employees. (BBC Research and Consulting 2006.) 

The district had a $1.8 million budget in fi scal year 2005. 

The district does not collect any fees for recreational 

use of its facilities and does not directly generate any 

basic local revenue. (BBC Research and Consulting 

2006.) 

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Refuge law enforcement offi cers are charged with 

resource protection and provision of visitor and 

employee safety on Service lands. Resource protection 

includes protection of wildlife, fi sh, and plants, as well 

as cultural resources. Common activities include 

(1) investigating illegal hunting, arson, theft, vandalism, 

dumping, and drug-related activities, and (2) answering 

questions and assisting visitors in the fi eld.

The district has two dual-function refuge offi cers who 

spend 25% of their time dealing primarily with resource 

protection activities.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

The district’s facilities include the leased headquarters/

shop building with an adjacent, fenced, equipment 

storage area. These facilities do not meet safety 

standards for personnel and do not provide adequate 

space to welcome visitors. The headquarters facility is 

diffi cult for visitors to fi nd because it is located in an 

industrial area in the city of Kearney, which is outside 

the district’s boundary.

The district owns and maintains two old farm sheds 

that serve as storage facilities. Two, surplus, mobile 

trailer homes provide volunteer housing. The district 

maintains 135 parking lots at the WPAs. The parking 

areas are fenced (0.2 acre) and contain native vegetation. 

Each fall, these parking areas are mowed to reduce 

the risk of wildland fi re.
4 Management Direction 

The management direction for the Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District is to manage the 

district’s resources in a holistic manner. There will 

be a focus on cooperation, coordination, and better 

exchange of information. An expanded district staff 

will work with partners to improve the waterfowl 

production areas across the landscape of the 

Rainwater Basin. The emphasis will be on adaptive 

management—as more information is known, 

management will be changed to improve effects on 

the environment. 

Through integrated restoration, the district will work 

to restore ecological processes where appropriate 

and achieve habitat conditions that require reduced 

management over time. This will be accomplished 

while recognizing (1) the role of the district in the 

overall landscape, and (2) the capabilities of its staff 

and resources to complete the proposed management 

actions during the next 15 years. A high priority 

will be to monitor the effects of habitat management 

practices and to use research results to direct 

restoration and management. Another priority will 

be to increase opportunities for wildlife-dependent, 

compatible public use and visitor services.

Mallard Pair.

USFWS

4.1 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, 

AND RATIONALE

The goals and objectives in this section are the 

guidance that will enable the district to provide for 

its purposes and reach its vision. Strategies to carry 

out the objectives, to reach the district’s goals, will 

provide for resource needs and public use.

Q A goal is a descriptive, broad statement of 

desired future conditions that conveys a purpose, 

but does not defi ne measurable units.

Q An objective is a concise statement of what is to 

be achieved, how much is to be achieved, when 

and where it is to be achieved, and who is 

responsible to achieve it.

Q Strategies are ways to achieve an objective.

Q Rationale for the objectives includes background 

information, assumptions, and technical details 

used to formulate the objective. The rationale 

provides context to enhance comprehension and 

facilitate future evaluations.

NOTE: The overall guidance for use of prescribed fi re 

and management of wildland fi re is in the description 

of the fi re management program (appendix L). 

WETLAND GOAL

Restore, enhance, and maintain the hydrology and 

early successional vegetation conditions essential to 

the conservation of migratory birds.

Wetland Objective A

Within 15 years, restore, enhance, and manage the 

wetland plant composition to achieve a high level of 

preferred moist-soil and wet-meadow vegetation. 

Table 6 shows the shift in plant associations.

Wetland Objective B

During the next 15 years, manage wetland 

vegetation to create a vegetative mix of species 

of various heights, with spring (February–April) 

habitat conditions having 20–50% of the wetland 

vegetation between 6 and 12 inches tall.
60 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Table 6. Current, preferred, and achievable plant composition at WPA wetlands.* 

Current Preferred Achievable

Associations Composition % Composition % Composition %

Nonnative undesirable vegetation 19 <1 5−10

Native undesirable vegetation 18 10 10−20

Moist-soil community 44 65 55−65

Wet meadow 17 25 20

Trees 2 0 <1% in wetlands

Total 100

(Source: Drahota et al. 2004.)

*Although the percentages are the collective total for all the federal wetlands, it is the district’s intent that each wetland has a percent 

composition that falls close to the preferred composition. For example, no one WPA would have most of the trees that exist on district 

lands. During wet years, open-water areas reduce the acreage of moist soil, native, and nonnative communities; but the percentages 

should stay within the achievable composition for most communities during normal years.

Wetland Objective C

During the next 15 years, improve water-pumping 

capabilities on wetlands that currently have waterpumping facilities; develop water-pumping facilities 

for 800–1,000 additional wetland acres; and increase 

pumping potential to allow more opportunities 

to supplement water during the fall and spring 

migration periods. 

Wetland Objective D

Within 15 years, acquire from willing sellers fee-title 

ownership on 10 adjoining portions of wetlands to 

complete ownership to allow for better management 

of individual wetlands. 

Wetland Objective E

Within 15 years, acquire permanent protection from 

willing sellers on 15 additional wetlands within the 

basin.

Wetland Objective F

During the next 15 years, develop baseline 

information on water quality and quantity of infl owing water into WPAs for use in developing 

desired conditions or standards.

Wetland Objective G

Through the duration of the CCP, apply prescribed 

grazing at a rate, timing, and intensity that is 

appropriate for management needs. 

Wetland Strategies

1. Annually apply grazing, fi re, disking, haying and 

shredding on 35% of the wetland acres to create 

a vegetative mix of various heights. 

2. Develop annual grazing plans that identify the 

objective and grazing method that will be used 

at each WPA.

3. Seasonally monitor and review the effects of 

grazing to determine if the objective is being met 

or if modifi cations need to be made. 

4. Construct and maintain adequate boundary fences 

at 80% of the WPAs. 

5. Develop livestock watering facilities for at least 

10 WPAs to allow intense grazing treatments to 

reduce invasive plants and establish native plants. 

6. Conduct 1,000–3,500 acres of prescribed burning 

in wetland habitats each year to encourage and 

promote the plant composition described in 

table 6.

7. Continue using IPM strategies to reduce noxious 

weeds and other invasive plants. Besides burning 

and grazing, use other management practices 

including disking, haying, fl ooding, and herbicide 

application.

8. Work with partners to increase supplemental 

water-pumping capacity at WPA wetlands, with 

a desired water depth of 2–18 inches during 

migration (October–April). 

9. Replace antiquated water-pumping facilities with 

modern, energy-effi cient systems.

Gleason WPA (Kearney County).

USFWS
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 61

10. Coordinate with partners to install additional 

water-pumping facilities and to improve water 

delivery in a manner that optimizes water 

distribution at WPAs within existing high-use 

areas, wetland complexes, and areas currently 

without water-pumping capability.

11. Delineate all WPA watersheds to determine 

actual hydrologic effects on each wetland, and 

assess the cost and feasibility of restoring each 

wetland.

12. Implement hydrologic improvements on 10 WPAs 

using one or more of the following practices: 

install sediment control structures; replace 

culverts; install water control structures; remove 

trees; fi ll water concentration pits; fi ll drainage 

ditches and drains; remove sediment and fi ll 

material; and construct dikes or berms. 

13. Work with partners and private landowners 

within WPA watersheds to increase water 

quantity and quality received by implementing 

120 (8 per year) of the following practices 

(RWBJV 1994):

— Fill water concentration pits

— Replace culverts

— Install buffer areas

— Restore grassland

— Install sediment control structures

— Install “Variable Flow Tailwater Recovery 

Systems”

— Remove restrictions to natural runoff

— Remove sediment and fi ll material

— Fill drainage ditches and drains

14. Continue to encourage the drainage districts and 

county governments to abandon existing wetland 

drainage tiles associated with WPAs.

15. Work with partners to develop a monitoring 

program to document quality of water entering 

the wetlands after storm events.

16. Close a WPA to hunting when threatened or 

endangered species (such as whooping crane) 

occur at the WPA.

Wetland Rationale

Each spring, for a short period, a signifi cant portion 

of the North American waterfowl population uses 

habitat of the Rainwater Basin. However, compared 

with historical conditions, the extent, distribution, 

and quality of remaining wetlands in the basin is 

reduced. These changes in habitat conditions likely 

have various adverse effects related to the life cycle 

requirements of waterfowl. Wetland vegetation and 

watershed management need to be done at optimal 

levels to meet the needs of all types of waterbirds. To 

increase the benefi t of the basin’s wetlands for spring 

migration, it is critical that a diversity of fl ooded 

and moist-soil wetland habitat is made available 

throughout the basin to provide more, natural wetland 

foods and reduce the risk of disease (Samuel et al. 2005, 

Smith et al. 1989, RWBJV 1993). The basin has a 

history of large mortality associated with avian 

cholera during spring migration (Gordon 1989, Samuel 

1995, Samuel et al. 2005, Smith and Higgins 1990). 

It is the historical nature of the basin’s wetlands to 

provide resting and feeding habitats for prenesting 

survival and overall annual waterfowl production 

(Gersib et al. 1989a, LaGrange and Dinsmore 1988). 

Moist soil plants such as smartweed and barnyard 

grass are typical early successional plants that respond

quickly to disturbed areas, especially on bare soil 

(Fredrickson and Taylor 1982). Baldassarre and Bolen

(2006) stated that the feeding ecology of waterfowl is 

a complex interaction of nutritional needs, resource 

availability, habitat quality, and waterfowl behavior. 

Feeding ecology is further complicated during winter 

(November–April) when waterfowl are migrating, 

preparing for production, and facing increased energy

demands due to environmental stresses (Kendeigh 

et al. 1977, Dubovsky and Kaminski 1994, Ballard et 

al. 2004). Although Nebraska has an abundance of 

agricultural fi elds, waste grains lack many nutrients 

found in natural foods found in wetlands (Baldassarre 

et al. 1983, Loesch and Kaminski 1989, Krapu et al. 

2004, Baldassarre and Bolen 2006).

Reid et al. (1989) found that native or naturally 

occurring wetland plant seeds are necessary in a duck’s 

diet to offset the protein and mineral defi ciencies in 

waste grain. Ankney and MacInnes (1978), Krapu 

(1981), and Ankney and Afton (1988) showed a positive 

relationship between lipid reserves and clutch size for 

various waterfowl species. Failure to meet the 

nutritional need of waterfowl during winter and spring 

migration may result in reduced recruitment (the 

addition of members to the overall population). This is 

often called the “lipid limitation hypothesis” (Ankney 

and Afton 1988) and is supported by Ankney and 

Alisauskas (1991) as a limiting factor. Lipids are an 

effi cient form of energy storage and are more effi ciently 

catabolized than protein, causing Petrie and Rogers 

(2004) to conclude that these advantages alone 

explain why most studies conclude that ducks rely 

heavily on stored lipids during reproduction. 

Heitmeyer and Fredrickson (1981), later confi rmed by 

Kaminski and Gluesing (1987), fi rst suggested a 

relationship between winter habitat conditions and 

duck recruitment in the following breeding season. 

Raveling and Heitmeyer (1989) linked increases in 

northern pintail populations to winter habitat conditions. 

LaGrange and Dinsmore (1988) went further to say 

those stopover areas close to breeding areas were 

crucial habitats for female mallards to acquire adequate 

nutrients. Many other authors have suggested the 

correlation between wintering and spring migration 

energetics and their implications during nesting 

(Krapu 1981, Rohwer 1984, Dubovsky and Kaminski 

1994). This suggests that the basin’s wetland habitat is 

important for prenesting survival and overall annual 

waterfowl production (Gersib et al. 1989a).
62 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Food production in wetlands can be very impressive 

in terms of the number of seeds produced and the 

varieties. In a 1951 study by J.R. Singleton of the east 

Texas gulf coast, researchers found that salt marsh 

bulrush produced an average of 300 pounds (dry 

weight) of seeds per acre per year, and each acre 

produced about 5 tons of plant corms. Reinecke and 

others (1989) concluded that seeds provide the greatest 

biomass of food in moist-soil habitats, but tubers 

(Taylor and Smith 2005), roots, rhizomes, stems, leaves, 

and invertebrates can be important (Jorde 1981, Krapu 

1981, Heitmeyer 1988, LaGrange 1985, Ballard et al. 

2004, Bowyer et al. 2005). Anderson and Smith (1999) 

found managed moist soil wetlands had four to fi ve 

times more ducks than unmanaged wetlands. 

Reinecke et al. (1989) and Laubhan and Fredrickson 

(1992) synthesized seed production into metabolizable 

energy associated with moist soil plants, as well as 

daily energy requirements, allowing an estimate of 

duck use-days (DUDs) based on a wetland’s vegetative 

community and seed production potential. Metabolized 

energy (ME) is described as a measure of available 

energy to waterfowl from their diet (Miller and 

Reinecke 1984). Kendeigh et al. (1977) describes ME 

as the total daily energy intake compared to the total 

food biomass required to supply energy needed for any 

individual or population. Wetland bioenergetics can 

be described as the relationship between seed biomass 

and gross energy value. The more energy a wetland 

can provide, the more bioenergetically effi cient it is. 

The average energy of moist-soil seeds is 2.5 kilocalories 

per gram (kcal/g). Ducks do not exploit moist-soil seeds 

in fl ooded environments when the seed mass is less 

than 45.1 pounds per acre (50 kilograms per hectare 

[kg/ha]). The minimum threshold for energy 

requirements of a 2.4-pound (1.1-kg) duck is 292 kcal/day 

(Reinecke et al. 1989). Prince (1979) and Reinecke and 

others (1989) proposed the calculation of DUDs as a 

desirable means for evaluating waterfowl habitat 

management. Haukos and Smith (1993) described 

DUDs as the number of ducks that could survive on 

a wetland for 1 day based on native seed availability. 

Cox and Davis (2002) and Fredrickson and Reid (1988) 

suggested that it takes larger ducks 2–3 days to 

replenish endogenous (produced within the body) fat 

reserves at 480 kcal/day in good habitat. For example, 

a mallard weighing 2.4 pounds (1.1 kg) would need 3 

days of feeding, at a rate of 480 kcal/day, to replenish 

fat reserves following an 8-hour fl ight (fi gure 29, 

duck-use days).

Using Reinecke’s energetics fi gures, a minimally 

suitable hectare of moist soil would yield 50,600 kcal/

acre (equation 1) or 173 DUDs/acre (equation 2).

 Equation 1: 45.1 lbs/acre (50kg/ha) × 2.5 kcal/g 

 = 50,600 kcal/acre (125,000 kcal/ha)

 Equation 2: 125,000 kcal/ha = 173 DUDs/acre 

 292 kcal/day (428 DUDs/ha) 

As energy requirements go up (such as with weather, 

disturbance, and stress), the number of DUDs a 

wetland can provide would go down (Fredrickson and 

Reid 1988). The DUDs would also vary within 

vegetative stands since metabolizable energy can vary

from 1.0 to 3.5 kcal/g, depending on what plant species 

are present (Sherfy and Kirkpatrick 1998). During 

periods when ducks need 480 kcal/day (see fi gure 30), 

only 260 DUDs/ha would be provided in the above 

example. 

Based on recent fi ndings from J. Drahota (personal 

communication) and Rabbe et al. (2004), the basin’s 

wetlands that are dominated by moist-soil plant 

communities support about 1,779 DUDs/ha and wet 

meadow communities support 575 DUDs/ha (see 

fi gure 29). Conversely, undesirable stands such as 

cattail (115 DUDs/ha), reed canarygrass (102 DUDs/ha), 

and bulrush (Scirpus spp.) (23 DUDs/ha) plant 

associations cannot support endogenous or exogenous 

(produced outside the body) nutrient storage during 

periods of high energy demands. Drahota (2006) found 

that wetland management during a dry year increased 

seed production and the moist-soil plant association 

provided 8,739 DUDs/ha, compared to 3,250 DUDs/ha 

in a mixed moist-soil/river bulrush stand. 

Estimation of duck use-days will improve when 

estimates of metabolized energy are available for all 

moist-soil plants that occur in the basin and when 

average seed production per stand can be estimated 

for a variety of environmental and management 

infl uences. 

Native, undesirable plants such as cattail and river 

bulrush replace the high food-producing plants if a 

wetland is left undisturbed for a period of years (Reid 

et al. 1989). The result is a decline in seed production 

but an increasing amount of shelter and visual barriers 

for birds. Woody plants such as elm, cottonwood, and 

green ash can quickly invade a drying mud fl at to 

convert a grassed wetland into a wooded wetland. 

Nonnative undesirables such as reed canarygrass and 

Canada thistle spread quickly and can dominate or 

quickly turn a wetland into a monotypic stand of 

vegetation that is less benefi cial and unattractive to 

waterfowl or other waterbirds (Lavergne and Molofsky 

2004). Wet meadow species provide a food source but at 

a lesser degree (Reinecke et al. 1989, Rabbe et al. 2004).

The shallowness of the wetlands and their frequent 

fl ooding and drying make the basin’s wetlands suitable 

for moist-soil plants. Moist-soil plants such as 

smartweed and barnyard grass are the typical early 

successional plants that respond quickly to disturbance, 

especially after a disturbance leaves bare mineral soil 

(Fredrickson and Taylor 1982). 

Experience at the WPAs has shown that grazing, fi re, 

haying, disking, and shredding create an interspersion 

of plant species. Annual district reports beginning in 

1964 document the change in plant communities with 

various management practices used at the WPAs over 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 63

Figure 29. Rainwater Basin duck use-days. 

 (Calculated using metabolizable energy numbers found in Sherfy and Kirkpatrick [1998] and 

 Checkett et al. [2002]; frequency of occurrence results were then used for each vegetation association as 

 described in Drahota et al. [2004] to extrapolate DUDs for each community based on a daily energy 

 requirement of 292 kcal/day.)

Duck Use-Days/ha. for different 

Vegetation Associations

102.25 22.52 115.84

574.455

1779.27

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Moist Soil

Reed Canary

Wet Meadow

Scirpus

Cattail

RWB Vegetation Associations

DUDs

Basin Vegetation Associations

Figure 30. Time required for replenishment of endogenous fat reserves 

 following an 8-hour migratory move.

 (For a duck weighing 2.5 pounds. Taken from Fredrickson and Reid [1988].)
64 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

the years. Grazing and fi re were absent from the WPAs 

between 1966 and the late 1970s. The reports describe 

increasing problems with (1) smooth brome on uplands, 

(2) reed canarygrass and trees in wetlands, 

(3) vegetation-choked wetlands, and (4) noxious weed 

(primarily musk thistle) spread. In the late 1970s, the 

herbicide Rodeo® was aerially applied to cattail-choked 

wetlands to create open water. After about 3 years of 

use, it was discontinued because the cost per acre was 

too high. In the early 1980s, fi re and grazing were used 

but at a conservative rate, with haying being the 

primary management practice. The annual reports 

indicate that wetland and upland improvement occurred 

but not enough to change plant composition. In the 

mid-1990s, the district increased grazing on wetlands 

dominated with reed canarygrass, river bulrush, and 

cattail. The district found that a combination of fi re 

followed by intense grazing was the most effective 

management tool for changing monotypic stands of 

vegetation into a diverse stand of seed-producing, 

moist-soil plants. 

Grazing has been an integral part of the prairie wetland 

ecosystem. Most techniques of rangeland management 

were developed with the idea of increasing and 

sustaining livestock production by decreasing the 

inherent variability associated with grazing 

(Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001). However, this is not the 

approach used at the WPAs. Grazing treatments are 

used as a vegetation management tool. Wetland 

grazing can reduce perennial vegetation, increase 

diversity, and decrease stand density to result in more 

wildlife use, especially by migratory waterfowl.

Animal stocking rates of two to four animals per acre 

in river bulrush and cattail marshes reduced the 

vegetative cover by 25% (USFWS 1983–93). During 

drought and low-water periods, livestock trampling 

compacts the soil, which improves the pooling of 

water, and tills the surface to allow seed germination. 

High-intensity grazing also stimulates regrowth 

(Ermacoff 1968). Cattle should be removed from 

wetlands before August 10 to allow annual plants to 

produce seed heads (USFWS 1983–93) if moist soil 

plant communities are desired. Later grazing and 

multiyear grazing may be needed to reduce the 

frequency of occurrence of undesirable species before 

moist-soil plants can grow.

Livestock grazing generates revenue for use to offset 

the costs of fencing and control of invasive plants at 

the WPAs. In addition, grazing provides economic 

benefi ts to the local community.

Anderson and Smith (1998) suggest intense moist-soil 

management for existing wetlands should increase 

overall nutrition available to waterfowl and other 

wildlife. Noted moist-soil expert, Leigh Fredrickson 

(St. Louis, MO), confi rmed this (personal 

communication). Fredrickson stated that increasing 

disturbance will increase seed production, reduce 

perennials, and reduce the woody component. The 

number of years after a disturbance occurs will also 

decrease the amount of seed produced. Millet seed 

production postdisturbance was about 50% less after 

3 years and an additional 25% less after 4 years. 

Undesirable species like cattail and reed (Phragmites

spp.) have a tremendous amount of belowground 

biomass—cattail is about 2.5 times more than 

aboveground biomass and reed (Phragmites spp.) is 

about 6.5 times more. The belowground biomass has 

to be reduced or eliminated to allow desirable species 

that are in the seed bank an opportunity to grow.

Effective migratory bird habitat must include a 

complex of habitat types that provide important food 

and cover resources (Reid et al. 1989). Historically 

within this area, wildland fi re and grazing by freeroaming bison and elk herds kept wetland vegetation 

in an early successional stage. Today, natural 

disturbances have to be replaced with planned 

management including fi re, grazing, haying, fl ooding, 

and disking. The frequency and intensity of their use 

depends on management objectives and various 

factors including vegetative composition, saturation 

of soils, and hydrologic patterns within the wetland. 

Weather events usually determine the timing of 

treatments. However, if production of moist-soil plant 

seed is desirable during the same growing season, 

treatments should be completed before August 10. 

Kantrud (2006) noted that further studies in wetland 

management need to occur due to the unknown 

effects of (1) fi re suppression, (2) differential grazing 

regimes, (3) cultivation, (4) mowing, (5) changes in 

hydrology, (6) siltation, and (7) pesticides. 

Kantrud (2006), after reviewing numerous waterfowl 

studies, surmised that reductions in height and density 

of tall emergent plants generally increases breeding 

duck use. In the basin, migratory habitat has been the 

focus after researchers found that the basin produces 

relatively few waterfowl annually (Evans et al. 1967). 

Kantrud also stated that most waterfowl worldwide 

favor feeding in shallow water areas where tall 

emergent plants do not block sunlight. 

A variety of bird species depends on plants of various 

heights. Height variations create structure within 

habitats that can accommodate greater diversity and 

higher use by wildlife. Research done by Brennan 

(2006) et al. have shown that ideal waterfowl habitat, 

especially for ducks, is an interspersion of tall and 

short vegetation to create a hemi-marsh condition 

when spring runoff pools in wetlands. Reinecke et al. 

(1989) found moist-soil impoundments provide an 

interspersion of open water and vegetation; a diversity 

of water depths was attractive to various waterfowl 

species. 

Solid stands of tall vegetation that are greater than 

12 inches above the water make areas less attractive 

to waterfowl (Reid et al. 1989). They may provide an 

abundance of food, but much of it remains unused. 

Scattered areas of shorter wetland plants or bare, 

open water increases bird use of an area. Pederson 

et al. (1989) stated that, during winter, freedom from 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 65

White-rumped sandpipers at Johnson WPA (Phelps County).

Jeff Drahota/USFWS

harassment by predators, availability of food, and 

thermally protected habitats may be critical. This 

suggests that this type of habitat in early spring, 

migratory, staging areas could be similarly critical 

(Jorde et al. 1984). Brennan (2006) found the percent 

of emergent vegetation to be a positive indicator for 

waterbirds—intermediate levels of vegetation in 

wetlands have the highest species richness. The lower 

end of the range (6 inches) is provided as a guideline; 

however, most researchers have found that short 

vegetation increases the attractiveness to a wider 

range of species and provides broader benefi ts for 

these species (such as feeding, loafi ng, and breeding).

Wetlands that contain the mix of tall and short 

vegetation require less runoff or pumped water before

the wetland becomes suitable for waterfowl use. 

Gersib et al. (1989a) noted the temporary and seasonal 

wetlands provided the highest feeding values to 

waterfowl due to seasonal fl uctuations in hydrology 

that directly affect vegetative growth and seed 

production. In drier years, this becomes a critical 

factor in determining how much migration habitat 

will be available. The open-water areas will attract 

the birds and provide them better access to the higher 

food plants in the fl ooded, emergent-plant areas of 

these wetlands.

Although the intent is to have most of the wetlands 

fall within the category described in the objectives, a 

few wetlands (<20%) need to be managed for the two 

extremes: (1) those that have taller, denser stands of 

vegetation (not attractive to geese), and (2) those that 

are open or sparsely vegetated (attractive to geese and 

shorebirds). White and James (1978) found water 

depth and the presence of emergent vegetation to be 

important factors associated with niche partitioning 

for wintering waterfowl species. The open-water 

wetlands will benefi t snow geese use (Traylor 2000, 

Drahota 2000) and provide hunting opportunities. Past 

use of this strategy in the basin has shown separation 

of snow geese populations from other species of 

waterfowl. This strategy is expected to reduce the 

potential or extent of avian cholera. Conversely, 

wetlands with dense stands of emergent vegetation 

provide winter habitat for resident species such as 

pheasant (Baxter and Wolfe 1973, Gabbert et al. 1999, 

Bakker 2003).

Although vegetation management is critical, water 

management is equally so. The Great Plains GIS 

offi ce assessed the Rainwater Basin’s wetland 

conditions in spring 2004 (a year drier than normal) 

and found that only 14% of the original, historical 

basins provided any habitat. Of that amount, 91% 

were in private ownership but only provided 55% of 

the available waterfowl habitat. Those in public 

ownership represented only 9% and provided 45% of 

the available waterfowl habitat. The low number of 

wetlands within the basin makes it critical that as 

many as possible contain optimal habitat for all types 

of waterbirds, and it is important that these water 

areas be distributed throughout the basin. Rainfall is 

not consistent throughout the area, therefore, multiple 
66 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

complexes throughout the basin guarantee that there 

will be some water areas where water pools when 

scattered rainfall occurs. As birds concentrate, they 

quickly deplete their food supply and expose the entire 

population to disease outbreaks. 

Pumping water in the fall can provide habitat for early 

waterfowl migrants and increase invertebrate 

abundance in the fall. In addition, maintenance of this 

water through winter into spring will substantially 

increase invertebrate abundance (Anderson and 

Smith 2000). Increased invertebrate numbers will 

benefi t female ducks that molt the fi rst week of March 

(Jorde 1981) during feather replacement. During dry 

years, northern pintails with higher body mass 

survived better in wintering areas (Fleskes et al. 2002, 

Moon and Haukos 2006), suggesting that quality 

wetland habitats along the fall migration route play a 

role in winter survival. Overall, increases in suitable 

habitat in the breeding, migration, and wintering areas 

potentially correspond with mallard populations 

(Heitmeyer and Fredrickson 1981, Bergan and Smith 

1993). Fall water pumping can benefi t other species 

such as whooping crane (Richert 1999). 

New submersible pump at Harvard WPA (Clay County).

USFWS

Pumping water can be a major expense especially when 

precipitation is limited or when needed to accomplish 

moist-soil management objectives (Anderson and 

Smith 1999). Water pumping should deliver 2–18 inches 

of water to accommodate foraging needs of shorebirds, 

waterfowl, and other waterbirds (Laubhan et al. 2006). 

Since 2000, water-pumping costs in the district have 

averaged about $14 per acre. Moist-soil management 

practices that use fall water pumping can swell clay 

soil, reduce soil cracking, and slow infi ltration rates 

(Anderson and Smith 1999).

The district has 71 wells scattered over 36 WPAs. Only 

35 of these have water-pumping capability and occur 

at 23 WPAs. Those 35 wells have the ability to deliver 

water to 2,230 wetland acres (approximately 20% of 

the total). Each year, WPA and WMA wetlands with 

pumped water provide core, migrational habitat on a 

consistent basis. In drier years, these wetland areas 

need to have water pumped to them to keep the birds 

from concentrating on a few small reservoirs and the 

Platte River. Jorde et al. (1983) found that mallards in 

Nebraska would move to riverine habitat during 

winter or cold periods. Therefore, pumping water into 

wetlands can contribute to the overall distribution of 

waterfowl within south-central Nebraska.

To increase the benefi t of wetlands in the basin for 

spring migration, it is critical that water be available 

throughout the basin (RWBJV 1993). Since a 

signifi cant portion of the entire North American 

waterfowl population passes through the region, it is 

even more critical that those populations are not placed 

at risk. Krapu et al. (1995) advises that waterfowl 

managers in the basin provide favorable conditions 

by maintaining well-distributed, wetland-roosting 

habitat. Supplementing water will increase available 

habitat, provide more natural foods, and reduce risk 

associated with crowding (Samuel et al. 2005, Smith 

et al. 1989). 

Each water-pumping facility has a different level of 

effi ciency (for example, the cost per acre-foot of water, 

gallons per minute, and level of maintenance). Less 

effi cient wells can only be used when wet conditions 

exist and only when a little supplemental water is 

needed to reach a desirable habitat condition. 

Submersible, electrical wells require minimal 

maintenance and can increase the fl exibility of the 

district’s water management. For example, they can 

be turned on during the harshest part of the winter 

without fear of freezing or damage, allowing more 

basins to be ready in the event of an early spring 

migration. Submersibles also reduce the use of highcost diesel and natural gas.

Pumping water to wetlands is dependent on various 

factors (RWBJV 1993). The cost of water pumping and 

the limited funds makes it necessary to focus water 

pumping to areas where it will have the most effect 

for the least cost. For some areas, the capability of the 

well is less than needed to fl ood the entire wetland. 

After a portion of the wetland is fl ooded, percolation 

and evaporation begins to equal the pumping capacity 

of the well. 

Thirty-eight WPAs need further acquisition to complete 

ownership of the wetlands. Partially owned wetlands 

are not being managed to their full potential. 

Management treatments such as pumping water, 

prescribed fi re, and grazing are limited or absent. 

Often the adjoining landowner has different uses or 

interests in their portion of a wetland. Acquisition 

will greatly expand the number of fully functional 

wetlands in Service ownership.

The RWBJV has used GIS technology to identify 

wetlands having the highest migratory bird value 

(Bishop 2005). That value is based on biological needs 

of waterfowl and shorebirds and the geophysical 

condition of the wetlands. This information will help 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 67

the district and its partners target the right wetlands 

for the right conservation strategy—be it acquisition 

or enhancement of privately owned wetlands (Bishop 

2005). 

Natural wetland function occurs when there is a 

balance in the hydrology between the size of the 

wetland and the watershed. Alterations within the 

wetland and watershed change that hydrologic balance. 

This, in turn, changes the plant composition—often 

to a less preferred habitat community (Gersib et al. 

1989a). In fact, Smith (1990) stated that hydrology is 

the most likely factor infl uencing plant community 

composition.

Much of what occurs in a WPA wetland is dependent 

on what happens hydrologically within its watershed. 

Working with private landowners not only addresses 

the district’s hydrology objectives, but also assists 

landowners in meeting their needs. Pits within a 

watershed capture water before it reaches the wetland. 

That water is confi ned to a deep, smaller, artifi cial 

wetland that has little value for migratory waterfowl 

(Gersib et al. 1989a). The Great Plains GIS offi ce 

inventoried water concentration pits in the district. 

There were 11,859 pits found, with 627 pits existing 

within WPA watersheds. Roads and culverts restrict 

or impound the natural runoff so one portion of the 

wetland becomes fl ooded while other portions receive 

a smaller portion—again affecting the vegetation and 

amount of surface water in the wetland. Restoration 

of watershed hydrology should increase the frequency, 

size, and duration of pooled water.

The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

assists the district by working with private landowners 

within the watersheds. Their work adheres to the 

practices outlined in the “Rainwater Basin Joint 

Venture Private Lands Program” criteria (appendix M). 

Using funds and expertise from various partners since 

2000, 89 pits have been fi lled on privately owned 

property.

It is unknown what the full extent is and effects are of 

agricultural runoff in the basin’s wetlands. Agricultural 

runoff can carry fertilizers, pesticides, and heavy silt 

loads to wetlands at the WPAs. Agricultural chemical 

exposure at WPAs can have two types of effects:

Q direct effects—for example, toxic pesticides that 

affect nontarget species

Q indirect effects—for example, habitat quality 

that is degraded from nutrient enrichment 

(Dewey 1986)

Gordon et al. (1997) reported some district wetlands 

had concentrations of mercury, copper, lead, iron, and 

zinc that exceeded water quality criteria developed by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

and concluded that high pesticide and fertilizer use in 

the area was a likely cause. In addition, herbicides 

(atrazine for corn and glyphosate for soybean acres) 

and insecticides (organophosphates and pyrethroids) 

were applied to 93% and 36% of all corn acreages, 

respectively (NASS 2004). Many of these chemicals 

appear to cause serious degeneration and malformation 

of organs in wildlife, and could interfere with the 

normal function of hormonal systems in humans.

In aquatic systems, atrazine exposure can adversely 

affect periphyton (organisms attached to submerged 

plants that provide food for invertebrates) (Nelson et 

al. 1999), invertebrates (Dewey 1986, Dodson et al. 

1999), and amphibians (Larson et al. 1998, Hayes et al. 

2002). For example, Dewey (1986) found atrazine 

concentrations of 20 micrograms per liter decreased 

adult insect emergence by 90% and insect diversity by 

60%. Leopard frogs in York County, Nebraska, had 

gonadal dysgenesis (degeneration of the reproductive 

organs) in 28% of the sample and testicular oocytes 

(abnormally occurring female eggs in a male) were 

found in a single male (Hayes et al. 2002). Insecticides 

frequently recommended for corn pests in Nebraska 

include the third-generation pyrethroid permethrin 

and fourth-generation pyrethroids including bifenthyrin, 

tefl uthrin, gama cyhalothrin, lambda cyhalothrin, 

cyfl uthrin, zeta cypermethrin, and esfenvalerate 

(UNL 2004). Recent studies by Go et al. (1999) and 

Kim et al. (2004) indicate that certain pyrethroid 

insecticides, including permethrin, may function as 

endocrine modulators in both wildlife and humans. 

The Natural Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

reported 95% and 76% of the district planted to corn 

receive applications of nitrogen and phosphorus, 

respectively (NASS 2004). In addition, nutrient-rich 

runoff can cause wetland eutrophication 

(overenrichment of a waterbody with nutrients, 

resulting in excessive growth of organisms and 

depletion of oxygen) and may result in decreased 

foraging potential for waterfowl (Gaiser and Lang 1998). 

Soil erosion and sedimentation, especially during high 

fl ows, reduces the storage capacity of wetlands and 

forces some of the surface water to fl ood nonwetland 

areas (increasing percolation rates) (Stutheit et al. 

2004). The buildup of sediment also allows lesspreferred perennial plants to survive during the 

hotter, drier summer period (Reid et al. 1989). 

Sedimentation of only 0.2 inch (0.5 cm) caused a 92% 

reduction in seedling emergence of hydrophytic plants 

and a 99.7% reduction in total invertebrate emergence 

in northern prairie wetlands (Gleason et al. 2003). 

Roads, terraces, culverts, and tile drains also reduce, 

delay, or redirect runoff from wetlands. 

Livestock runoff is of particular concern for at least 

22 WPAs that have concentrated animal-feeding 

operations (CAFO) within their watersheds (USFWS 

2006). Mindy Meade-Vohland (personal communication) 

suggested more confi nement might exist as enclosures 

that were not detectable using remote sensing 

techniques. Of these CAFOs, fi ve are major operations 

(larger than 40 acres in size) and are within the 

watersheds of Theesen, Jones, Cottonwood, McMurtrey, 

Funk, Sinninger, and Prairie Dog waterfowl production 

areas. 
68 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Runoff into the WPAs from CAFOs may directly 

affect benefi cial uses (as defi ned by the Nebraska 

Department of Environmental Quality [NDEQ]) such 

as aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural and municipal 

water supply, and aesthetics. A recent court case 

involved feedlot discharge into Cottonwood WPA. In 

that case, the owner was charged with illegal discharge 

that violated aesthetic standards and exceeded 

ammonia standards. Nebraska’s water quality standard 

(NDEQ 2006) states the following: 

To be aesthetically acceptable, wetlands 

shall be free from human-induced pollution 

which causes: (1) noxious odors; (2) fl oating, 

suspended, colloidal, or settleable materials 

that produce objectionable fi lms, colors, 

turbidity, or deposits; and (3) the occurrence of 

undesirable or nuisance aquatic life (e.g., algal 

blooms). Wetlands shall also be free of junk, 

refuse, and discarded dead animals.

In recent years, aesthetic violations are suspected to 

occur annually in association with four of the fi ve WPAs 

with CAFOs (Funk, Theesen, Cottonwood, and 

McMurtrey WPAs). The biological integrity of 

wetlands is assumed to diminish when aesthetic 

violations occur.

Pollutants associated with CAFOs include pesticides, 

trace elements, salts, nutrients, cyanobacteria toxins, 

bacterial pathogens, hormones, and antibiotics (USEPA 

2003). Studies indicate that heavy metals associated 

with livestock medicine may be above acceptable 

levels for waterfowl and other waterbirds. Schwarz 

et al. (2004) found water and sediments from a swine 

CAFO served as a source for high concentrations of 

nutrients, antibiotics, hormones, bacterial pathogens, 

and elemental contaminants (such as selenium, nickel, 

copper, and zinc). During large storms, contaminant 

fl ows can come from fl ooded wastewater treatment 

ponds and from runoff on fi elds fertilized with animal 

waste (Sharpley et al. 1999).

The district is working with Service contaminant 

specialists by providing staff time to collect data as 

outlined in a research proposal entitled “FY07 

Environmental Contaminants Program On-refuge 

Investigations.” This work will provide baseline 

information about water quality coming into and at 

the WPAs. Results from this study will defi ne what 

kind of water quality tests should be conducted by the 

district. 

The “Wetland Management District Ditch and Tile 

Maintenance Policy” in appendix N will apply to 

existing ditches or tiles that come onto the WPAs 

where there is no reservation of a drainage easement 

in the deed.

UPLAND GOAL

Reestablish and maintain native grassland communities 

of the Rainwater Basin.

Upland Objective A

Within 15 years, restore, enhance, and manage the 

native grassland plant composition to achieve a high 

level of diversity. The accumulated, current, and 

desired percentages for Service lands are shown in 

table 7. t

Upland Objective B

Through the duration of the CCP T , apply prescribed 

grazing at a rate, timing, and intensity that is g

appropriate for management needs. a

Upland Strategies

1. Use the “Rapid Assessment Vegetation 

Monitoring System” to document existing 

vegetation occurring with each plant community 

or association. 

2. Harvest seed from the WPAs or other local, 

privately owned grasslands. Collect more than 

80 species of grasses, forbs, and sedges from seed 

harvesting. 

3. Use the seed mixes to reestablish native 

grassland at WPAs containing cropland or areas 

dominated by nonnative grasses. 

4. Conduct 200–3,000 acres of prescribed burning 

in upland habitats each year to encourage and 

promote the plant composition shown in table 7.

5. Continue use of IPM strategies to reduce noxious 

weeds and other invasive plants.

6. Continue to remove trees to create an open 

grassland.

7. Develop annual grazing plans that identify the 

objective and grazing method that will be used 

at each WPA.

8. Seasonally monitor and review the effects of 

grazing and prescribed fi res to determine if the 

objective is being met or if modifi cations need to 

be made. 

9. Construct and maintain adequate boundary fences 

at 80% of the WPAs. 

10. Develop livestock watering facilities for at least 

10 WPAs to allow intense grazing treatments to 

reduce invasive plants and establish native plants. 

Upland Rationale

Grassland plays a vital role in buffering runoff and in 

providing feeding, nesting, and shelter habitat for 

migrating and residential wildlife. Within the 

Rainwater Basin, agriculture and roads have replaced 

the tall-grass prairie in the eastern portion and the 

mid-grass prairie in the western portion of the basin. 

Steinauer and Rolfsmeier (2003) reported that more 

than 97% of tall-grass prairie that once covered the 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 69

Table 7. Current, preferred, and achievable plant composition at WPA uplands. 

Current Preferred Achievable

Associations Composition % Composition % Composition %

Native grassland 64 >95 >80

Invasive grassland 27 <5 <19

Cropland 4 0 0

Trees* 5 <1 <1

Total 100

(Source: Drahota et al. 2004.)

*Although the percentages are the collective total for all the WPA uplands, it is the district’s intent that each upland unit has a percent 

composition that falls close to the preferred composition. For example, no single WPA would have more than 1% of the trees that exist 

on district lands. The native grassland association includes all grasses and forbs that historically occurred within the basin (refer to 

table 4 and appendix H for a list of plant associations that are recorded during transect sampling). Transect data collection determines 

the frequency of occurrence for all vegetative associations that occur in the stand. Dominant plant communities are determined by data 

analysis. Plant associations that have the most occurrences within the sample area are considered dominant.

eastern one-third of Nebraska has been lost. Over the 

entire basin, less than 10% of the original grassland 

remains (personal communication with Ryan Reker, 

RWBJV, Grand Island, NE). Nearly all of the remaining 

grassland has been signifi cantly altered by land use 

that promotes invasive cool-season plants such as 

smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass.

Grassland birds have experienced dramatic declines 

because of the loss of grasslands. The North American 

Breeding Bird Survey reports that 70% of the 29 

species characteristic of North American prairies 

have experienced a decline in population. A portion of 

that decline is attributed to the small acreage of 

remaining grassland parcels and the increasing number 

of trees found within the grasslands (Bakker 2003). 

Cowbird parasitism is especially concerning (Bakker 

2003) in the district due to planted shelterbelts and 

scattered volunteer trees that are numerous at the WPAs. 

It is within the directive of the Service to manage 

areas according to their historical conditions for the 

benefi t of multiple species of plants, animals, and 

insects (see habitat requirements in table 8). Because 

of the small amount of remaining native grassland, it 

is important to manage the uplands in this manner.

For most of the grassland bird species, the percentage 

of woody cover should be less than 5% of the plant 

community (McKee et al. 1998). Prairie chickens prefer 

less than 1% woody vegetation for lek sites (Merrill 

et al. 1999). McCarthy et al. (1997) found woody cover 

encroachment directly decreased adequate nesting 

cover for prairie chickens. 

Burger et al. (1994) found prairie fragmentation 

directly affected predation rates on bobwhite quail, 

noting that nests found more than 60 meters from 

woody cover were three times more successful than 

those found less than 60 meters from woody cover. 

Therefore, tree and shrub removal is critically 

important for those WPAs that have a high percentage 

of trees or shrubs. Bakker (2000) recommends 

removing woodland habitat within or adjacent to 

grassland and acquiring or preserving grassland 

patches large enough (300–600 acres) to attract the 

majority of grassland-dependent species. 

Native grassland responds better to natural ecological 

processes (including drought), which provides a more 

stable habitat to meet wildlife needs. It provides for a 

greater diversity of plants and animals.

USFWS

District staff use prescribed fi re as a tool to manage 

uplands at the waterfowl production areas.

USFWS
70 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Since the district reseeds areas with a high-diversity 

(80+ species), grassland seed mix, it is assumed that 

the species diversity of the established grassland will 

be greater than 50 species. High-diversity grassland 

is important for most of the native-grassland bird 

species (Bakker 2000). Native grassland management 

will benefi t all of the species listed in table 9 (Bakker 

2003); however, each has specifi c habitat requirements 

that are not the same. Grassland management 

treatments should provide a variety of grassland 

conditions that include short-vegetation grazed or 

hayed areas, medium-height vegetation with low 

thatch, tall vegetation with low thatch, and grass 

stands with heavy thatch (Bakker 2003, Sporrong 

2001). High-diversity grassland can also be an 

important line of defense against invasive plant species. 

Kennedy et al. (2002) found that restoration and 

revegetation practices that included high-diversity 

seeding proved effective for exclusion of undesirable 

invaders. 

Table 8. Habitat requirements for selected grassland birds.

Species

Vegetation 

Height

(inches)

Litter

(inches)

Patch Size

(acres)

Distance from Trees

(feet)

bobolink 10–18 1.3–3.6 100 150

burrowing owl <5 minimal 10 >328

dickcissel 8–40 0.6 25 prevent woody

encroachment

long-billed curlew <12 minimal 104 avoids areas with highdensity trees and shrubs

grasshopper sparrow 8–24 not available 20 164

sharp-tailed grouse

short-eared owl

 6–16

12–24

use areas that are idle

for several years

2–8 years of

residual cover

150

183

>164

not available

upland sandpiper 1–24 1.0 250 328

(Sources: Grant 1965, Wiens 1973, Clark 1975, Duebbert and Lokemeon 1977, Redmond et al. 1981, Johnsgard 1983, Prose 1987, Renken 

and Dinsmore 1987, Messmer 1990, Haug et al. 1993, Herkert et al. 1993, Pampush and Anthony 1993, Helzer 1996, Hughes 1996, Madden 

1996, Connelly et al. 1998, Clayton and Schmutz 1999, Helzer and Jelinski 1999, Dugger and Dugger 2002, and Laubhan et al. 2005.)

Table 9. Key grassland species found in the Rainwater Basin.

Grassland-nesting 

Species

Partners in Flight 

(score is greater 

than 20 points)

USFWS 

Focal Species 

(2005)

BCC Bird 

Conservation 

Region 19* (2002)

Nebraska 

Tier 1 Species

northern harrier  —  —

Swainson’s hawk  —  —

upland sandpiper   — 

burrowing owl —  — 

short-eared owl —  — 

sedge wren —  — —

lark bunting  — — —

grasshopper sparrow   — —

dickcissel  — — —

bobolink —  — —

eastern meadowlark —  — —

(Source: Sharpe et al. 2001.)

*Designated by Birds of Conservation Concern, 2002; region 19 comprises central Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 71

District staff mix 31,000 pounds of seed harvested during 

the summer. More than 100 species were collected.

USFWS

Game birds also benefi t from managed native grassland 

stands. Bakker (2003) noted that pheasant researchers 

found nesting success to increase with increasing 

distance from trees. Nesting success was lower in and 

near shelterbelts in South Dakota and Colorado 

(Trautman et al. 1959, Olson and Flake 1975, Snyder 

1984). Heavy predation rates near shelterbelts, road 

ditches, and fencerows prevented successful nesting 

(Trautman et al. 1959). Gabbert et al. (1999) found that 

predation was signifi cantly higher than severe winter 

mortality—suggesting that thermal cover provided by 

native grass stands will provide the highest winter 

survival rates for pheasants. Managing natural areas 

for grassland bird species involves providing the 

nesting habitat requirements and food resources 

essential for production and survival. These 

requirements include large, treeless patches that 

contain diverse vegetative structure (Renken and 

Dinsmore 1987, Johnson and Temple 1990, Volkert 1992, 

Helzer and Jelinski 1999, DeJong 2001, Herkert et al. 

2003, Davis 2004, Fritcher et al. 2004). Management 

practices that favor grassland-nesting birds will 

benefi t the grassland species of management concern 

shown in table 9 (Sharpe et al. 2001). 

Grazing has been an integral part of the prairie 

ecosystem. Most techniques of rangeland management 

were developed with the idea of increasing and 

sustaining livestock production by decreasing the 

inherent variability associated with grazing (Fuhlendorf 

and Engle 2001). However, this is not the approach 

used at the WPAs. Grazing treatments are used as a 

vegetation management tool. Proper upland grazing 

can reduce undesirable species, maintain healthy 

grasslands, and promote heterogeneity (Fuhlendorf 

and Engle 2001). 

Livestock grazing generates revenue for use to offset 

the costs of fencing and control of invasive plants at the 

WPAs. In addition, grazing provides economic benefi ts 

to the local community.

The district has mapped the uplands at the WPAs but 

not to the level of detail or accuracy needed to assess 

the status or future changes in uplands over a period 

of years. Currently, the district is not staffed to 

accurately measure the effect management tools, such 

as fi re and grazing, is having on grassland communities. 

Measurements from vegetation transects will provide 

that information. Measurements taken during 

vegetation transect sampling will provide enough 

information to adequately address upland-monitoring 

needs. Without this data, it will be diffi cult to 

determine whether upland objectives have been met.

Greater Prairie-chicken.

USFWS

WATER RIGHTS GOAL

Develop partnerships to protect the natural hydrology 

of WPA watersheds and ensure the necessary water 

rights are in place to protect future use of both ground 

and surface water. 

Water Rights Objective A

Within 2 years of CCP approval, complete an inventory 

of existing district-owned water rights and monitor 

changing natural resource district regulations 

associated with groundwater use. 

Water Rights Objective B

Through the duration of the CCP, work closely with 

partners to obtain all necessary water rights and to 

protect the integrity and hydrology of district wetlands. 

Water Rights Strategies

1. Work with water rights experts at the regional 

offi ce to develop and perform a formal review 

and determination of the legal status of existing 

water rights.
72 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

2. Work with partners to identify threats and 

possible solutions to the loss of surface water 

runoff to district wetlands.

Water Rights Rationale

State law entitles groundwater users to “reasonable 

and benefi cial use of the groundwater.” The increase 

of groundwater irrigation and drought conditions has 

caused a decline in groundwater throughout the 

district. The Nebraska Ground Water Management and 

Protection Act, amended in 2004, requires the Nebraska 

Department of Natural Resources to annually 

determine which river basins, subbasins, or reaches 

are considered fully appropriated. Fully appropriated 

basins will cause the respective natural resource 

district to (1) place a moratorium on new surface and 

groundwater uses, and (2) develop an integrated 

surface water and groundwater management plan. 

Only WPAs located in the Tri-Basin Natural Resource 

District are in fully or overappropriated basins. The 

Upper Big Blue Natural Resource District established 

the goal of holding its average groundwater level above 

the 1978 level. If the average groundwater level drops 

below a level 3 feet above the 1978 average level, 

groundwater users will be required to report annual 

groundwater use. 

It is uncertain what future actions will be taken by 

the natural resource districts or what effect those 

actions may have on future use of groundwater to 

supplement wetlands. With water becoming scarcer, 

there is concern that neighboring lands will capture 

natural runoff before it reaches the district’s wetlands. 

It is not clear if any legislation or regulations are in 

place to protect public wetlands from being dried up 

by diversion of surface water runoff. 

INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES GOAL

Reduce and control the spread of nondesirable, 

nonnative plant species within wetland and upland 

habitats for the benefi t of native plant and wildlife 

communities.

Invasive Plant Species Objective A

Throughout the life of the CCP, continue to monitor 

and control invasive plant species in wetland and 

upland habitats by using the appropriate treatment 

for each situation.

Invasive Plant Species Strategies

1. Annually map and document treatment of 

nonpreferred plant communities throughout the 

district.

2. Develop an integrated pest management approach 

that will include chemical, biological (such as 

insects), mechanical, and physical (such as fi re, 

grazing) treatments. 

3. Treat known stands of state-identifi ed noxious 

weeds. Other species that degrade wetland and 

upland habitats will be second priority.

4. Establish healthy stands of preferred, native 

plants that can compete with invasive plants.

5. Develop partnerships that will fi nd new ways 

to effi ciently control invasive plant species by 

combining resources of all partners. 

Invasive Plant Species Rationale

Invasive, nonnative wetland and upland plants are a 

serious problem affecting thousands of acres of wildlife 

habitat along the Platte River and within the basin. 

Nonnative plants such as Canada thistle and reed 

canarygrass can outcompete with native fl ora—

creating a monotypic stands if left undisturbed. Native 

species, such as cattail and river bulrush can do the 

same if left unmanaged. 

In 2004 7,596 acres of undesirable plant communities 

(includes noxious weeds, cattail, reed canarygrass, 

bulrush, and invasive cool-season grasses) were 

mapped at the WPAs. 

Vegetation management is key to providing optimal 

wetland and upland habitat for both migratory and 

resident wildlife. Healthy native plant communities 

are better equipped to withstand weed invasions 

(Kennedy et al. 2002). Long-term control requires the 

cooperation of public and private land managers 

throughout the basin. A joint effort by all partners is 

needed to conduct research on fi nding the best 

management practices to control or eliminate 

individual species.

WILDLIFE DISEASES GOAL

Work with partners to prevent or control the outbreak 

and spread of wildlife-borne diseases to protect human 

and migratory bird populations. 

Wildlife Diseases Objective A

Through the duration of the CCP, continue to monitor 

WPAs for outbreaks of various wildlife diseases, 

especially avian cholera and infl uenza.

Wildlife Diseases Objective B

Respond in an appropriate manner to contain any 

disease outbreak that occurs. 

Wildlife Diseases Strategies

1. Work closely with the NGPC and other state and 

federal specialists to monitor and control all 

wildlife diseases at the WPAs.

2. Maintain an up-to-date disease contingency plan. 

3. Follow federal and state guidelines for monitoring 

and control of wildlife diseases.

4. Use partnerships to increase awareness and 

preparedness for the monitoring, detection, and 

control of wildlife diseases. 

5. Where possible, use management practices such 

as supplemental water pumping to reduce the 

spread or effect of disease.
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 73

Wildlife Diseases Rationale

Avian cholera was fi rst documented in the district in 

1975. It has occurred in the district every year since. 

The level of outbreak fl uctuates from year to year. 

Cholera mortality in 1998 was estimated at more than 

100,000 birds, primarily snow geese, while the mortality

in the past 5 years has been in the low hundreds. It is 

not known for certainty what environmental or 

physiological factors trigger an outbreak, but it appears 

to be associated with physiologically stressed birds 

that are concentrated on a limited number of wetlands 

(Smith and Higgins 1990). Avian cholera epizootics 

(diseases affecting large numbers of animals) were 

found to be inversely related to densities of 

semipermanent wetland basins. Avian cholera is 

widely distributed and poses a constant threat to 

migratory bird populations, especially where dense 

concentrations of birds occur.

There is a growing concern that an avian infl uenza 

pandemic could occur within the next few years. What 

remains unknown is the possibility that other diseases 

could reach outbreak proportions while birds are 

concentrated in the district. The best approach to take 

is to be vigilant and prepared. 

RESEARCH AND SCIENCE GOAL

Encourage and support research that substantially 

contributes to the understanding and management of 

the Rainwater Basin wetland and grassland ecosystem.

Research Objective A

Through the duration of the CCP, support research 

that furthers the understanding of the ecology, 

wildlife populations, socioeconomics, and hydrology 

within the Rainwater Basin.

Research and Science Strategies

1. Complete baseline research that determines the 

watershed boundaries for the WPAs and the 

hydrologic events that affect wetlands. Determine 

what practices should be done to restore wetland 

hydrology. 

2. Conduct an in-depth inventory of invertebrates, 

amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals 

within the district.

3. Determine the baseline composition for each 

upland plant community using the “Rapid 

Assessment Vegetation Monitoring System.” 

4. Determine the socioeconomic effects associated 

with Service-owned lands: (1) property tax 

defi ciencies, (2) increased local revenue generated 

from recreational opportunities provided by 

public access and uses, and (3) aesthetic values.

5. Conduct an invertebrate study to assess the 

effects of land and water management actions.

6. Identify the energetics contribution of the district 

to waterfowl and other migratory birds.

7. Conduct or support contaminant research 

associated with nonpoint and point source 

pollution.

8. Work with partners to continue to identify needed 

research, obtain funding, and support the research 

process.

9. Conduct district data collection to support ongoing 

research.

Research and Science Rationale

Smith (1998) identifi ed the current district research 

needs. The district is working with the RWBJV to 

accomplish those needs; however, district staff and 

resources are limited. Research done within the 

district can be divided into six categories: wetland 

inventory, bird inventory, habitat evaluation, bird 

biology, avian cholera, and hydrology. 

Most of the early research involved wetland inventory. 

The fi rst research assessed Clay and Fillmore counties 

(USFWS 1954). In the late 1960s, a more detailed 

inventory used soil data and fi eld surveys to assess 

how many large wetlands had been drained or degraded 

(McMurtrey et al. 1972). Schildman and Hurt (1984) 

updated the McMurtrey data and found that 10% of 

the original wetlands and 22% of the original wetland 

acres remained. Raines et al. (1990) included small 

wetlands in their review; they noted the declining 

number of basins and that the frequency of degraded 

wetlands was increasing. An assessment in 2004 of 

land use in the district reported 14% of the historical 

wetlands have some wetland function (pooled water). 

Of that amount, 49% are classifi ed as cropped wetlands 

(Bishop and Reker 2006). 

Bird inventories started in the late 1950s with the 

Service counting numbers of greater white-fronted 

geese. Those counts were used through 1992 as a 

population index for the midcontinental population 

(Benning 1987, Solberg 1992). The district conducted 

aerial waterfowl surveys during spring migration 

(USFWS 1983–1993). The NGPC inventoried the 

basin for species of concern to assess the potential 

A crew of district staff, Bureau of Reclamation employees, 

and summer interns map vegetation at all the waterfowl 

production areas.

USFWS
74 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

confl icts that may occur with the “Conservation 

Order for Mid-continent Light Geese” (COMLG) 

(NGPC 1997–1999). The Canadian Wildlife Service 

conducted two goose counts in 1999 to compare 

population numbers using the district with previous 

population estimates (Warner and Nieman 1999). In 

addition, the NGPC inventoried spring waterfowl 

numbers during a 4-year study that looked at effects on 

nontarget species during the COMLG (NGPC 2000–

2003). Austin and Richert (2001) mapped and evaluated

whooping crane habitat selection. Although less is 

known about populations of nonwaterfowl species, the 

wetlands provide habitat for a minimum of 200,000–

300,000 shorebirds represented by over 30 species 

(LaGrange 2005). Jorgensen (2004) was able to 

summarize shorebird use in the district. Jorgensen 

(personal communication) is currently completing 

buff-breasted sandpiper research. Records of birds 

occasionally observed in the basin are found in “The 

Birds of Nebraska and Adjacent Plains States” 

(Johnsgard 1997).

Habitat evaluations in the basin are limited. Taylor et

al. (1978) correlated landscape changes with pheasant

numbers. Gersib et al. (1989a) looked at waterfowl 

densities and activity time-budgets for the basin’s 

wetlands; they found that temporary and seasonal 

wetlands were the most valuable for spring-staging 

waterfowl. Gilbert (1989) sampled 47 wetlands in the 

basin and organized its plant communities in 

accordance with the dominant hydric soils that were 

present. Gersib et al. (1989b) also completed a 

functional assessment concluding that the basin’s 

wetlands have a high probability of providing wildlife 

habitat, food chain support, long-term and seasonal 

nutrient retention, fl ood storage, and sediment 

trapping. The NGPC (1977–1999), the Service (USFWS 

1977–1999), and Richert (1999) have documented 

whooping crane roost sites and habitat preferences 

for central Nebraska. Stutheit et al. (2004) provided 

a comprehensive review of wetland hydrology and 

function in the basin. Drahota et al. (2004) mapped 

and sampled vegetation communities at public areas. 

Brennan (2006) assessed local and landscape factors 

infl uencing migratory bird use.

Duck production research by Evans and Wolfe (1967) 

found the district’s wetlands to be intermittent, 

producing 10,000 birds to fl ight stage annually. Their 

fi ndings led managers to focus more on managing for 

spring migration habitat rather than nesting habitat. 

Krapu et al. (1995) looked at habitat, food, and 

nutrients in white-fronted geese and concluded that 

fat and protein contents increased for females during 

spring staging in the district. Cox (1998) looked at 

weight gain, nutrient reserves, and habitat use by 

white-fronted goose, snow goose, and northern pintail. 

Cox and Davis (2002) used telemetry techniques to 

assess northern pintail habitat use, movements, and 

survival during spring migration and found the smaller 

wetlands in the basin to be the most important habitat. 

Farmer and Parent (1997) found that the distance 

between wetlands infl uenced use by the pectoral 

sandpiper. Thus, higher wetland densities provided 

greater variability in food resources to maximize 

foraging opportunities and minimize energy 

expenditures (Farmer and Wiens 1999). Max Post van 

der Burg (2005) looked at factors affecting songbird 

nest survival and brood size.

Numerous avian cholera studies have been completed 

in the district. The fi rst avian cholera outbreak in the 

district was reported in 1975 (Zinkl et al. 1977). 

Research conducted in the 1980s and ‘90s had little 

success pinpointing the cause of outbreaks and could 

not develop any strategies that minimized bird loss 

during outbreaks (Windingstad et al. 1984, Smith et al. 

1989, Smith and Higgins 1990, Smith et al. 1990). 

However, it was determined that the bacteria can 

remain in the environment for several days after an 

outbreak occurs (Price and Brand 1984), which 

potentially jeopardizes the next migrants that stop at 

the wetland. Samuel (1995) listed those factors that can 

affect cholera outbreaks and survival of the bacterium 

 in the environment. Cox (1999) found no correlation 

 between a bird’s body condition or size and its 

susceptibility to cholera. 

Wetland hydrology appears to be the newest frontier 

for research in the basin. It is clear that the cumulative 

hydrologic impact within the hydric footprint and 

within the watershed can affect pooling duration, 

frequency, and fl ooded acres. Wetlands in the basin 

have the potential to recharge depleted groundwater 

resources—soil profi les support this due to the lack of 

visible chloride deposits in dry wetlands (personal 

communication with Warren Wood, Michigan State 

University). 

CULTURAL RESOURCES GOAL

Identify and evaluate the cultural resources in the 

district and protect those that are determined to be 

signifi cant.

Cultural Resources Objective A

Within 10 years of CCP approval, complete a 

comprehensive cultural resources survey and overview 

that identifi es sensitive areas and helps to preserve 

historic records and information within the district to 

ensure protection of cultural resources and compliance 

with state and federal cultural resources protection 

laws.

Cultural Resources Rationale

Protecting signifi cant sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects is the primary goal of the cultural resource 

work in the district. Cultural resources include the 

material evidence of past human activities: prehistoric, 

historic, and architectural in addition to any traditional 

cultural properties that may or may not have material 

evidence. A resource is considered signifi cant if it is 

listed, eligible, or potentially eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. 
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 75

Protection of signifi cant cultural resources is primarily 

accomplished through compliance with section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act. Any project 

that has the potential to affect structures older than 

50 years or cause ground disturbance should be 

evaluated for its potential to impact cultural resources. 

Cultural resource personnel should be notifi ed early 

in the planning process so that alterations of plans 

can be made if necessary and delays can be avoided.

Surveys are the best tool available to determine the 

location of cultural resources on the district. Through 

surveys, both historic and prehistoric sites are 

identifi ed and key information is gathered that helps 

for planning, research, and educational outreach. 

Although small surveys have been done, usually as a 

part of the section 106 process, large-scale surveys 

are needed to better understand the distribution and 

nature of the resources.

A cultural resource overview is needed for the district. 

This comprehensive study will describe the nature 

and extent of past cultural resource investigations, the 

types of resources known on the district, and the 

interpretive context for these resources. The document 

will outline specifi c threats to the resources and the 

ability of future work to address regional research 

questions. It will also serve as a planning tool to help 

encourage consideration of cultural resources during 

project planning.

Long-term and past employees, in addition to local 

residents and members of regional historical societies, 

can be a wealth of information concerning the history 

of the district and the location of specifi c resources. 

District staffs, especially maintenance personnel, often 

remember alterations to historic structures and know 

the location of unrecorded archaeological resources. 

The extent and condition of historical records, maps, 

artifacts, and photographs at the district is unknown. 

This type of historical documentation can provide 

valuable insight into the development and changes at 

the district through time. A comprehensive inventory 

of these items is needed.

Cultural Resources Strategies

1. Notify state and federal cultural resources 

personnel (for example, the State Historic 

Preservation Offi ce) early in planning processes 

so alterations of plans can be made if necessary 

and delays can be avoided.

2. Notify all district staff of known cultural resource 

locations to facilitate management and protect 

the resource. Identify district areas that have 

not been surveyed but have a high potential for 

cultural resources.

3. Notify cultural resource staffs (state and federal) 

when previously unrecorded cultural resources 

are found in the district.

4. Develop partnerships and work with state and 

federal cultural resource staffs to develop a 

comprehensive inventory and compilation of the 

cultural resources within the district.

5. Conduct cultural resource-related interviews 

with district staff and local residents.

6. Locate individuals with knowledge on the general 

history, location of sites, or alterations to various 

buildings and structures within the district and 

document this information to preserve historic 

records.

7. Obtain assistance from state and federal cultural 

resource staffs, as well as from state universities 

and private organizations, to carry out an 

analysis as to how to best stabilize and store 

cultural resource items for future reference and 

educational purposes.

VISITOR SERVICES GOAL

Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation and 

educational opportunities by instilling an understanding 

of basic ecological processes, purpose of the Rainwater 

Basin Wetland Management District, and mission of 

the Service for persons of all abilities and cultural 

backgrounds.

Visitor Services Objective A

Over the next 15 years, continue to provide safe and 

quality hunting and trapping opportunities at WPAs. 

Visitor Services Objective B

Within 5 years, fund and hire a full-time outdoor 

recreation planner (ORP) to develop demographic, 

attitude, and expectation profi les of wildlife-dependent 

recreational users, which will determine a long-term 

plan for providing quality public use opportunities.

Visitor Services Objective C

Through the duration of the CCP, work with partners 

to provide demonstrations, written information, and 

other methods of communication that inform the public 

about the benefi ts of management actions and increase 

and improve education, outreach, and recreational 

opportunities within the district. Development will be 

guided by the arrival of the proposed ORP and the 

creation of a future visitor services plan.

Visitor Services Strategies

1. Construct and maintain at least one additional 

handicap-accessible blind at a WPA in the eastern 

portion of the district.

2. Maintain parking areas and access points to meet 

visitor needs.

3. Continue to construct and maintain adequate 

parking facilities on at least 95% of the WPAs.

4. Increase the amount of signage (such as boundary, 

regulation, and directional) at the WPAs. 

5. Post 50% of the WPAs with entrance signs that 

include the WPA’s name.
76 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

6. Provide adequate law enforcement coverage of 

all hunting and trapping seasons to ensure 

compliance with laws and regulations while 

providing for public safety and welfare. 

7. Establish mechanisms to work collaboratively 

with USGS–BRD economists, state universities’ 

departments of agriculture and resource 

economics, other agencies, national and worldwide 

travel agencies, outfi tter groups, and 

nongovernmental organizations to obtain the 

necessary data to determine travel trends to the 

district.

8. Work with USGS–BRD economists and state 

universities’ departments of agriculture and 

resource economics to better understand the 

values and needs of local, national, and 

international visitors to the district.

9. Within 5 years of designation and funding of a 

full-time ORP, expand the quality and quantity of 

wildlife- and habitat-oriented events and programs 

within the district.

10. Develop a visitor services plan.

11. Designate fi ve WPAs that will become focus 

areas, representing other WPAs in the district. 

An ORP position will facilitate integration of 

environmental education and interpretation for 

counties in the district.

12. Within 5 years of designation and funding of a 

full-time ORP, install kiosks that have 

interchangeable interpretive panels at focus 

WPAs.

13. Develop a watchable wildlife brochure that 

identifi es the district’s WPAs and state areas, 

as well as seasons that offer exceptional wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities.

14. Develop a partnership with Nebraska’s visitors 

bureau and other similar agencies to develop and 

include in their existing publication and websites 

information about the district and wildlife 

observation and photography opportunities.

15. Within 3 years of developing an outreach 

partnership, create an outreach plan that increases 

the awareness of the district’s assets both within 

and outside the Service.

Visitor Services Rationale

The WPAs are open to the public for hunting, fi shing, 

and trapping during legal seasons. Photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation are 

allowed year-round during daylight hours. 

The COMLG, approved in 1999, allows for light-goosehunting during the spring migration. To provide refuge 

areas during the migration, some public areas are 

closed to hunting and the entire district is on a dayclosure schedule (hunting allowed Saturday, Sunday, 

Wednesday, and Thursday). Closed WPAs include 

Bluestem, Clark, Eckhardt, Funk, Hultine, Lindau, 

Massie, Nelson, Prairie Dog, Springer, Verona, and 

Wilkins. Closure provides safe haven for waterfowl 

during periods of signifi cant public use (Delnicki and 

Reinecke 1986). Hunting pressure and disturbance 

often discourage waterfowl use on preferred wetlands 

(Jessen 1970, Raveling et al. 1972, Koerner et al. 1974, 

Raveling 1978). 

The district staff does not have training or 

responsibilities directed toward education, outreach, 

or public use in general. The district has always hired 

personnel with expertise in managing wetlands and 

grassland. Nearly all the work done by the district to 

encourage public use has focused on hunting. That 

work has mostly been limited to placement of 

boundary signs and maintenance of parking lots. 

Although spring and fall water pumping is done for 

the health of waterfowl populations, it also increases 

hunting opportunities. 

In the last decade, informational kiosks have been 

constructed at 4 of the 59 WPAs. Funk WPA has a 

viewing and hunting blind that is accessible to people 

with disabilities, and there are interpretive signs. At 

Massie WPA, the neighboring community of Clay 

Center has collaborated with the district to construct 

and maintain an observation blind. 

Although the district periodically gets requests from 

schools and Scout groups to provide environmental 

education programs, the district often declines because 

of lack of staff, expertise, and materials. 

A district intern assists a young bird watcher.

USFWS
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 77

PARTNERSHIP GOAL

Promote and develop partnerships with adjacent 

landowners, public and private organizations, Native 

American tribes, and other interested individuals to 

protect, restore, enhance, and maintain a diverse and 

productive ecosystem.

Partnership Objective A

Continue to provide strong support and active 

participation in the RWBJV partnerships to promote 

activities and projects that are mutually benefi cial.

Partnership Objective B

Develop more community-based partnerships that 

involve local individuals, groups, or organizations in 

the protection, management, enhancement, and 

enjoyment of the basin’s wetlands.

Partnership Strategies

1. Provide representation on joint venture work 

groups and committees such as the private lands 

work group, acquisition work group, public lands 

work group, and technical committee.

2. Set priorities for Service funding and support for 

projects (land protection, staff, and equipment) 

that accomplish district objectives and use 

partner contributions.

3. Work with NGPC to more effi ciently manage 

public lands that are near each other through 

coordinated exchange of staff, cooperators, 

equipment, and facilities.

4. Pursue partnerships to develop a fi eld bird guide 

that is specifi c to the basin.

5. Pursue partnership funding for an ORP.

6. Develop a list of high-priority and innovative 

projects that overlap between district and other 

joint venture partner needs.

7. Foster a working relationship with individual 

producers to enhance and maintain habitat 

conditions at the WPAs.

8. Develop, coordinate, and maintain working 

relationships with state and local law 

enforcement authorities and fi re departments to 

protect district properties and trust species.

9. Develop, coordinate, and maintain working 

relationships with cooperating agencies and 

joint venture partners who conduct prescribed 

burns.

10. Through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program and other partners, develop, coordinate, 

and maintain working relationships with joint 

venture partners who also deliver private lands 

projects. 

Partnership Rationale

The basin has a mix of wetland types. Because of their 

large size and water permanence, some wetlands 

are best for public ownership. The other wetlands 

will remain in private ownership and will require a 

partnership approach to restore or enhance them. The 

value of each WPA for waterfowl is dependent on its 

proximity to a complex of other wetlands. A WPA that 

is adjacent to other wetlands will be of more value 

to waterfowl than one that is isolated from other 

wetlands. It is important that the district work with 

its neighbors and conservation partners to improve 

the basin-wide landscape for the benefi t of migratory 

birds, other wildlife, and the human environment.

Working together has been characteristic for the 

neighbors, agencies, and organizations in the Rainwater 

Basin. Partnerships have fl ourished because each 

group recognizes that it cannot “do it” alone. The 

RWBJV (described in chapter 1, section 1.4) is a 

partnership organization made up of government and 

conservation organizations, as well as landowners. 

The RWBJV’s goal is to

Restore and maintain suffi cient wetland 

habitat in the Rainwater Basin area of 

Nebraska to assist in meeting population 

objectives identifi ed in the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan.

This combine used to harvest native grasses was purchased 

through a three-way partnership—the district, NGPC, 

and Pheasants Forever.

USFWS

The joint venture’s objectives are in line with those of 

the district. The RWBJV commonly joins with 

nontraditional partners to (1) restore and protect 

additional wetlands, (2) provide reliable water to at 

least one-third of the protected wetlands, and 

(3) enhance existing wetlands. 

Ducks Unlimited has identifi ed the Rainwater Basin as 

a conservation priority for their organization. They are 

actively involved in wetland restoration and acquisition. 

Much of the restoration work done by Ducks Unlimited 

has occurred on NGPC and district lands. In recent 
78 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

years, they have acquired lands that are being restored

and planned to be transferred to NGPC or district 

ownership. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Wetland Reserve Program has restored and 

protected wetlands throughout the basin. The Nature 

Conservancy has helped protect 1,765 acres that are 

currently under the Service’s management. Another 

466 acres are under the management of the NGPC.

SOCIOECONOMICS GOAL

Obtain a better understanding of the social and 

economic contribution WPAs make to the people and 

communities within the Rainwater Basin.

Socioeconomics Objective A

Develop an economic impact analysis within 5 years of 

CCP approval to determine how the district’s existence 

and management activities affect the local and state 

economies. 

Socioeconomics Objective B

Within 5 years of CCP approval, evaluate the aesthetic 

and environmental benefi ts of the district’s existence 

and management activities to the state and local 

communities. 

Socioeconomics Strategies

1. Through joint venture partnerships, work 

collaboratively with USGS–BRD economists or 

state universities to develop an economic impact 

analysis of district management actions and the 

recreation that the WPAs provide.

2. Work with RWBJV partners, university and 

USGS–BRD ecologists, sociologists, and 

landscape architects to develop an environmental 

and aesthetical impact analysis of WPAs in the 

district. 

Socioeconomics Rationale

The WPAs provide a service to communities and to 

those who visit the areas. Wetlands improve water 

quality, recharge groundwater, control erosion, and 

provide fl ood control. Wetlands provide habitat for many

species of wildlife and offer recreational opportunities. 

However, it is not known to what extent the district’s 

wetlands provide these services and benefi ts. 

The basin is intensively farmed and many of the local 

citizens see wetlands as a detriment to farming 

operations. The loss of cropland due to seasonal fl ooding

has caused many landowners to drain or fi ll the 

wetlands, which removes the benefi ts they may provide 

to the community. An accurate assessment of the 

wetlands’ economic and social worth will help increase 

public understanding of the value of protecting 

wetlands.

OPERATIONS GOAL

Safely and effi ciently use funding, staffi ng, 

infrastructure, and partnerships to achieve the purpose 

and objectives of the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District.

Operations Objective A

Within 10 years of CCP approval, build and maintain 

Service-owned facilities that serve as an offi ce, 

visitor contact center, maintenance shop, equipment 

storage, and housing for researchers, volunteers, and 

seasonal employees.

Operations Objective B

Within 2 years of CCP approval, construct adequate 

storage facilities for heavy and farm equipment 

currently stored at McMurtrey and Cottonwood WPAs.

Operations Objective C

Through the duration of the CCP, continue to maintain 

adequate housing facilities for researchers and 

volunteers.

Operations Objective D

Through the duration of the CCP, continue to maintain 

existing roads and dikes at the WPAs.

Operations Objective E

Through the duration of the CCP, continue to maintain 

equipment and vehicles at or above Service standards.

Operations Objective F

Within 5 years of CCP approval, strive to obtain 

additional funding for necessary staffi ng to address 

the needs of the district. 

Operations Strategies

1. Work with partners and the regional offi ce to 

obtain funding and secure a suitable site for the 

construction of a Service-owned facility.

2. Prioritize the building and maintenance schedule 

based on funding projects in the Service Asset 

Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). 

Identify an offi ce/visitor center as the top priority 

construction project.

3. Schedule equipment and vehicle replacements 

to achieve industry standards when normal life 

expectancy is reached.

4. Seek mutual agreements to maintain roads that 

provide access to the WPAs.

5. Work with partners and the regional offi ce to 

obtain funding to fi ll four additional positions: 

outdoor recreation planner, law enforcement 

offi cer (park ranger), maintenance worker, and 

refuge operations specialist. 

6. Seek to close minimum-maintenance roads that 

dissect four WPAs.
Chapter 4 — Management Direction 79

Operations Rationale

The district is operating out of the same building it 

leased in the late 1970s. At that time, the number of 

properties managed and the amount of equipment and 

staff were signifi cantly less than what exists today. The 

building was constructed as a metal warehouse. Before 

leasing it, a portion of the warehouse was converted to 

offi ce space. In the mid-1990s, more offi ce space was 

needed and the shop area was reduced to allow for 

three additional offi ces. 

Since the property was fi rst leased, the work 

accomplished by the district has drastically changed. 

Staff has changed with the addition of a wildlife 

biologist, two Partners for Fish and Wildlife biologists, 

two permanent fi re specialists, and three seasonal 

fi refi ghters. With more staff has come more offi ce and 

fi eld equipment. The current building is not adequate 

to store the additional fi re engines and equipment. 

Heavy equipment and some of the vehicles have to be 

stored at two other locations: McMurtrey WPA and 

Cottonwood WPA. Both areas are more than 40 miles 

from the offi ce/shop.

The offi ce portion of the building has desks crowded 

together with limited space for fi ling cabinets, 

computers, and books. The conference room is a small 

room, partitioned off from the storage room, located 

above the offi ces. Because the offi ce is contained 

within the warehouse, the ventilation system draws 

shop fumes (welding, vehicle exhaust, and chemicals) 

into the offi ce area.

The facility is located within an older industrial park. 

The immediate neighbors include an older trailer park, 

auto repair shops, grain elevator, and outdoor storage 

yard. The location of the facility and its appearance are 

not inviting to the public. Visitors are primarily 

delivery persons and a few cooperating landowners. 

The visitor contact portion of the offi ce also serves as 

the mailroom and photocopying room. Staff vehicles 

fi ll the small parking lot and some parking occurs on 

the street. Although a security fence protects the 

storage yard, theft and vandalism still occur.

Storage facilities for vehicles and heavy equipment are 

lacking. Nearly all the equipment remains exposed to 

extreme weather conditions. 

Temporary quarters for researchers and volunteers 

are old, surplus mobile homes. Mice infest the mobile 

homes, which are located on a site that does not have 

potable water. In addition, the temporary quarters are 

located 40 miles from the offi ce, making it diffi cult to 

arrange work schedules between volunteers and staff. 

In recent years, arrangements with The Nature 

Conservancy have allowed their rural offi ce/home to 

house fi re crew and volunteers. Numerous opportunities 

to have research studies and prescribed fi res conducted 

in the district have not happened because the district 

lacks housing. 

Two dual-function offi cers provide law enforcement 

operations. However, their primary responsibility is 

land management. The time allocated toward law 

enforcement is not adequate to address game violations 

and vandalism.

4.2 STAFF AND FUNDING

The district has a staff of 12 full-time employees. 

Table 10 lists these positions along with four new 

positions that are needed for full implementation of 

the CCP. Projects required to carry out the CCP are 

funded through two separate systems, as follows:

Q The Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) 

is used to document requests to Congress for 

funding and staffi ng needed to carry out projects 

above the existing base budget. 

Q The SAMMS is used to document the equipment, 

buildings, and other existing properties that 

require repair or replacement. 

Lists of the RONS and SAMMS projects required 

to carry out this CCP (including maintenance of 

structures and equipment to a safe and productive 

standard for the 15 years of the CCP) are in appendix O.

4.3 STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS

The fi nal CCP for the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District will be a broad umbrella plan 

that (1) outlines general concepts and objectives for 

habitat, wildlife, visitor services, cultural resources, 

partnerships, and operations; and (2) guides district 

management for the next 15 years. Step-down 

management plans provide greater detail for carrying 

out specifi c actions authorized by the CCP. Table 11 

presents step-down management plans that are 

anticipated to be needed, along with their current 

status and next revision date. 

4.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Adaptive management is a fl exible approach to longterm management of biotic resources. Adaptive 

management is directed, over time, by the results of 

ongoing monitoring activities and other information. 

More specifi cally, adaptive management is a process 

by which projects are carried out within a framework 

of scientifi cally driven experiments to test the 

predictions and assumptions outlined within a CCP.

To apply adaptive management, specifi c survey, 

inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the district’s WPAs. The habitat management 

strategies will be systematically evaluated to 

determine management effects on wildlife populations. 

This information will be used to refi ne approaches 

and determine how effectively the objectives are being 

accomplished. Evaluations will include participation 

by appropriate partners. If monitoring and evaluation 

indicate undesirable effects for target and nontarget 
80 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

species or communities, alterations to the management 

projects will be made. Subsequently, the CCP will be 

revised. 

Table 10. Current and proposed staff for Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, Nebraska.

Additional Proposed Positions 

Staff Group Current Positions (Unfunded Staff)

management

refuge project leader, GS-13

deputy project leader, GS-12

refuge operations specialist, GS-9

refuge operations specialist, GS-9

biological wildlife biologist, GS-11 

biological technician (wildlife), GS-7

no additional positions

visitor service none outdoor recreation planner, GS-11

administrative administrative support assistant, GS-8 no additional positions

maintenance maintenance worker, WG-8

biological technician (wildlife), GS-6

maintenance worker, WG-7

fi re management prescribed fi re specialist, GS-9

supervisory range technician, GS-7

no additional positions

law enforcement none park ranger, GS-9

Partners for Fish and Wildlife fi sh and wildlife biologist, GS-9

fi sh and wildlife biologist, GS-9

no additional positions

GS =General schedule position.

WG=Wage grade position.

Table 11. Step-down management plans for Rainwater 

Basin Wetland Management District, Nebraska.

New or 

Revised 

Completed Plan, 

Step-down Management Plan (year (completion 

Plan approved year)

disease contingency plan 2006 2013

fi re management plan 1998 2009

habitat management plan — 2010

habitat management plan 

(annual) 2007 2008

integrated pest 

management plan 2003 2008

law enforcement plan — 2010

prairie dog management 

plan 2003 2011

safety plan 2004 2009

visitor services plan — 2012

water management plan 2007 2008

4.5 PLAN AMENDMENT AND REVISION

This CCP will be reviewed annually to determine the 

need for revision. The Service will revise this CCP if 

and when signifi cant information becomes available. 

This CCP will be supported by detailed step-down 

management plans to address the completion of 

specifi c strategies in support of the district’s goals 

and objectives. Revisions to this CCP and the stepdown management plans will be subject to public 

review and compliance with the NEPA. At a minimum, 

this CCP will be evaluated every 5 years and revised 

after 15 years.
Glossary

accessible—Pertaining to physical access to areas and 

activities for people of different abilities, especially 

those with physical impairments.

adaptive resource management—Rigorous application

of management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess and 

modify management activities; a process that uses 

feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation of 

management actions to support or modify objectives 

and strategies at all planning levels; a process in 

which policy decisions are carried out within a 

framework of scientifi cally driven experiments to 

test predictions and assumptions inherent in a 

management plan. Analysis of results helps managers 

determine whether current management should 

continue as is or whether it should be modifi ed to 

achieve desired conditions. 

Administration Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966.

alternative—Reasonable way to solve an identifi ed 

problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 1500.2); 

one of several different means of accomplishing refuge 

and district purposes and goals and contributing to 

the Refuge System mission (The Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). 

amphibian—Class of cold-blooded vertebrates including 

frogs, toads, or salamanders.

annual—Plant that fl owers and dies within 1 year of 

germination.

ATV—All-terrain vehicle.

acre-foot—Amount of water it takes to cover a level 

acre of land (43,560 square feet) to a depth of 1 foot; 

about 43,560 cubic feet of water or 325,851 gallons. 

avian—Relating to or characteristic of birds.

baseline—Set of critical observations, data, or 

information used for comparison or a control. 

basin—Referring to the landform that acts as a water 

catchment; here used generically to refer to the hydric 

footprint that pools water.

the basin—See Rainwater Basin. 

bioenergetics—Study of energy transformation in 

living systems.

biological control—Use of organisms or viruses to 

control invasive plants or other pests.

biological diversity, also biodiversity—Variety of life 

and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and 

the communities and ecosystems in which they occur 

(The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 052 FW 1.12B). 

The National Wildlife Refuge System’s focus is on 

indigenous species, biotic communities, and ecological 

processes. 

biotic—Pertaining to life or living organisms; caused, 

produced by, or comprising living organisms.

CAFO—Concentrated animal-feeding operation.

canopy—Layer of foliage, generally the uppermost 

layer, in a vegetative stand; midlevel or understory 

vegetation in multilayered stands; canopy closure 

(also canopy cover) is an estimate of the amount of 

overhead vegetative cover.

catabolized (catabolism)—Breakdown of more complex 

substances into simpler ones, with the release of 

energy.

CCP—See comprehensive conservation plan.

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codifi cation of the 

general and permanent rules published in the “Federal 

Register” by the executive departments and agencies 

of the federal government. Each volume of the CFR 

is updated once each calendar year.

COMLG—Conservation Order for Mid-continent 

Light Geese.

compatibility determination—See compatible use. 

compatible use—Wildlife-dependent recreational use 

or any other use of a refuge or district that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the director of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will not materially 

interfere with or detract from the fulfi llment of the 

mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the 

refuge or district (The Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual, 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility determination 

supports the selection of compatible uses and identifi ed 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—Document 

that describes the desired future conditions of the 
82 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

refuge or district and provides long-range guidance 

and management direction for the refuge or wetland 

district manager to accomplish the purposes of the 

refuge or district, contribute to the mission of the 

Refuge System, and to meet other relevant mandates 

(The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). 

concern—See issue. 

cool-season grasses—Grasses that begin growth 

earlier in the season and often become dormant in the 

summer. These grasses will germinate at lower 

temperatures. 

coteau—Hilly upland including the divide between 

two valleys; a divide; the side of a valley.

cover, also cover type, canopy cover—Present 

vegetation of an area.

critical habitat—Area essential to the survival of a 

species; includes all air, land, and water that a species 

requires to carry out its normal living patterns, as well 

as other living things used by the species for food, 

shelter, or other necessary activities.

cultural resources—Remains of sites, structures, or 

objects used by people in the past. 

CWCS—Comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy.

cyanobacteria—Blue-green algae; widely distributed 

group of predominantly photosynthetic prokaryotic 

organisms of the subkingdom Cyanophyta, resembling 

phototrophic bacteria, occurring singly or in colonies 

in diverse habitats: some species can fi x atmospheric 

nitrogen.

dense nesting cover—Composition of grasses and forbs 

that allows for a dense stand of vegetation that protects 

nesting birds from the view of predators, usually 

consisting of one to two species of wheatgrass, alfalfa, 

and sweetclover.

the district—See wetland management district.

drawdown—Act of manipulating water levels in an 

impoundment to allow for the natural drying-out cycle 

of a wetland. 

DUD—Duck use-day; number of days that an area can 

support a duck’s energetics’ needs.

EA—See environmental assessment.

ecosystem—Dynamic and interrelating complex of 

plant and animal communities and their associated 

nonliving environment; a biological community, 

together with its environment, functioning as a unit. 

For administrative purposes, the Service has 

designated 53 ecosystems covering the United States 

and its possessions. These ecosystems generally 

correspond with watershed boundaries and their sizes 

and ecological complexity vary.

emergent—Plant rooted in shallow water and having 

most of the vegetative growth above water such as 

cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

endangered species, federal—Plant or animal species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, that is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a signifi cant portion of its range. 

endangered species, state—Plant or animal species 

in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a 

particular state within the near future if factors 

contributing to its decline continue. Populations of 

these species are at critically low levels or their habitats 

have been degraded or depleted to a signifi cant 

degree. 

endogenous—Stored reserves of lipids, proteins, and 

other nutrients; energy generated from mobilizing

these reserves. 

environmental assessment (EA)—Concise public 

document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefl y discusses the 

purpose and need for an action and alternatives to 

such action, and provides suffi cient evidence and 

analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare 

an environmental impact statement or fi nding of no 

signifi cant impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 

epizootic—Pertaining to a disease that affects large 

numbers of animals throughout a large area and 

spreads with great speed.

erosion—Wearing away of the land surface by various 

natural processes such as wind and moving water in 

the form of rivers, streams, rain, and melting snow.

eutrophication—Overenrichment of a waterbody 

with nutrients, resulting in the excessive growth of 

organisms and the depletion of oxygen. 

evaporation—Physical process by which a liquid or 

solid is transformed to a gas.

exogenous—Pertaining to a nutrient that is not stored 

and is readily available. 

exotic—Nonnative species of plants or animals often 

brought into an area by human activity.

extinction—Complete disappearance of a species from 

the earth; no longer existing.

extirpation—Extinction of a population; complete 

eradication of a species within a specifi ed area.

fauna—All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals 

of an area. 

federal trust species—Species where the federal 

government has primary jurisdiction including 

federally endangered or threatened species, migratory 

birds, anadromous fi sh, and certain marine mammals. 
Glossary 83

FGDC—Federal Geographic Data Committee.

fl ood—Unusual accumulation of water above the 

ground caused by heavy rain, melting snow, or rapid 

runoff; a temporary condition of partial or complete 

inundation of lands that normally do not pool water 

throughout the entire year. 

fl oodplain—Low-lying, nearly level area along a river

or stream that is periodically subject to being fl ooded

by water from any source.

fl ora—Plants, specifi cally plants within a particular 

set of boundaries that may be geographical, temporal, 

or biological.

fl yway—Pathway taken by migrating birds to or from 

their nesting grounds in northern North America to 

their overwintering grounds in southern parts of the 

United States; a broad, well-defi ned grouping of 

migration corridors.

FMP—Fire management plan. 

forb—Broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; a seed-producing

annual, biennial, or perennial plant that does not 

develop persistent woody tissue but dies down at the 

end of the growing season.

fragmentation—Alteration of a large block of habitat 

that creates isolated patches of the original habitat 

that are interspersed with a variety of other habitat 

types; the process of reducing the size and connectivity

of habitat patches, making movement of individuals or 

genetic information between parcels diffi cult or 

impossible.

geographic information system (GIS)—Computer 

system capable of storing and manipulating spatial 

data; a set of computer hardware and software for 

analyzing and displaying spatially referenced features

(such as points, lines and polygons) with nongeographic

attributes such as species and age. 

GIS—See geographic information system.

goal—Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad 

statement of desired future conditions that conveys a

purpose but does not defi ne measurable units (The 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 620 FW 1.5). 

groundwater recharge—Act of adding water to the 

aquifer by surface water movement downward 

through the soil. 

GS—General schedule (pay rate schedule for certain 

federal positions). 

habitat—Suite of existing environmental conditions 

required by an organism for survival and reproduction;

the place where an organism typically lives and grows.

habitat type, also vegetation type, cover type—Land 

classifi cation system based on the concept of distinct 

plant associations. 

hemi-marsh—Wetland with a 50–50 interspersion of 

open-water and emergent vegetation.

hydric soil—Soil that is saturated, fl ooded, or pooled 

long enough during the growing season to develop 

conditions that do not require oxygen and that favor 

the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation; 

hydric soils suggest the presence of wetlands.

hydrophyte—Plant that is adapted to grow in water; 

a wetland plant species.

hydrophytic vegetation—Visible plants growing in 

water or on a substrate and periodically defi cient in 

oxygen as a result of excessive water content.

impoundment—Body of water created by collection 

and confi nement within a series of levees or dikes, 

creating separate management units although not 

always independent of one another.

Improvement Act—National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

indigenous—Originating or occurring naturally in a 

particular place.

integrated pest management (IPM)—Methods of 

managing undesirable species such as invasive plants; 

education, prevention, physical or mechanical methods 

of control, biological control, responsible chemical use, 

and cultural methods. 

“interseed”—Mechanical seeding of one or several 

plant species into existing stands of established 

vegetation. 

interspersion—Diversity of vegetation spread 

throughout a stand. 

interstitial fl ow—Movement of surface water into the 

ground by fl owing through individual soil grains and 

eventually adding to the groundwater levels. 

introduced species—Species present in an area due 

to intentional or unintentional escape, release, 

dissemination, or placement into an ecosystem as a 

result of human activity.

invasive plant, also noxious weed—Species that is 

nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration and 

whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human 

health. 

invertebrate—Animal without an backbone.

inviolate sanctuary—Place of refuge or protection 

where animals and birds may not be hunted.

IPM—See integrated pest management.

issue—Unsettled matter that requires a management 

decision; for example, a Service initiative, opportunity, 

resource management problem, a threat to the 

resources of the unit, confl ict in uses, public concern, 
84 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

or the presence of an undesirable resource condition 

(The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5).

limiting factor—Chemical or physical factor that 

limits the growth, abundance, or distribution of the 

population of a species in an ecosystem and determines

whether or not an organism can survive.

lipids—Group of organic compounds including the fats, 

oils, waxes, sterols, and triglycerides that are insoluble

in water but soluble in nonpolar organic solvents, are 

oily to the touch, and together with carbohydrates and 

proteins constitute the principal structural material of 

living cells.

macropore fl ow—Movement of surface water through 

large holes in the ground such as animal burrows, 

desiccation cracks, root tubes and solution pipes, 

eventually adding to the groundwater levels. 

management alternative—See alternative. 

ME—See metabolized energy.

metabolized energy (ME)—Energy produced by 

digestion.

migration—Regular extensive, seasonal movements 

of birds between their breeding regions and their 

wintering regions; to pass usually periodically from 

one region or climate to another for feeding or breeding.

migratory birds—Birds that follow a seasonal 

movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds; includes waterfowl, shorebirds, 

raptors, and songbirds.

mission—Succinct statement of purpose or reason for 

being. 

mitigation—Measure designed to counteract an 

environmental impact or to make an impact less severe. 

mixed-grass prairie—Transition zone between the 

tall-grass prairie and the short-grass prairie dominated 

by grasses of medium height that are approximately 

2–4 feet tall. Soils are not as rich as the tall-grass 

prairie and moisture levels are less.

monitoring—Process of collecting information to track 

changes of selected parameters over time. 

NASS—Natural Agricultural Statistics Service.

national wildlife refuge (NWR)—Designated area of 

land, water, or an interest in land or water within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, but does not include 

coordination areas; a complete listing of all units of the 

Refuge System is in the current “Annual Report of 

Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.”

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)—

Various categories of areas administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior for the conservation of fi sh 

and wildlife including species threatened with 

extinction, all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, 

areas for the protection and conservation of fi sh and 

wildlife that are threatened with extinction, wildlife 

ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and 

waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Improvement Act)—Sets the mission and the 

administrative policy for all units of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; defi nes a unifying mission for 

the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, 

fi shing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation); establishes a formal 

process for determining appropriateness and 

compatibility; establish the responsibilities of the 

Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting 

the Refuge System; requires a comprehensive 

conservation plan for each unit of the Refuge System 

by the year 2012. This act amended portions of the 

Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966.

native species—Species that, other than as a result 

of an introduction, historically occurred or currently 

occurs in that ecosystem.

NAWMP—North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan.

NDEQ—Nebraska Department of Environmental 

Quality.

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act.

nest success—Percentage of nests that successfully 

hatch one or more eggs of the total number of nests 

initiated in an area.

NGPC—Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

niche partitioning—Distribution of species by 

preference of habitat conditions and needs.

NOI—Notice of intent; published in the “Federal 

Register.”

nongovernmental organization—Any group that is not 

comprised of federal, state, tribal, county, city, town, 

local, or other governmental entities.

noxious weed, also invasive plant—Any living stage 

(including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic or 

other plant of a kind that is of foreign origin (new to or 

not widely prevalent in the U.S.) and can directly or 

indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, livestock, 

poultry, other interests of agriculture, including 

irrigation, navigation, fi sh and wildlife resources, or 

public health. According to the Federal Noxious Weed 

Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed (such as an invasive 

plant) is one that causes disease or has adverse effects 

on humans or the human environment and, therefore, 
Glossary 85

is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the 

United States and to public health, and is listed as 

such on Nebraska Noxious Weed List.

NVCS—National Vegetation Classifi cation System.

NWR—See national wildlife refuge.

objective—Concise target statement of what will be 

achieved, how much will be achieved, when and where 

it will be achieved, and who is responsible for the work; 

derived from goals and provide the basis for determining 

management strategies. Objectives should be attainable 

and time-specifi c and should be stated quantitatively 

to the extent possible. If objectives cannot be stated 

quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively (The 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). 

ORP—Outdoor recreation planner.

palustrine—Pertaining to nonfl owing wetlands that 

can be dominated by emergent or submergent plant 

wetlands with less than 0.5% salinity.

patch—Area distinct from that around it; an area 

distinguished from its surroundings by environmental 

conditions.

pathogen—Agent that causes disease, especially a 

living microorganism such as a bacterium or fungus.

pelagic waters—The surface waters and middle 

depths of the open ocean, extending from the edge of 

the continental shelf.

perennial—Lasting or active through the year or 

through many years; a plant species that has a life span 

of more than 2 years.

periphyton—Complex matrix of organisms such as 

algae and microbes that are attached to submerged 

plants; serves as an important food source for 

invertebrates and some fi sh; important indicator of 

water quality.

PILT—Payments in lieu of taxes.

PL—Public law.

plant community—Assemblage of plant species unique 

in its composition; occurs in particular locations under 

particular infl uences; a refl ection or integration of the 

environmental infl uences on the site such as soil, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, 

and rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax plant 

community, such as ponderosa pine or bunchgrass. 

playa—Nearly level, fl at area that is temporarily 

covered with water, at the bottom of an undrained 

basin.

PM—Particulate matter.

prescribed fi re—Skillful application of fi re to natural 

fuels under conditions such as weather, fuel moisture, 

and soil moisture that allow confi nement of the fi re to 

a predetermined area and produces the intensity of 

heat and rate of spread to accomplish planned benefi ts 

to one or more objectives of habitat management, 

wildlife management, or hazard reduction. 

priority public use—One of six uses authorized by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 to have priority if found to be compatible with 

the purposes for a refuge or district. This includes 

hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation.

proposed action—Alternative proposed to best achieve 

the purpose, vision, and goals of a refuge or district 

(contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses 

the signifi cant issues, and is consistent with principles 

of sound fi sh and wildlife management). 

public—Individuals, organizations, and groups; offi cials 

of federal, state, and local government agencies; 

Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may include 

anyone outside the core planning team. It includes 

those who may or may not have indicated an interest 

in Service issues and those who do or do not realize 

that Service decisions may affect them. 

public involvement—Process that offers affected and 

interested individuals and organizations an opportunity 

to become informed about, and to express their opinions 

on, Service actions and policies. In the process, these 

views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful 

consideration of public views is given in shaping 

decisions for refuge and district management. 

purpose of the district—Reason for and role of a 

district that is specifi ed in or derived from the law, 

proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land 

order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing authorization or expanding 

a district or district subunit such as a waterfowl 

production area (The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 

602 FW 1.5). 

Rainwater Basin (the basin)—Geographic area in 

south-central Nebraska that contains closed-basin 

wetlands with characteristic clay soils that have very 

low transmissivity.

raptor—Carnivorous bird such as a hawk, a falcon, or 

a vulture that feeds wholly or chiefl y on meat taken by

hunting or on carrion (dead carcasses).

RWBJV—Rainwater Basin Joint Venture.

refuge—See national wildlife refuge.

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS)—National 

database that contains the unfunded operational needs 

of each refuge and district. Projects included are those 

required to carry out approved plans and meet goals, 

objectives, and legal mandates. 

Refuge System—See National Wildlife Refuge System.
86 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

resident species—Species inhabiting a given locality 

throughout the year; nonmigratory species.

rest—Free from biological, mechanical, or chemical 

manipulation, in reference to refuge and district lands.

restoration—Management emphasis designed to move 

ecosystems to desired conditions and processes, such as 

healthy upland habitats and aquatic systems. 

riparian area or riparian zone—Area or habitat that 

is transitional from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems 

including streams, lakes, wet areas, and adjacent plant 

communities and their associated soils that have free 

water at or near the surface; an area whose components 

are directly or indirectly attributed to the infl uence of 

water; of or relating to a river; specifi cally applied to 

ecology, “riparian” describes the land immediately 

adjoining and directly infl uenced by streams. For 

example, riparian vegetation includes all plant life 

growing on the land adjoining a stream and directly 

infl uenced by the stream.

RONS—See Refuge Operating Needs System.

SAMMS—See Service Asset Maintenance 

Management System.

scoping—Process of obtaining information from the 

public for input into the planning process. 

scouring—Removal of earth or rock by the action of 

running water or wind eroding material.

seasonally fl ooded—Surface water is present for 

extended periods in the growing season, but is absent 

by the end of the season in most years.

sediment—Material deposited by water, wind, and 

glaciers.

sedimentation—Deposit of waterborne particles, 

resulting from a decrease in water’s transport capacity.

seeping—Movement of water into or through porous 

material.

Service—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS)—National database which contains the 

unfunded maintenance needs of each refuge and 

district; projects include those required to maintain 

existing equipment and buildings, correct safety 

defi ciencies for the implementation of approved plans, 

and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

shelterbelt—Single to multiple rows of trees and shrubs 

planted around cropland or buildings to block or slow 

down the wind.

shorebird—Any of a suborder (Charadrii) of birds such 

as plover or snipe that frequent the seashore or mud 

fl ats.

spatial—Relating to, occupying, or having the 

character of space.

special status species—Plants or animals that have 

been identifi ed through federal law, state law, or agency 

policy as requiring special protection of monitoring. 

Examples include federally listed endangered, 

threatened, proposed, or candidate species; state-listed 

endangered, threatened, candidate, or monitor species; 

Service’s species of management concern; species 

identifi ed by the Partners in Flight Program as being 

of extreme or moderately high conservation concern. 

special use permit—Special authorization from the 

refuge or wetland district manager that is required 

for any refuge and district service, facility, privilege, 

or product of the soil provided at refuge or district 

expense and not usually available to the general public 

through authorizations in Title 50 CFR or other public 

regulations (Refuge Manual, 5 RM 17.6).

species of concern—Plant and animal species, while 

not falling under the defi nition of special status species, 

that are of management interest by virtue of being 

federal trust species such as migratory birds, important 

game species, or signifi cant keystone species; species 

that have documented or apparent population declines, 

small or restricted populations, or dependence on 

restricted or vulnerable habitats.

step-down management plan—Plan that provides the 

details necessary to carry out management strategies 

identifi ed in the comprehensive conservation plan 

(The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). 

strategy—Specifi c action, tool, or technique or 

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (The Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual, 602 FW 1.5).

submergent—Vascular or nonvascular hydrophyte, 

either rooted or nonrooted, that lies entirely beneath 

the water surface, except for fl owering parts in some 

species.

succession—Natural replacement of one biotic 

community by another; a slow but continuous process, 

beginning with the invasion of a patch of open ground 

or newly created body of water by pioneer species. 

Succession continues through a series of recognizable 

stages known as seres, ending with the formation of a 

climax community in which the mix of species forming 

the community no longer changes with successive 

generations; late successional communities can also be 

climax communities.

SWG—State wildlife grant.

threatened species, federal—Species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that are 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a signifi cant portion of their 

range. 
Glossary 87

threatened species, state—Plant or animal species 

likely to become endangered in a particular state 

within the near future if factors contributing to 

population decline or habitat degradation or loss 

continue. 

tree harvest—Commercial or private removal of trees 

for economic or personal benefi t. 

trust species—See federal trust species.

UNL—University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

USC—United States Code.

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

USDOE—U.S. Department of Energy.

USEPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS)—

Federal agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior 

that is responsible for conserving, protecting, and 

enhancing fi sh and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefi t of the American people. The 

Service manages the 93-million-acre National Wildlife 

Refuge System comprised of more than 530 national 

wildlife refuges and wetland management districts 

and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also 

operates 65 national fi sh hatcheries and 78 ecological 

service fi eld stations, the agency enforces federal 

wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, 

restores national signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and 

restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers 

the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign 

governments with their conservation efforts. It also 

oversees the federal aid program that distributes 

millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing and hunting 

equipment to state wildlife agencies.

USFWS—See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Federal agency of 

the U.S. Department of the Interior whose mission is 

to provide reliable scientifi c information to describe 

and understand the earth; minimize loss of life and 

property from natural disasters; manage water, 

biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance 

and protect our quality of life.

USGS—See U.S. Geological Survey.

USGS–BRD—Biological Research Division of the U.S. 

Geological Survey.

vision statement—Concise statement of the desired 

future condition of the planning unit, based primarily on 

the Refuge System mission, specifi c refuge or district 

purposes, and other relevant mandates (The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual, 602 FW 1.5). 

waterfowl—Category of birds that includes ducks, 

geese, and swans.

watershed—Area that drains into a river, a river 

system, or a body of water.

wetland—Area of land that pools water long enough 

annually to support hydrophytic vegetation. 

wetland management district (the district, WMD)—

Land that the Refuge System acquires with Federal 

Duck Stamp funds for restoration and management 

primarily as prairie wetland habitat critical to 

waterfowl and other wetland birds. 

wet meadow—Area where wetland and upland plants 

can occur, usually along the edge of a wetland; may 

have pooled water for a short period of time, usually 

in the spring or after a heavy rain event. 

WG—Wage grade schedule (pay rate schedule for 

certain federal positions). 

wildland fi re—Free-burning fi re requiring a 

suppression response; all fi re other than prescribed 

fi re that occurs on wildlands (Draft, The Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

wildlife-dependent recreational use—Use of a refuge 

or district involving hunting, fi shing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

or interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 specifi es that these are the 

six priority general public uses of the Refuge System. 

WMA—Wildlife management area.

WMD—See wetland management district. 

woodland—Open stands of trees with crowns not 

usually touching, generally forming 25–60% cover.

WPA—Waterfowl production area.

Administration of units of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is governed by (1) bills passed by the U.S. 

Congress and signed into law by the president of the 

United States, and (2) by regulations developed by 

the various branches of the government. Following 

are brief descriptions of some of the most pertinent 

laws and statutes establishing legal parameters and 

policy direction for the Refuge System.

In alphabetical order of the name of the act, order, or

regulation. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act: Affi rms the 

right of Native Americans to have access to their 

sacred places. If a place of religious importance to 

Native Americans may be affected by an undertaking, 

the act promotes consultation with Native American 

religious practitioners, which may be coordinated with 

section 106 consultation.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits 

discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (June 8, 1906; 16 USC 431–433; 34 

Stat. 225): Authorizes the president to designate as 

national monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientifi c interest on lands owned or controlled by the 

United States. Requires that a permit be obtained for 

examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites, 

and the gathering of objects of antiquity on lands 

under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, 

Agriculture, and Army, and provided penalties for 

violations. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (Public Law 

[PL] 96-95; October 31, 1979; 16 USC 470aa–470ll; 93 

Stat. 721): Protects archaeological resources and sites 

on public (federal) lands and Native American lands. 

The act calls for the preservation of objects and 

associated records in a suitable repository once 

recovered from a site. The act sets guidelines for proper 

procedures to obtain permission and permits to 

excavate archaeological sites on public lands by 

qualifi ed individuals.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally 

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (PL 86-

523; June 27, 1960; 16 USC 469–469c; 74 Stat. 220 [as 

amended by PL 93-291; May 24, 1974; 88 Stat. 174]): 

Carries out the policy established by the Historic Sites, 

Buildings and Antiquities Act; directs federal agencies 

to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever they 

fi nd a federal or federally assisted, licensed, or permitted 

project may cause loss or destruction of signifi cant 

scientifi c, prehistoric, or archaeological data. Authorizes 

use of appropriated, donated, and transferred funds 

for the recovery, protection, and preservation of such 

data. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for major wetland 

modifi cations. 

Criminal Code of Provisions of 1940 (as amended, 18 

USC 41): States the intent of Congress to protect all 

wildlife within federal sanctuaries, refuges, fi sh 

hatcheries, and breeding grounds. Provides that 

anyone (except in compliance with rules and 

regulations promulgated by authority of law) who 

hunts, traps, or willfully disturbs any such wildlife, or 

willfully injures, molests, or destroys any property of 

the United States on such land or water, shall be fi ned 

up to $500 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months 

or both. 

Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986: Authorizes 

the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund monies, removing a prior 

prohibition on such acquisitions. Requires the Secretary 

to establish a national wetlands priority conservation 

plan, requires the states to include wetlands in their 

comprehensive outdoor recreation plans, and transfers 

to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amount equal 

to import duties on arms and ammunition. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 and recent amendments 

(16 USC 1531–1543, 87 Stat. 884; as amended): Provides 

for conservation of threatened and endangered species 

of fi sh, wildlife, and plants by federal action and by 

encouraging state programs. Specifi c provisions 

include the listing and determination of critical habitat 

for endangered and threatened species and consultation 

with the Service on any federally funded or licensed 

project that could affect any of these agencies; 

prohibition of unauthorized taking, possession, sale, 

transport, etc., of endangered species; an expanded 

program of habitat acquisition; establishment of 

cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to states 

that establish and maintain an active, adequate 

program for endangered and threatened species; 

assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating 

the act or regulations. 

Appendix A

Key Legislation and Policies
90 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Environmental Education Act of 1990 (PL 101-619; 

November 16, 1990; 20 USC 5501–5510; 104 Stat. 3325): 

Establishes the Offi ce of Environmental Education 

within the USEPA to develop and administer a 

federal environmental education program. 

Responsibilities of the offi ce include developing and 

supporting programs to improve understanding of the 

natural and developed environment and the 

relationships between humans and their environment; 

supporting the dissemination of educational materials; 

developing and supporting training programs and 

environmental education seminars; managing a 

federal grant program; and administering an 

environmental internship and fellowship program. 

Requires the offi ce to develop and support 

environmental programs in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies 

including the Service. 

EO 11644—Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands 

(1972): Provides policy and procedures for regulating 

off-road vehicles. 

EO 11988—Floodplain Management (May 24, 1977): 

Prevents federal agencies from contributing to the 

“adverse impacts associated with occupancy and 

modifi cation of fl oodplains” and the “direct or indirect 

support of fl oodplain development.” In the course of 

fulfi lling their respective authorities, federal agencies

“shall take action to reduce the risk of fl ood loss, to 

minimize the impact of fl oods on human safety, health, 

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural 

and benefi cial values served by fl oodplains.” 

EO 11990—Protection of Wetlands.

EO 12996—Management and General Public Use of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System (1996): Defi nes 

the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the 

Refuge System; presents four principles to guide 

management of the system. 

EO 13007—Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs federal

land management agencies to accommodate access to 

and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian 

religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the 

physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where 

appropriate, maintain the confi dentiality of sacred 

sites. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of 

integrated management systems to control or contain

undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary 

approach with the cooperation of other federal and 

state agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950): Requires the preservation 

of evidence of the government’s organization, functions,

policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well 

as basic historical and other information. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 

401 (PL 92-500, USC 1411, 86 Stat. 816.33): Requires any 

applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any 

activity which may result in a discharge into navigable 

waters to obtain a certifi cation from the state in 

which the discharge originates or will originate, or, if 

appropriate, from the interstate water pollution 

control agency having jurisdiction over navigable 

waters at the point where the discharge originates or 

will originate, that the discharge will comply with 

applicable effl uent limitations and water quality 

standards. Requires that a certifi cation obtained for 

construction of any facility must also pertain to 

subsequent operation of the facility. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 

404 (PL 92-500, 86 Stat. 816): Authorizes the Secretary 

of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 

to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for 

public hearing, for discharge of dredged or fi ll material 

into navigable waters of the United States, including 

wetlands, at specifi ed disposal sites. Requires that 

selection of disposal sites be in accordance with 

guidelines developed by the Administrator of the 

USEPA in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army. 

States that the Administrator can prohibit or restrict 

use of any defi ned area as a disposal site whenever 

she/he determines, after notice and opportunity for 

public hearings, that discharge of such materials into 

such areas will have an unacceptable adverse effect on 

municipal water supplies, shellfi sh beds, fi shery areas, 

wildlife, or recreational areas. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 USC 742a–742j, 70 

Stat. 1119; as amended): Establishes a comprehensive 

fi sh and wildlife policy and directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to provide continuing research and extension 

and conservation of fi sh and wildlife resources. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (PL 96366; 

September 29, 1980; 16 USC 2901–2911; as amended 

1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992): Creates a mechanism for 

federal matching funding of the development of state 

conservation plans for nongame fi sh and wildlife. 

States that subsequent amendments to this law require 

that the Secretary monitor and assess migratory 

nongame birds, determine the effects of environmental 

changes and human activities, identify birds likely to 

be candidates for endangered species listing, and 

identify conservation actions that would prevent this 

from being necessary. In 1989, Congress also directed 

the Secretary to identify lands and waters in the 

Western Hemisphere, the protection, management, or 

acquisition of which would foster conservation of 

migratory nongame birds. All of these activities are 

intended to assist the Secretary in fulfi lling the 

Secretary’s responsibilities under the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 

and provisions of the Endangered Species Act 

implementing the Convention on Nature Protection 

and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements 

with private landowners for wildlife management 

purposes. 
Appendix A — Key Legislation and Policies 91

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978: Improves 

the administration of fi sh and wildlife programs and 

amends several earlier laws including the Refuge 

Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956. Authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts and 

bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the 

United States. Authorizes the use of volunteers for 

Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

volunteer programs. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (August 21, 

1935; 16 USC 461–462, 464–467; 49 Stat. 666; known as 

the “Historic Sites Act” [as amended by PL 89-249; 

October 9, 1965; 79 Stat. 971]): Declares it a national 

policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national 

signifi cance, including those located at refuges and 

districts. Provides procedures for designation, 

acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. 

Provides for designation of National Historic and 

Natural Landmarks. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965: 

Provides funds from leasing bonuses, production 

royalties, and rental revenues for offshore oil, gas, and 

sulphur extraction to the Bureau of Land Management, 

the USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and state and local agencies for purchase of 

lands for parks, open space, and outdoor recreation. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 USC 715–

715d, 715e, 715f–715r): Establishes the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission, which consists of the 

Secretaries of the Interior (chair), Agriculture, and 

Transportation; two members from the House of 

Representatives; and an ex-offi cio member from the 

state in which a project is located. States that the 

commission approves acquisition of land and water, or 

interests therein, and sets the priorities for acquisition 

of lands by the Secretary of the Interior for sanctuaries 

or for other management purposes. Requires that, to 

acquire lands or interests therein, the state concerned 

must consent to such acquisition by legislation. Such 

legislation has been enacted by most states. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 USC 715s, 

45 Stat. 1222, as amended): Authorizes acquisition, 

development, and maintenance of migratory bird 

refuges; cooperation with other agencies in 

conservation; and investigations and publications on 

North American birds. Authorizes payment of 25% of 

net receipts from administration of national wildlife 

refuges to the country or counties in which such 

refuges are located. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

of 1934 (March 16, 1934; 16 USC 718–718h; 48 Stat. 51; 

known as The “Duck Stamp Act”; as amended): 

Requires each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or 

older to possess a valid federal hunting stamp. 

Authorizes the requirement of an annual stamp for the 

hunting of waterfowl; proceeds go toward the purchase 

of habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. Duck 

stamps are also purchased (1) for entry into some 

refuges, (2) by conservationists, and (3) for stamp 

collections. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited in a special Treasury account known as the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not subject 

to appropriations. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC 703–711; 

50 CFR, subchapter B; as amended): Implements 

treaties with Great Britain (for Canada) and Mexico 

for protection of migratory birds whose welfare is a 

federal responsibility. Provides for regulations to 

control taking, possession, selling, transporting, and 

importing of migratory birds and provides penalties 

for violations. Enables the setting of seasons and other 

regulations (including the closing of areas, federal or 

nonfederal) related to the hunting of migratory birds. 

National and Community Service Act of 1990 (PL 101-

610; November 16, 1990; 42 USC 12401; 104 Stat. 3127): 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the 

United States in full and part-time projects designed 

to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, 

enhance educational skills, and fulfi ll environmental 

needs. Provides for grants to states for the creation 

of programs for citizens over 17 years of age. Programs 

must be designed to fi ll unmet educational, human, 

environmental, and public safety needs. Initially, 

participants will receive postemployment benefi ts of 

up to $1,000 per year for part-time participants and 

$2,500 for full-time participants. 

Several provisions are of particular interest to the 

Service: 

American Conservation and Youth Service 

Corps: As a federal grant program established 

under subtitle C of the law, the corps offers an 

opportunity for young adults between the ages 

of 16 and 25, or in the case of summer programs, 

between 15 and 21, to engage in approved 

human and natural resources projects that 

benefi t the public or are carried out on federal 

or Indian lands. To be eligible for assistance, 

natural resources programs will focus on 

improvement of wildlife habitat and recreational 

areas, fi sh culture, fi shery assistance, erosion, 

wetlands protection, pollution control, and 

similar projects. A stipend of not more than 100% 

of the poverty level will be paid to participants. 

A commission established to administer the 

Youth Service Corps will make grants to states, 

the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, and 

the Director of ACTION to carry out these 

responsibilities. 

Thousand Points of Light: Creates a nonprofi t 

Points of Light Foundation to administer 

programs to encourage citizens and institutions 

to volunteer to solve critical social issues, 

discover new leaders, and develop institutions 

committed to serving others. 
92 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190; 

January 1, 1970; 42 USC 4321–4347; 83 Stat. 852 [as 

amended by PL 94-52; July 3, 1975; 89 Stat. 258] [as 

amended by PL 94-83; August 9, 1975; 89 Stat. 424]): 

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to 

examine the environmental impacts of their actions, 

incorporate environmental information, and use public 

participation in the planning and the implementation 

of all actions, federal agencies must integrate the act 

with other planning requirements, and to prepare 

appropriate documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision making (40 CFR 1500). Declares 

national policy to encourage a productive and enjoyable 

harmony between humans and their environment. 

Section 102 of that act directs that “to the fullest extent 

possible the policies, regulations, and public laws of the 

United States shall be interpreted and administered in 

accordance with the policies set forth in this act, and 

all agencies of the Federal Government shall ... insure 

that presently unquantifi ed environmental amenities 

and values may be given appropriate consideration in 

decision making along with economic technical 

considerations.” 

Section 102(2)c of the NEPA requires all federal 

agencies, with respect to major federal actions 

signifi cantly affecting the quality the quality of the 

human environment, to submit to the Council on 

Environmental Quality a detailed statement of the 

environmental impact of the proposed action; any 

adverse environmental effect that cannot be avoided 

should the proposal be implemented; alternatives to 

the proposed action; the relationship between local 

short-term uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity; any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources that would be involved in 

the proposed action, should it be implemented. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89-665; 

October 15, 1966; 16 USC 470–470b, 470c–470n; 80 

Stat. 915; and repeatedly amended): Instructs federal 

agencies to consider the effect their undertakings have 

on cultural resources. The act is comprehensive 

legislation with many components, with the most 

important aspect to management being section 106. 

The purpose of section 106 is stated in 36 CFR 800.1: 

“The section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic 

preservation concerns with the needs of Federal 

undertakings through consultation among the agency 

offi cial and other parties with an interest in the effects 

of the undertaking on historic properties.” Historic 

property is defi ned in 36 CFR 800.16(l) as “any 

prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, 

or object in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National 

Register of Historic Places maintained by the 

Secretary of the Interior.” Another important section, 

section 110, directs federal agencies to inventory 

cultural resources on public lands—not necessarily in 

relationship to a project or undertaking—so cultural 

resources can be evaluated and managed.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966 (PL 89-669; 16 USC 668dd–668ee; 80 Stat. 929; 

as amended): Defi nes the Refuge System as including 

wildlife refuges, areas for protection and conservation 

of fi sh and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, 

wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management 

areas, and waterfowl production areas. Authorizes 

the Secretary to permit any use of an area provided 

such use is compatible with the major purposes for 

which such area was established. States that purchase 

considerations for rights-of-way go into the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Fund for the acquisition of lands. 

By regulation, up to 40% of an area acquired for a 

migratory bird sanctuary may be opened to migratory 

bird hunting unless the Secretary fi nds that the taking 

of any species of migratory game birds in more than 

40% of such area would be benefi cial to the species. 

Requires an act of Congress for the divestiture of 

lands in the system, except for (1) lands acquired with 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission funds, and 

(2) lands that can be removed from the System by land 

exchange, or if brought into the System by a 

cooperative agreement, then pursuant to the terms of 

the agreement. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (PL 105-57; October 9, 1997; Amendment to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

of 1966): Sets the mission and the administrative 

policy for all units in the Refuge System. Clearly 

defi nes a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the 

six priority public uses (hunting, fi shing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining appropriateness and compatibility; 

establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of the 

Interior for managing and protecting the Refuge 

System; and requires a CCP for each refuge by the 

year 2012. Also amended portions of the Refuge 

Recreation Act and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966. 

Key provisions include the following: 

— a requirement that the Secretary of the Interior 

ensures maintenance of the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the 

Refuge System; 

— the defi nition of compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation as “legitimate and appropriate 

general public use of the [National Wildlife 

Refuge] System”; 

— the establishment of hunting, fi shing, wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation as “priority public 

uses” where compatible with the mission and 

purpose of individual national wildlife refuges; 

— the refuge managers’ authority to use sound 

professional judgment in determining which 

public uses are compatible at national wildlife 

refuges and whether or not they will be allowed 
Appendix A — Key Legislation and Policies 93

(a formal process for determining “compatible 

use” is currently being developed); 

— the requirement of open public involvement in 

decisions to allow new uses of national wildlife 

refuges and renew existing ones, as well as in 

the development of CCPs for national wildlife 

refuges. 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations (50 CFR 25-35, 

43 CFR 3103.2 and 3120.3–3): Provides regulations for 

administration and management of national wildlife 

refuges including mineral leasing, exploration, and 

development. 

Rights-of-way General Regulations (50 CFR 29.21; 34 

CFR 19907, December 19, 1969): Provides for procedures 

for fi ling applications. Provides terms and conditions 

under which rights-of-way over, above, and across 

lands administered by the Service may be granted. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and 

Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 

(PL 105-242, 112 Stat. 1575): Encourages the use of 

volunteers to assist the Service in the management of 

refuges within the Refuge System. Facilitates 

partnerships between the Refuge System and 

nonfederal entities to promote public awareness of the 

resources of the Refuge System and public 

participation in the conservation of those resources. 

Encourages donations and other contributions by 

persons and organizations to the Refuge System. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act: Provides a process for museums and federal 

agencies to return certain Native American cultural 

items—human remains, funerary objects, sacred 

objects, and objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal 

descendants, culturally affi liated Indian tribes, and 

Native Hawaiian organizations.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (PL 101-

233; December 13, 1989; 16 USC 4401–4412; 103 Stat. 1968): 

Provides for the conservation of North American 

wetland ecosystems, waterfowl and other migratory 

birds, fi sh, and wildlife that depend on such habitats. 

Establishes a council to review project proposals and 

provided funding for the projects. Provides funding 

and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and 

the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between 

Canada, United States, and Mexico. Converts the 

Pittman-Robertson account into a trust fund, with 

the interest available without appropriation through 

the year 2006 to carry out the programs authorized by 

the act, along with an authorization for annual 

appropriation of $15 million plus an amount equal to 

the fi nes and forfeitures collected under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. Available funds may be expended, 

upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50% of the 

United States share of the cost of wetlands 

conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the 

United States (or 100% of the cost of projects on 

federal lands). At least 50% and no more than 70% of 

the funds received are to go to Canada and Mexico 

each year. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962: Authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, 

hatcheries, and other conservation areas for 

recreational use, when such uses do not interfere with 

the areas’ primary purposes. Authorizes construction 

and maintenance of recreational facilities and the 

acquisition of land for incidental fi sh- and wildlifeoriented recreational development or protection of 

natural resources. Authorizes the charging of fees for 

public uses. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1966 (PL 87-714, 16 USC 460k 

et seq., 76 Stat. 653–654): Authorizes appropriate, 

incidental, or secondary recreational use at 

conservation areas administered by the Secretary of 

the Interior for fi sh and wildlife purposes. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1969 [16 USC 460k–460k4], 

as amended.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, Section 401 (June 15, 

1935; 16 USC 715s; 49 Stat. 383): Provides for payments 

to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived 

from the sale of products from refuges. Related 

legislation follows:

PL 88-523 (August 30, 1964; 78 Stat. 701): 

Makes major revisions by requiring that all 

revenues received from refuge products such as 

animals, timber and minerals, or from leases or 

other privileges, be deposited in a special 

Treasury account and net receipts distributed 

to counties for public schools and roads. 

PL 93-509 (December 3, 1974; 88 Stat. 1603): 

Requires that monies remaining in the fund 

after payments be transferred to the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Fund for land acquisition 

under provisions of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. 

PL 95-469 (October 17, 1978; 92 Stat. 1319): 

Expands the revenue-sharing system to include 

national fi sh hatcheries and Service research 

stations. Includes in the Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid carcasses. 

Establishes payments to counties as follows: 

On acquired land, the greatest amount calculated 

on the basis of 75 cents per acre, 3⁄4 of 1% of the 

appraised value, or 25% of the net receipts 

produced from the land. 

— On land withdrawn from the public domain, 

25% of net receipts and basic payments under 

PL 94-565 (31 USC 1601–1607, 90 Stat. 2662), 

payment in lieu of taxes on public lands. 

— This amendment also authorizes appropriations 

to make up any difference between the amount 

in the fund and the amount scheduled for 

payment in any year. The stipulation that 

payments be used for schools and roads was 
94 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

removed, but counties were required to pass 

payments along to other units of local 

government within the county that suffer 

losses in revenues due to the establishment of 

Service areas. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978 (PL 95-469; 

October 17, 1978; amended 16 USC 715s; 50 CFR, part 

34): Changes the provisions for sharing revenues with 

counties in a number of ways. Makes revenue sharing 

applicable to all lands administered by the Service, 

whereas previously it was applicable only to areas in 

the Refuge System. Makes payments available for any 

governmental purpose, whereas the old law restricted 

the use of payments to roads and schools. For lands 

acquired in fee simple, provides a payment of 75 cents 

per acre, 3⁄4 of 1% of fair market value or 25% of net 

receipts, whichever is greatest, whereas the old law 

provided a payment of 3⁄4 of 1% adjustment cost or 25% 

of net receipts, whichever was greater. Makes reserve 

(public domain) lands entitlement lands under PL 94-

565 (16 USC 1601–1607) and provides for a payment of 

25% of net receipts. Authorizes appropriations to make 

up any shortfall in net receipts, to make payments in 

the full amount for which counties are eligible. The 

old law provided that if net receipts were insuffi cient 

to make full payment, payment to each county would 

be reduced proportionality. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 28, 1906 (18 USC 41, 43 

Stat. 98; 18 USC 145): Provides the fi rst federal 

protection for wildlife at national wildlife refuges. 

Makes it unlawful to hunt, trap, capture, willfully 

disturb, or kill any bird or wild animal, or take or 

destroy the eggs of any such birds, on any lands of the 

United States set apart or reserved as refuges or 

breeding grounds for such birds or animals by any law, 

proclamation, or executive order, except under rules 

and regulations of the Secretary. The act also protects 

government property on such lands. 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 USC 41, 

Stat. 686; Section 41 of the Criminal Code, Title 18): 

Consolidates the penalty provisions of various acts 

from January 24, 1905 (16 USC 684–687, 33 Stat. 614) 

through March 10, 1934 (16 USC 694–694b, 48 Stat. 

400) and restates the intent of Congress to protect all 

wildlife within federal sanctuaries, refuges, fi sh 

hatcheries, and breeding grounds. Provides that anyone 

(except in compliance with rules and regulations 

promulgated by authority of law) who hunts, traps, or 

willfully disturbs any wildlife on such areas, or 

willfully injures, molests, or destroys any property 

of the United States on such lands or waters, shall be 

fi ned, imprisoned, or both. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (October 1, 1973; 29 USC 794 

[as amended by PL 93-112, Title 5; 87 Stat. 355]): Prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of handicap under any 

program or activity receiving federal fi nancial 

assistance. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act of 1948: Provides that, upon 

determination by the Administrator of the General 

Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a federal agency can be transferred without 

reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior if the 

land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a 

state agency for other wildlife conservation purposes. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Order No. 3226 

(January 19, 2001): Directs bureaus and offi ces of the 

Department to analyze the potential effects on climate 

change when undertaking long-range planning, when 

setting priorities for scientifi c research, and when 

making major decisions about use of resources.

Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577; September 3, 1964): 

Directs the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, 

to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres 

and every roadless island (regardless of size) within 

the Refuge System and National Park Service for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System.

Wilderness Preservation and Management (50 CFR 35; 

16 USC 1131-1136; 43 USC 1201; 78 Stat. 890): Provides 

procedures for establishing wilderness units under the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 at units of the Refuge System.
Appendix B

Compatibility Determinations

DISTRICT NAME

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION 

AUTHORITIES

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act 

(16 USC 718 [c])

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d[2], 

715i[a])

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

(7 USC 2002 [a])

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (16 USC 3901 [b])

Public Land Order 7206 (June 24, 1996)

Public Land Order 6979 (May 25, 1993)

DISTRICT PURPOSES

“Small areas, to be designated as ‘Waterfowl 

Production Areas’ may be acquired without regard 

to the limitations and requirements of the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act, but all of the provisions of 

such Act which govern the administration and 

protection of lands acquired thereunder, except the 

inviolate sanctuary provisions of such Act, shall 

be applicable to areas acquired pursuant to this 

subsection.” Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act (16 USC 718 [c])

“For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 USC 715d[2])

“Areas of lands, waters, or interests therein acquired 

or reserved pursuant to this subchapter shall ... be 

administered ... to conserve and protect migratory 

birds in accordance with treaty obligations with 

Mexico, Canada, Japan and the Union of Soviet 

Socialist Republics, and other species of wildlife 

found thereon, including species that are listed ... as 

endangered or threatened species, and to restore and 

develop adequate wildlife habitat.” Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act (16 USC 715i[a])

“For conservation purposes any real property, or

 interest therein ... that has marginal value for 

agricultural production; is environmentally sensitive; 

or has special management importance.” 

Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 

(7 USC 2002 [a])

“It is the purpose of this chapter to promote ... the 

conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to 

maintain the public benefi ts they provide and to help 

fulfi ll international obligations in various migratory 

bird treaties and conventions with Canada, Mexico, 

Japan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and 

with various countries in the Western Hemisphere.” 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (16 USC 3901 [b])

“The following described public lands are hereby 

withdrawn from settlement, sale, location or entry 

under the general land laws, including the U.S. 

mining law, but not from leasing under the mineral 

leasing laws, to protect waterfowl production areas. 

This withdrawal will expire 50 years from the 

effective date of this order unless ... the Secretary 

determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.” 

Public Land Order 7206 (June 24, 1996)

“To protect waterfowl production areas.” Public Land 

Order 6979 (May 25, 1993)

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

MISSION

The mission of the System is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of 

the fi sh, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefi t of present and 

future generations of Americans.

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: FARMING, GRAZING, AND HAYING

The district will continue upland management 

activities such as farming, grazing, and haying that 

are conducted under cooperative farming or special 

use permit by private individuals. Currently these 

economic uses are used as tools to manage habitat for 

wildlife. 

Between 400 and 700 acres are farmed each year. 

Farming is conducted for the sole purpose of 

grassland restoration. Grazing with livestock is used 

as a tool for grassland and wetland management. 
96 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

About two-thirds of the WPAs receive some type of 

grazing treatment. Grazing does not occur over the 

entire WPA but involves rotational grazing over 

portions of a WPA. Wetlands are the most common 

habitat grazed. Area grazed ranges between 7,000 and 

9,000 acres annually over the past 5 years. 

Approximately 450 acres are hayed annually. Haying 

is sporadically used as a grassland management tool

to control invasive plants and prepare areas for upland 

restoration and prescribed burns. 

The CCP will continue grassland restoration 

activities within the district. The amount of farming 

done will be in direct relation to the amount of land 

acquired and the availability of native seed. Over 

time, farming is expected to decrease as areas are 

restored to grassland. Cooperative farming activities 

will be compatible only at areas that do not have 

established stands of native grasses and forbs. Farming 

will allow the district to establish seedbeds relatively 

free of noxious plants, maximizing the likelihood that 

grassland restoration will be successful. Soybean is 

the crop generally used during farming. 

The CCP will use grazing as a management tool 

for wetland and upland habitats. Specifi c acreages 

have not been identifi ed in the CCP because 

habitat conditions within wetland and upland 

areas can change dramatically on a yearly basis due 

to precipitation and temperatures. An adaptive 

approach will be used to prescribe grazing 

treatments for habitats. 

Availability of Resources

The resources necessary to administer haying, grazing, 

and farming programs are suffi cient at current 

staffi ng and funding levels. Haying, grazing, and 

farming programs are conducted through special use 

permits or cooperative farming agreements, which 

minimizes the need for staff time and district assets 

to complete work. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Over a 5-year period, grazing has been conducted on 

7,000–9,000 acres annually. While annual acreages 

have not been specifi ed in the CCP, it is expected 

that future refuge grazing will fall into this range. 

Farmed acres will remain in the range of 400–700 

acres per year, but will slowly decrease as uplands 

are restored to grass. Haying is anticipated to increase 

as a management tool to prepare for prescribed burns 

and control of invasive plants. Haying is expected to 

increase to about 600 acres.

Without management, wetland and upland habitat 

conditions will deteriorate due to long periods of 

rest. Cool-season invasive plants will likely increase 

and infest additional areas without the use of spring 

grazing. While all these activities disturb habitat and 

wildlife in the short term, long-term habitat and 

wildlife benefi ts outweigh these disturbances. Farming 

will cause decreases in wildlife habitat availability; 

however, habitat conditions will improve following 

grassland restoration activities. 

No cultural resources will be impacted. No impact to 

endangered species should occur. 

Determination

The use of haying, grazing, and farming as habitat 

management tools is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Q Monitor vegetation and wildlife to assess the 

effects of the management tools.

Q Require general and special conditions for each 

permit to ensure consistency with management 

objectives. 

Q Restrict the use of vehicles and motorized 

equipment to the minimum necessary to conduct 

haying, grazing, and farming.

Q Restrict farming permittees to a list of approved 

chemicals that are less detrimental to wildlife 

and the environment. 

Q Restrict haying to after August 1 to avoid 

disturbance to nesting birds unless the refuge 

manager deems it necessary to hay earlier to 

control invasive plants or restore grasslands.

Justifi cation

To maintain and enhance the habitat for migratory 

birds and other wildlife, some habitat manipulation 

needs to occur. Upland and wetland habitat conditions 

will deteriorate without the use of a full range of 

management tools. Migratory bird habitat and 

ecological diversity will decrease as habitat 

suitability declines. Exotic and invasive plant species 

will increase and habitat diversity will decrease if 

grazing practices did not continue at the WPAs. 

Farming will provide a means to restore degraded 

grasslands for the benefi t of grassland-dependent 

species. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2022

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND INTERPRETATION

All of the district’s WPAs are open to environmental 

education and interpretation in accordance with the 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. 

The district will provide opportunities for 

environmental education and interpretation. 

Environmental education will consist of activities 

conducted by district staff and volunteers. 

Interpretation will occur in less formal activities 

with refuge staff and volunteers or through exhibits, 

educational trunks, signs, and brochures. The lack of 

an outdoor recreation planner and the scattering of 

the WPAs across 14 counties will not allow the 
Appendix B — Compatibility Determinations 97

district to adequately address education and 

interpretation opportunities. Based on the CCP, the 

district will hire an outdoor recreation planner and 

increase education and interpretation for all visitors 

through the following actions: 

Q Construct an additional accessible blind for 

people with disabilities and an interpretive trail 

in the eastern portion of the district.

Q Construct entrance signs at 50% of the WPAs.

Q Develop fi ve WPAs as focus areas for education 

and interpretation.

Q Develop watchable wildlife brochures. 

Q Construct additional interpretive panels to be 

placed along trails and at parking lots.

Availability of Resources

Implementing the new facilities outlined in the CCP 

is closely tied to funding requests for RONS and 

SAMMS projects (see appendix O). Existing programs 

such as district signs and brochures will be updated 

with available resources. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use

All of the WPAs are open to environmental education 

and interpretation in accordance with the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. Minimal 

disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitat will 

result from these uses at the current and proposed 

levels. Some disturbance to wildlife will occur in 

areas frequented by visitors. There will be littering, 

minor damage to vegetation, and increased 

maintenance. 

No cultural resources will be impacted. No impact to 

endangered species should occur. 

Determination

Environmental education and interpretation are 

compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Q Prohibit vehicle access beyond parking lots.

Q Prohibit permanent and overnight blinds.

Q Develop trails and viewing areas that have 

minimal impact on wildlife and their habitats.

Q Annually review environmental education and 

interpretation activities to ensure these activities 

are compatible.

Justifi cation

Based on biological effects described previously and 

in the EA and draft CCP, it is determined that 

environmental education and interpretation within 

the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

will not interfere with or detract from the purposes 

for which the district was established. 

Environmental education and interpretation are 

priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. By 

facilitating environmental education, district visitors

will gain knowledge and an appreciation of fi sh, 

wildlife, and their habitats, which will lead to 

increased public awareness and stewardship of natura

resources. Increased appreciation for natural resource

will support and complement the Service’s actions 

in achieving the purposes of the district and the 

mission of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2022 

l 

s 

3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: WILDLIFE

OBSERVATION AND HOTOGRAPHY P

All of the district’s WPAs are open to wildlife 

observation and photography in accordance with the 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. 

The district will provide opportunities that support 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Wildlife observation and 

photography are facilitated by one hiking trail and two 

wildlife observation blinds. 

The CCP will continue the above uses and add 

the following to improve wildlife observation and 

photography: 

Q Construct an additional accessible blind for 

people with disabilities and a hiking trail in the 

eastern portion of the district.

Q Construct entrance signs at 50% of the WPAs.

Q Develop a wildlife brochure/bird guide that 

identifi es the WPAs, as well as seasons that offer 

exceptional wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities.

Q Update existing interpretive kiosks.

Q Develop fi ve WPAs as focus areas for wildlife 

observation and photography. 

Availability of Resources

Implementing the new facilities outlined in the CCP 

is closely tied to funding requests for RONS and 

SAMMS projects (see appendix O). Existing programs 

such as district signs and brochures will be updated 

with available resources. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use

All of the WPAs are open to wildlife observation and 

photography in accordance with the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. Minimal 

disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitat will 

result from these uses at the current and proposed 

levels. Some disturbance to wildlife will occur in 

areas frequented by visitors. There will be littering, 

minor damage to vegetation, and increased 

maintenance. 

No cultural resources will be impacted. No impact to 

endangered species should occur. 
98 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Determination

Wildlife observation and photography are compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Q Prohibit vehicle access beyond parking lots.

Q Prohibit permanent and overnight blinds.

Q Develop trails and viewing areas that have 

minimal impact on wildlife and their habitats.

Q Annually review wildlife observation and 

photography activities to ensure these activities 

are compatible.

Justifi cation

Based on the anticipated biological effects described 

previously and in the EA and draft CCP, it is 

determined that wildlife observation and photography 

at Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

will not interfere with the habitat goals and 

objectives or purposes for which it was established. 

Wildlife observation and photography are priority 

public uses listed in the Improvement Act. By 

facilitating these uses, visitors will gain knowledge 

and an appreciation of fi sh and wildlife, which will 

lead to increased public stewardship of wildlife and 

their habitats. Increased public stewardship will 

support and complement the Service’s actions in 

achieving the purposes of the district and the mission 

of the Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2022

4. DESCRIPTION OF USE: RECREATIONAL FISHING

All of the district’s WPAs are open to recreational 

fi shing in accordance with the Migratory Bird Hunting 

and Conservation Stamp Act. The district will 

continue to provide for recreational fi shing in 

accordance with state regulations. 

Generally, fi sheries do not exist at the WPAs. Wetlands 

in the Rainwater Basin are shallow, temporary or 

seasonal wetlands that normally are dry during the 

summer months. It is only during a series of excessively 

wet years that the wetlands support fi sh. Fish that 

have occurred in the wetlands are black bullhead and 

European carp. Boating with electric motors will be 

allowed.

Availability of Resources

The current fi shing program will be administered 

using available resources. The CCP does not call 

for the implementation of any new fi shing programs.

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Fishing and other human activities cause disturbance 

to wildlife. All of the WPAs will be open to 

recreational fi shing in accordance with the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act. 

Determination

Recreational fi shing is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Q Require that fi shing follow state and federal 

regulations. 

Q Monitor existing use to ensure that facilities are 

adequate and disturbance to wildlife continues 

to be minimal. 

Justifi cation

Based on the biological effects addressed previously 

and in the EA and draft CCP, it is determined 

recreational fi shing will not interfere with the 

habitat goals and objectives or purposes for district 

establishment. Fishing is a priority public use as listed 

in the Improvement Act. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2022

5. DESCRIPTION OF USE: RECREATIONAL HUNTING

The district will continue to allow hunting of all 

species according to state regulations. All of the WPAs 

are open to recreational hunting in accordance with the 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act.

Availability of Resources

Currently, suffi cient resources are available to carry 

out the proposed recreational hunting program. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use

Some wildlife disturbance will occur during 

recreational hunting activities. All of the WPAs will 

be open to recreational hunting in accordance with the 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act.

Determination

Recreational hunting is compatible. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Q Require the use of nontoxic shot, in accordance 

with current regulations for migratory bird and 

upland game hunting. 

Q Prohibit vehicle access beyond parking lots.

Q Prohibit permanent and overnight hunting blinds

Q Prohibit the use of horses.

Q Prohibit camping, overnight use, and fi res. 

Q Require that hunting be in accordance with 

federal and state regulations. 

Q Promote sound hunting practices for hunter 

safety and quality experiences. 

Q Annually review recreational hunting activities 

to ensure these activities are compatible.
Appendix B — Compatibility Determinations 99

Justifi cation

Hunting on Refuge System lands has been identifi ed 

as a priority public use in the Improvement Act. 

Hunting is a legitimate wildlife management tool that 

can be used to manage populations. Hunting will 

harvest a small percentage of the renewable resources, 

which is in accordance with wildlife objectives and 

principles. 

Based on the biological effects described previously 

and in the EA and draft CCP, it is determined that 

recreational hunting in the district will not interfere 

with or detract from the purposes for which the 

district was established or its habitat goals and 

objectives. 

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2022

6. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PUBLIC USE: 

TIMBER HARVEST

The district will continue timber harvest that is 

conducted under a special use permit by private 

individuals. Timber harvest will be used as a 

management tool to reduce the invasion of woody 

vegetation in grassland and wetland habitats. 

Availability of Resources

The CCP does not propose any changes in timber 

harvest activities allowed with special use permits. 

The resources necessary to administer a timber 

harvest program will be suffi cient at current staffi ng 

and budgetary levels. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Timber harvest will have short-term impacts by 

causing disturbance to wildlife and disturbance to 

ground cover. The removal of trees will reduce the 

effects of shading and robbing of soil moisture, and 

thereby encourage warm-season grassland species to 

grow. The absence of trees will reduce nest and 

chick mortality for ground-nesting birds that are 

commonly preyed on by raptors, raccoon, and skunk.

Determination

The use of timber harvest (under special use permit) 

as a habitat management tool is compatible.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Q Require general and special conditions for each 

permit to ensure consistency with management 

objectives. 

Q Restrict the use of vehicles and motorized 

equipment to the minimum necessary to conduct 

timber harvest.

Q Require trees be cut to ground level and the 

stumps be treated with approved herbicide to 

prevent regrowth.

Q Require slash to be removed or piled according 

to the manager’s discretion.

Justifi cation

Soil and climatic conditions are suitable to grow trees 

on any land left undisturbed. In addition, larger, mature 

trees that have timber value are the primary source of 

seed for new seedlings. Tree removal is vital to the 

maintenance of quality wetlands and uplands. The 

spread of saplings will (1) increase the costs of 

vegetation management that are associated with 

prescribed burning and (2) reduce haying as a 

management option. Invasive, cool-season grasses 

will be commonly associated with shaded woodland 

areas. Bird predators such as owls, red-tailed hawk, 

raccoon, and skunk will benefi t from shelterbelts and 

volunteer trees.

Mandatory 15-year Reevaluation Date: 2022

Submitted to: _______________________________

 Gene Mack, Project Leader Date

 Rainwater Basin Wetland 

 Management District, NE

Reviewed by: ______________________________

 Rod Krey, Refuge Supervisor Date

 Region 6, National Wildlife 

 Refuge System, CO

Approved by: _______________________________

 Richard A. Coleman, PhD, Date

 Assistant Regional Director

 Region 6, National Wildlife 

 Refuge System, CO

Appendix C

Preparers

This CCP is the result of the efforts by members of the planning team for the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District.

Name Title Agency

Mike Artmann GIS specialist USFWS

Susann Cayouette administrative offi cer USFWS

Jeff Drahota wildlife biologist USFWS

Mark Ely GIS specialist USFWS

Bernardo Garza planning team leader USFWS

Kyle Graham private lands biologist USFWS

Steve Karel refuge operations specialist USFWS

Brad Krohn biological technician USFWS

Brice Krohn supervisory range technician USFWS

Ted LaGrange wetland program manager NGPC

Gene Mack project leader USFWS

Mindy Meade private lands biologist USFWS

Steve Moran RWBJV coordinator USFWS

Paul Nelson maintenance worker USFWS

Mark Pfost biological technician USFWS

Ryan Reker GIS specialist USFWS

Ronnie Sanchez deputy project leader USFWS

Richard Schroeder wildlife biologist/ecologist USGS–BRD

Mark Vrtiska waterfowl program manager NGPC

Bruce Winter prescribed fi re specialist USFWS

Appendix D

Public Involvement

The Service began preparation of this “Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District” with the preplanning process 

in September 2005. On November 10, 2005, the 

Service contacted state and tribal representatives 

to invite them to participate in the planning process 

for the district’s CCP. The planning team was formed 

during the kickoff meeting in Kearney, Nebraska, 

December 6–7, 2005, with the following team members: 

Service personnel from the district and the regional 

offi ce; representatives from the NGPC and RWBJV; 

and personnel from USGS–BRD (see appendix C, 

preparers).

PUBLIC SCOPING

The notice of intent to prepare the CCP for the 

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District was 

published in the Federal Register on November 30, 

2005. The public scoping process was completed in 

December 2005. Four public open-house meetings 

were held from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. during consecutive 

nights throughout the Rainwater Basin, as follows:

Q Kearney, NE; December 5, 2005

Q York, NE; December 6, 2005

Q Clay Center, NE; December 7, 2005

Q Holdrege, NE; December 8, 2005

Notifi cation of dates and times of the public open 

house meetings was distributed through press 

releases and a planning update mailed out to everyone 

in the CCP mailing list.

Of the 51 people who attended these meetings, 38 

were non-Service individuals. Written comments 

were received from 17 individuals. Comments 

received identifi ed biological, recreational, and 

economic concerns about management of the district.

Those who attended provided both written and oral 

comments. They were informed that comprehensive 

planning was an open process and they could submit 

their comments at any time and by any means (for 

example, by letter, telephone, and email) until the 

time the CCP was fi nal. Additional written comments 

were received by the planning team via mail.

Over the course of preplanning and scoping, the 

planning team collected available information on the 

resources of the district and the surrounding areas 

as well as what are the issues facing the district 

and of importance to the public. This information is 

summarized in chapter 2 (“The District”) and chapter 3 

(“District Resources and Description”).

The planning team revisited the purposes for which 

the district was created and drafted issues and 

qualities lists, as well as the vision and goals, for the 

district during a workshop held in Kearney, Nebraska, 

October 13–14, 2005.

Between February and April 2006, the planning team 

developed a range of alternatives that included two 

alternatives for management of the district. A 

subsequent assessment of each alternative’s 

environmental consequences guided the team in 

choosing the alternative that would best fulfi ll the 

purposes, vision, and goals for the district. Once the 

Service identifi ed the proposed action, the planning 

team developed the objectives, strategies, and 

rationales for each of the goals set out by the district. 

PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT CCP

The Service released the draft CCP and EA for a 30-

day public comment period starting July 18, 2007. 

During this public comment period, the planning team 

held a public meeting in Hastings, Nebraska (July 31, 

2007, from 12:00 to 8:00 p.m.). An announcement of 

this meeting and the release of the draft CCP and EA 

for public comment was published in the Federal 

Register on July 18, 2007, as well as in local media. 

Six members of the public, including a local television 

station reporter and a congressional aid, attended the 

public meeting. 

The public comment period closed August 18, 2007. 

Two printed letters, a personal communication with 

the project leader, three personal comments during 

the public meeting, and an email message were the 

only comments received from the public. The following 

summarizes the comments received and the Service’s 

responses.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Comment 1 omment 1—The district staff is doing a much better 

job than in the early part of the 1990s. There are no 

problems or concerns.

Response 1 esponse 1—(None needed.)
104 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Comment 2 omment 2—The grazing and farming programs 

(as a preparatory technique for restoration to 

native habitats) administered by district staff have 

improved waterfowl habitat by changing the plant 

community from less desirable to more desirable 

species (for example, from cattails to barnyard 

grass and reduction in the commonly occurring reed 

canarygrass and other noxious weeds) at several 

WPAs.

Response 2 esponse 2—The district staff will continue to carry 

out these and other habitat management techniques 

that help restore and maintain the habitat conditions 

required by the migrating and resident wildlife 

species found in the Rainwater Basin.

Comment 3 omment 3—Food plots should not be considered 

among the district’s habitat management activities 

because these plots benefi t an introduced species 

(pheasant), plus there is already plenty of leftover 

grain on lands adjacent to the district’s WPAs for 

pheasant to feed on.

Response 3 esponse 3—The district staff will not plant food 

plots during the implementation of the CCP because 

food in the form of grain is not a limiting factor in the 

life or ecology of pheasant or any other species within 

the Rainwater Basin. More limiting is the diversity 

and abundance of natural food associated with native 

plant communities—native plant seeds and insects.

Comment 4 omment 4—The CCP should include information 

about how wetlands managed by the district help 

recharge groundwater in the Rainwater Basin. 

Response 4 esponse 4—There is not adequate information 

to fully determine the role played by the district’s 

wetlands in the recharging of groundwater in the 

Rainwater Basin. The CCP addresses the need for 

further research into the role that the district’s 

wetlands have on groundwater recharge and 

other ecological benefi ts to the environment of the 

Rainwater Basin, such as the quantity and quality of 

surface and subsurface water resources.

Comment 5 omment 5—Comments provided during the public 

review period should receive serious consideration 

and not be not merely a step in an already-completed 

process.

Response 5 esponse 5—All comments provided during the 

planning process have received serious consideration 

and have been instrumental in the development of the 

vision, goals, objectives, and strategies in the fi nal CCP. 

The Service has adhered to the guidelines and spirit 

of the NEPA in fully developing and equally analyzing 

and considering a range of alternatives for the 

management of the resources of the district. The 

development and analysis of the range of alternatives 

and selection of a preferred alternative for this fi nal 

CCP has not been predecisional. 

Comment 6 omment 6—What is to prevent future managers 

from interpreting this CCP to fi t their goals? The 

CCP may be changed, creatively interpreted, or 

ignored if it suits the goals of the decision maker.

Response 6 esponse 6—This 15-year CCP is a congressionally 

mandated plan that district and refuge managers 

must adhere to when making management decisions. 

The Refuge System’s administrative structure will 

ensure continuity of management and compliance 

with goals and objectives in this CCP (for example, 

through oversight by refuge supervisors).

Comment 7 omment 7—Alternative A is the only realistic 

option. Alternative B offers lofty goals that are 

unrealistic with available funding and management 

capabilities. A third option should be introduced 

in which alternative B management would be fully 

implemented and further improvements would be 

undertaken if funding becomes available. Adding 

additional land without having additional funding 

will lead to further degradation of the current WPAs 

and the degradation of new properties acquired. 

This CCP means nothing without the long-term 

commitment of funding and personnel to carry out 

the plan.

Response 7 esponse 7—Through this planning process, the 

Service has determined that carrying out alternative B 

with its aim to improve and expand management 

capabilities through partnerships is realistic and 

feasible. Addition of more land to the district will only 

occur if the district staff is capable of managing it in 

accordance with the goals and objectives in this CCP.

Comment 8 omment 8—There is concern that some Service 

personnel are not concerned with production of 

waterfowl, but only with migrating waterfowl, 

particularly during spring migration. The result 

of this CCP will depend on current and future 

interpretation and actions, and those will change 

with changes of personnel.

Response 8 esponse 8—The district is located on the critical 

bottleneck of the hourglass-shaped Central Flyway. 

All bird species migrating through the fl yway 

converge in the Rainwater Basin during spring and 

fall migrations—the basin provides a vital resting 

and staging point for millions of migratory birds. 

Many wetland habitats in the basin have been 

converted to urban and agricultural landscapes. 

The remaining wetlands, both within and outside 

the district, are now required to provide all the 

necessary resting and feeding grounds for all the 

migrating birds that converge in the Rainwater 

Basin. Thus, a main concern for the Service is to 

provide the necessary habitat conditions required by 

migrating birds. The Service is not solely concerned 

with providing migrating habitat, but given the 

overall habitat conditions present throughout the 

basin, the district staff gives priority to ensuring 

migrating birds can fi nd the best possible habitat 

during their migrations. In addition, the district 

staff works incessantly to restore upland habitats 

(nesting habitat). As noted in response 6, this 15-year 
Appendix D — Public Involvement 105

CCP is a congressionally mandated plan that district 

and refuge managers must follow when making 

management decisions, and there is administrative 

oversight to ensure compliance.

Comment 9 omment 9—The government needs to fully fund 

“payments in lieu of taxes” on all lands to an amount 

equal to what a private landowner would have paid at 

the higher of either agricultural production value or 

recreational value. Paying the full “in lieu of taxes” 

could help fund better local law enforcement.

Response 9 esponse 9—”Payments in lieu of taxes” are paid by 

the Service through the provisions of the Revenue 

Sharing Act. However, the Service’s ability to make 

these payments depends on designated funding 

appropriated by Congress. The Service makes the 

best possible use of the resources that Congress 

allocates to the agency. The Service agrees that 

payment in full “in lieu of taxes” could translate into 

better local law enforcement.

Comment 10 omment 10— The federal government needs to be 

a leader in funding and managing its own properties, 

which means funding the management needs of all 

currently owned lands in the district. 

Response 10 esponse 10—As noted in response 9, the Service 

prioritizes management needs and makes the best 

possible use of the resources that Congress allocates 

to the agency.

Comment 11 omment 11—Alternative B does not address 

how funding will be provided other than with 

partnerships, local cooperation, and volunteerism. 

This implies that the Service is transferring its 

funding and staffi ng to the local communities, but 

does not allow local decision making about the 

management actions. This will also decrease funding 

and staffi ng for privately managed wildlife habitat.

Response 11 esponse 11—Only the Service has decision-making 

authority for management within the district; 

the Service cannot transfer this responsibility or 

authority. The Service is committed to providing 

adequate funding and personnel to manage lands in 

the district. This includes fi nding new, innovative 

solutions to current and future management, funding, 

and personnel challenges—partnerships can be some 

of the solutions. The Service focus on partnerships 

aims to fulfi ll the goals and objectives in this CCP. 

Partnerships that the district staff seek and maintain 

will be mutually benefi cial, depending on the needs of 

each individual partner. 

Comment 12 omment 12—The Service needs to develop 

and maintain contact information for adjoining 

landowners and tenants, plus residents within 2 

miles of district properties. The Service needs to 

annually send each of these contacts a letter that 

outlines district management plans for the properties 

near them, how to contact the Service if there is a 

problem arising from such management as burning 

or livestock grazing. When grazing is being used, the 

Service needs to provide the local sheriff’s offi ce and 

adjoining farmers and residents with the livestock 

owners’ contact information. The Service needs 

to use the local and county newspapers, as well as 

regional and state newspapers, to promote district 

management and inform the public.

Response 12 esponse 12—This CCP (a public document readily 

available in printed format at the district offi ce 

and as a ready-to-download PDF document at the 

Service’s region 6 refuge planning website) outlines 

the different techniques used by the district’s staff 

to manage lands administered by the Service. The 

Service will continue to contact fi re departments 

and other appropriate entities to inform them of 

management activities on Service lands. The district 

staff, within its budgetary and personnel capabilities, 

will attempt to develop better means to keep its 

neighbors informed. This task will be more easily 

accomplished once the Service can allocate more 

personnel to the district.

Comment 13 omment 13—Nebraska is sometimes known as the 

“Tree Planter State”—it is home of Arbor Day. The 

Service needs to recognize that this is part of the 

local culture and heritage and, therefore, preserve 

planted trees, shelterbelts, windbreaks, and border 

trees. These treed areas are habitats that provide 

food, shelter, and nesting and resting areas for 

nonwaterfowl migratory birds. There could be a winwin situation by protecting large trees, along with 

carrying out early control of seedling trees instead 

of destroying the large-tree habitat that takes 30–60 

years to replace.

Response 13 esponse 13— Most of the land in the Rainwater 

Basin is in private property and contains vast 

treed habitats that ensure the preservation of the 

local culture and heritage. For the district’s WPAs, 

the Service’s responsibility is to manage for the 

purpose for which the district was established—for 

waterfowl and other migratory birds—by restoring 

wetland and grassland conditions needed by these 

species. The majority of bird species that migrate 

through the Central Flyway depend on the mosaic 

of grasslands and wetlands to provide them with 

sustenance and rest amidst their long fl ights. 

While the current mosaic of extended areas of 

trees used in shelterbelts, windbreaks, and border 

trees is conducive to some native and introduced 

wildlife species, and even to some migrating 

Neotropical birds, it is not adequate resting and 

feeding habitat for most migrating species. Prior 

to human settlement of the Rainwater Basin, the 

vastly predominant mosaic of habitats in this area 

were prairie grasslands dotted with numerous 

complexes of wetlands. Treed areas were sparse 

and mostly confi ned to the margins of rivers and 

creeks. Shelterbelts provide habitat for some species 

of wildlife; however, shelterbelts and other trees 

and shrubs decrease the size of grassland blocks 

and result in fragmented habitats. Shelterbelts are 

unnatural in grasslands and provide habitat for both 
106 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

avian and mammalian predators. Recent studies 

have shown that many grassland-nesting birds and 

upland-nesting waterfowl either avoid areas adjacent 

to trees or have lower nest success due to predation. 

Furthermore, treed areas tend to deplete surface 

water from wetlands and harbor migratory bird 

predators. Service activities at the district focus on 

restoration of presettlement habitat conditions in the 

lands administered by the district. 

Comment 14 omment 14—Large trees provide habitat for the 

bald eagle, which is America’s national bird and 

symbol and is highly regarded in the culture of Native 

Americans. It is important for the youth and others 

who live in or visit this area to see this majestic bird 

alive and free on public land, not just as a picture in a 

book. Observation of bald eagles is one of the thrills 

cited by visitors to this area during migration. The 

bald eagle is being driven from these public lands by 

current and proposed management activity; it takes 

many years to replace large-tree habitat. 

Response 14 esponse 14—As described in response 13, the 

purpose for which the district was established is to 

manage WPAs for waterfowl and other migratory 

birds by restoring wetland and grassland conditions 

needed by these species. Bald eagles benefi t from 

the presence of the migratory birds that rest and 

feed in the Rainwater Basin. Bald eagle populations 

throughout the United States have grown steadily 

to the point that this species has been taken off the 

endangered species list. This majestic American 

symbol uses and will continue to use the basin so 

long as there are adequate food resources (migrating 

waterfowl and other migratory species) that sustain 

its individuals. Bald eagles make use of all adequate 

habitats, whether public or private lands. There 

are vast treed areas within the basin that the bald 

eagles will use for nesting and roosting even after the 

Service has restored to grassland and wetland all the 

lands it administers in the district.

Comment 15 omment 15—There is value in the observation of 

young wildlife; young ducklings and goslings are an 

attraction to bird watchers and hunters. The Moger 

WPA produced wood ducks before their nesting trees 

were removed.

Response 15 esponse 15—As described in response 14, wildlife 

make use of habitats in the Rainwater Basin so long 

as they provide adequate food, nesting, loafi ng and 

resting resources, whether on public or private lands. 

Geese, while able to use treed areas for nesting, is 

primarily a prairie-wetland complex species that 

will continue to use the basin after the Service has 

restored the lands it administers to a prairie-wetland 

complex. To keep trees around wetlands, the Service 

would need to shift its mission, to one of providing 

nonhistorical habitat for a species such as the wood 

duck that was not numerous in grasslands of the 

Central Flyway. All this would be at the expense 

of those species that historically relied on the open 

wetland-grassland landscape.

Comment 16 omment 16—The Service must commit itself to 

meeting the goals and expectations of partners. In 

the past, partnerships have meant local funding 

for Service responsibilities. Other government or 

nongovernmental groups might not provide funding 

or other assistance if there is no way to be assured 

that the Service will maintain what has been 

provided. Past tree plantings funded by nonfederal 

groups were destroyed when management changed. 

Response 16 esponse 16— The Service is committed to meeting 

the goals and expectations it enters into with its 

partners. The defi nition that the Service uses to 

describe a partnership is, “a contract or agreement 

entered into by two or more individuals, groups 

of individuals, organizations or agencies in which 

each agrees to furnish a part of the capital or 

some in-kind service, such as labor, for a mutually 

benefi cial enterprise.” As noted in response 11, the 

partnerships that the district staff will seek and 

maintain will be mutually benefi cial, depending on 

the needs of each partner. Partnerships will aim to 

fulfi ll the goals and objectives in this CCP. 

Comment 17 omment 17—When partnerships and cooperation 

are needed, the partners and cooperators must be 

full partners, where their concerns or ideas are given 

full consideration. In the past, cooperation with the 

Service has often meant that a local landowner or 

government agrees to do something for little or no 

benefi t to the landowner or government. 

Response 17 esponse 17—Cooperation is essential to effective 

partnerships; thus, response 16 applies here. The 

Service considers, respects, and pays attention to 

the concerns and ideas expressed by its partners 

and cooperators. In fact, the partnership-driven 

management scheme for the district fi nds its roots in 

ideas and comments provided to the Service by its 

neighbors, partners, and cooperators.

Comment 18 omment 18—The Service needs to give greater 

consideration to the concerns of local government 

and input provided by community leaders. People 

from the county where the property is located must 

be given a greater voice, and the Service must yield 

to local needs if a mutually acceptable compromise 

cannot be found.

Response 18 esponse 18—The Service gives full consideration 

to the concerns of local government and community 

leaders. However, neither the Service or the district 

can deviate from their congressionally mandated 

mission and purpose. Furthermore, as stated in 

response 11, only the Service has decision-making 

authority for management within the district; the 

Service cannot transfer this responsibility or authority.

Comment 19 omment 19—The Service needs to involve local 

school and youth groups in construction and 

maintenance activities at the district. This would 

develop feelings of pride and ownership in the 

persons involved. The Little Blue NRD has used this 

as a method to lessen vandalism on some areas.
Appendix D — Public Involvement 107

Response 19 esponse 19—The district staff will seek ways to 

carry out this helpful idea.

Comment 20 omment 20—The Service needs to contact local 

schools and offer to provide them guides for fi eld 

trips to areas in the district.

Response 20 esponse 20— The district staff will seek ways 

to provide local schools with information about 

school visits and use of the district’s facilities. The 

implementation of this idea will be facilitated when 

the district is allocated further personnel, especially 

an outdoor recreation planner.

Comment 21 omment 21—Drought, wet years, burning, grazing, 

insects, and diseases are some of nature’s methods 

of control that need to be respected. Multi-year 

drought on private lands has had an impact on the 

infestation of cattails and rushes. The Service needs 

to allow basins to go through a drought cycle of 

more than a few months—many irrigated basins 

have not undergone a multiyear drought since being 

purchased. The Service should rotate water-pumping 

in basins to provide multiyear drought cycles, but not 

all basins should be left dry at the same time. This 

management will provide more natural conditions 

and be more cost effective.

Response 21 esponse 21—Drought and extended periods of dry 

conditions are natural phases of a healthy wetland. 

However, the large-scale loss of wetlands throughout 

the Rainwater Basin has made it more vital that the 

remaining 10% contain water at a frequency higher 

than what historically occurred. It is part of this CCP 

to increase the number of WPAs that have waterpumping capabilities; those areas that have had 

annual water-pumping can be allowed to go through 

some year-long dry conditions. The added pumping 

capabilities will increase water management 

fl exibility, allowing a better mix of wet and dry 

wetlands during migration.

Comment 22 omment 22—Five percent of all lands owned by 

the Service in each township should be maintained 

specifi cally for local habitat interests. The availability 

of food plots, trees, shrubs, or legumes would 

diversify the habitat for other wildlife that rely on 

wetlands. This would provide habitat suitable for 

upland birds, deer, turkey, songbirds, and raptors. 

Response 22 esponse 22—As noted in response 13, the purpose 

for which the district was established is to manage 

WPAs for waterfowl and other migratory birds by 

restoring wetland and grassland conditions needed 

by these species. Providing 5% of the district’s land 

for habitat for nontrust species would mean a 5% 

decline in habitat for migratory waterfowl and other 

migratory birds. Based on this CCP, management 

will continue to provide habitat for upland birds and 

songbirds. The agricultural lands and shelterbelts 

that currently dominate the Rainwater Basin 

landscape provide habitat for deer, turkey, raptors, 

and other woodland birds.

Comment 23 omment 23—The district’s buildings and offi ces 

should be built on or adjoining an existing WPA. The 

sites should be landscaped using plants that occur 

on the adjoining WPA, and the grounds should be 

maintained exactly like the WPA. The Service needs 

to design the facility for use as an outdoor classroom 

for the public. The Service should consider having 

facilities built by private owners and leased to the 

Service.

Response 23 esponse 23—These facility comments are very 

helpful and the Service will consider them during 

design and location of new district buildings. 

Construction and location will be infl uenced 

considerably by the source and intent of the funds 

received. For example, the funding source could 

require the district to co-locate with other Service 

offi ces or with another agency.

Comment 24 omment 24—The CCP proposes spending almost 

$2 million on equipment that can only be used on a 

seasonal basis and is best used by skilled operators. 

It would be better to use contractors, who can 

complete projects quickly and effi ciently. Some small 

equipment items on the CCP list should be leased or 

hired on an as-needed basis.

Response 24 esponse 24—The district currently uses contractors 

and rental equipment as much as possible. However, 

some equipment is needed on a frequent or 

immediate basis, which makes it practical to own the 

equipment. In addition, the seasonality of use for 

some equipment makes it diffi cult to locate or rent 

that piece of equipment because it is in high demand 

at the same time the district would need to lease it.

Comment 25 omment 25—Given the size of the district and the 

number of WPAs, one or two law enforcement people 

would not be enough to provide adequate coverage. 

Redefi ning the working hours of current and 

additional employees would help provide a presence 

during weekends and evening hours to discourage 

lawbreaking. These employees could call authorities 

to make the arrests. 

Response 25 esponse 25—Even the additional law enforcement 

staff (1) specifi ed to carry out this CCP would not be 

adequate to address all law enforcement situations 

throughout the district. All staff are watchful and 

report violations they observe while doing their 

normal work in the district. To redefi ne work hours 

of current employees would mean to reduce the 

amount of staff time available to do their main work. 

For example, a maintenance person who is redirected 

to patrol areas would not be available to do 

maintenance. It would also increase the probability 

of that individual being involved in a life-threatening 

situation that he or she was not hired for or trained 

to respond to. 

Comment 26 omment 26—The Service needs to provide an 

honest comparison between the farming income and 

“new” recreational income. Areas acquired have a 

history of use by hunters and bird watchers. The 
108 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

income from new visitors would need to surpass the 

income from current users and agriculture. New 

income for the area is welcome, but not if there is a 

greater loss to current income; it would be better to 

maintain the current income and be able to attract 

additional income.

Response 26 esponse 26—The income data and projections 

in the CCP is from a recent socioeconomic report. 

The Service used a consulting company—with 

ample experience in the research and analysis of 

socioeconomic data—to assess the economic impact of 

the Service’s activities in the Rainwater Basin. The 

data used in the subsequent socioeconomic analysis 

is current, accurate, and the best available for the 

projections stated in the report. 

Comment 27 omment 27—The decline of habitat for upland game 

has reduced the number of hunters using these areas 

in the fall. The spring goose season has helped offset 

this change, but does not have the magnitude or 

duration that upland hunting once had.

Response 27 esponse 27—The majority of lands acquired by the 

Service within the Rainwater Basin was marginal 

agricultural land containing drained or altered 

wetlands, which the Service converted to grassland 

and wetland. The number of hunters using these 

areas has increased since the land was converted 

to wildlife habitat. However, the overall decline 

in upland game habitat over the past decades has 

reduced the number of hunters in the basin during 

the fall. This overall decline in upland game habitat 

has increased the need for district lands to provide 

recreational opportunities. 

Comment 28 omment 28—The CCP does not address the carbon 

released by the burning and rotting of mature 

trees removed from borders and windbreaks. Many 

of these trees are 30–70 years old and have been 

storing carbon for that period of time. Sediment and 

tree removal disturb the soil and cause the release 

of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Disking, 

whether in a farmer’s fi eld or in a wetland, exposes 

the soil for the release of carbon dioxide; it seems 

that there would be a greater release or carbon 

when sediments containing large amounts of organic 

matter is dug up and exposed to the air. 

Response 28 esponse 28—The carbon balance or cycle is a 

complicated matter. Although burning and rotting 

of mature trees do release carbon, these are natural 

events since no tree lives forever. The conversion of 

tilled land into nontilled grassland does sequester 

carbon. Although reducing the amount of carbon 

emissions is a concern of the district, as well as every 

individual, it is not the purpose for which this district 

was established. The Service recognizes that all 

management practices have pros and cons that need 

to be considered.

Comment 29 omment 29—Minimal maintenance roads provide 

valuable access to hunters and nature watchers, as 

well as providing necessary means for farmers to 

move between fi elds. Because these roads are less 

traveled, they are often safer and more direct routes 

for farmers moving large equipment. While a couple 

of miles added to the travel distance (after closure 

of these types of roads) for an automobile may be a 

minor inconvenience to some, the added distance for 

slow-moving equipment would impact local farmers. 

Response 29 esponse 29—Roads being sought for closure by the 

district are roads that have outlived their usefulness. 

They are commonly characterized by little or no 

maintenance and are located within wetlands. Often 

the request to close a particular road is initiated by 

adjoining landowners who are tired of being asked 

to pull stuck vehicles during hunting season. The 

process for closing any county or township road 

involves requesting permission from the appropriate 

government, providing public notice, and conducting 

a hearing on the matter. The district follows this 

process. In general, a road remains open if the local 

people are opposed to closing it. Roads closed to 

the public on district lands may have arrangements 

made to give adjoining landowners farming access, if 

necessary.

Comment 30 omment 30—Effi cient and benefi cial use of 

water resources is important to all of us. However, 

pumping water for wildlife as well as farm irrigation 

can impact roads and adjoining properties of this 

basin. The Service’s description of water pumping 

in wetlands as irrigation would likely not meet 

Nebraska’s defi nition of irrigation. Currently, rights 

to underground water do not exist in Nebraska; 

the Little Blue NRD has initiated the process to 

change Nebraska law to provide for wildlife uses 

of underground water. In areas of confl ict between 

surface rights holders and groundwater users, the 

surface water rights have priority. This CCP states 

that pumping is done only where the Service controls 

the entire wetland. However, residents across the 

road from Moger WPA experience fl ooding from 

heavy rains that fl ood the wetland. In addition, 

county roads on the south and west sides of the WPA 

are fl ooded by heavy rains. Therefore, any water the 

Service pumps into the Moger WPA adds to the fl ood 

potential. It is the goal of the local residents not to 

have irrigation water run off of their property and to 

be able to use most if not all of a normal rain.

Response 30 esponse 30—Pumping of any groundwater can 

have an impact on roads and adjoining properties 

under certain conditions. The district intends to 

pump enough water into its wetlands to provide 

migratory bird habitat, but still leave enough water 

storage area for normal rains and snowmelt. Since 

waterfowl and shorebirds prefer shallow water, only 

a small portion of the wetlands’ storage capacity is 

fi lled by pumping. However, heavy storm events 

can cause fl ooding. The district works with county 

offi cials and adjoining landowners to resolve such 

concerns; within the last decade, the district has only 

had a couple of complaints of this type. The more 

common complaint is fl ooding of fi elds and roads 
Appendix D — Public Involvement 109

caused by cornstalks being washed off the fi elds and 

plugging road culverts, keeping runoff from reaching 

wetlands.

Comment 31 omment 31—Many of the invasive plant species 

have fl ourished under the management practices of 

the last 45 years. These plants were not a problem 

when the Service purchased the property, but 

became a problem due to lack of management. In 

the early years of the district it was thought that no 

management was needed, but it is now recognized 

that was not true. 

Response 31 esponse 31—As more information is obtained 

through the years, management and objectives have 

changed. In recent years, the adaptive resource 

management approach has enabled the Service to 

evaluate and make adjustments on a timely basis.

Comment 32 omment 32—In the past, the Service has resisted 

the efforts of local groups to build observation towers 

and blinds; everyone needs to work together.

Response 32 esponse 32—About 10 years ago, the district 

worked with one local group to build an observation 

blind on Massie WPA. That group maintains the 

blind for the benefi t of wildlife enthusiasts who visit 

the area. As noted in response 11, only the Service 

has decision-making authority for management 

within the district; the Service cannot transfer this 

responsibility or authority. The Service cannot allow 

local groups to freely build towers and blinds that 

are not compatible with the Service’s mission. For 

example, a blind that is restrictive in accessibility to 

all the public would not be compatible. 

Comment 33 omment 33—The pumping of warm water in 

January and early February led to an increased 

early migration under more severe conditions and 

that coincided with the most severe fowl cholera 

outbreaks. When there is no open water due to 

drought or cold weather, pumping creates unnatural 

open water and leads to more overcrowding. Natural 

adaptation to seasonal changes are a better plan. 

Response 33 esponse 33—Natural adaptation to seasonal 

changes is a better plan, but that is unrealistic 

because of wetland losses within the Rainwater 

Basin, as well as throughout the Central Flyway. 

Natural runoff that normally reached wetlands 

has declined due to alterations within watersheds. 

Water pumping is currently the only way to replace 

the natural runoff. There is no known direct 

relationship between water temperature and avian 

cholera. Studies within the Rainwater Basin have 

documented that the bacteria does not remain in the 

water or soil, but is brought into the area each spring 

by migratory birds. The rate that water is delivered 

into a wetland and the area over which the water 

spreads out allows that water to quickly cool to the 

natural temperature of the wetland. It takes only 

one night of freezing temperatures to reduce pumped 

water to the temperature of the wetland.

Comment 34 omment 34—It is surprising that prairie dogs 

would be mentioned in this plan because it seems 

that management is centered on waterfowl that are 

hunted and that other species are tolerated at best. 

There is no problem with prairie dogs on this area so 

long as they do not impact local landowners.

Response 34 esponse 34—The Service has a responsibility to 

manage all types of native wildlife. Although the 

emphasis is on waterfowl and migratory birds, 

management is done to help sustain all types of 

wildlife that naturally occur on district lands, 

including prairie dogs.

Comment 35 omment 35—The Service should respect the needs 

and views of citizens, landowners, and governments 

in the communities where the WPAs are located. In 

addition, the Service needs to earn respect through 

timely, honest, and open communication with these 

citizens, landowners, and governments about district 

plans and actions.

Response 35 esponse 35—The Service agrees with this comment.

Comment 36 omment 36—There is interest in the recharge 

of aquifers; if the Service can include recharge of 

aquifers in the plan, there may be related money to 

support district management.

Response 36 esponse 36—As noted in response 4, the district 

staff does not have adequate information to fully 

determine the role played by the district’s wetlands 

in the recharge of aquifers (groundwater) in the 

Rainwater Basin. This CCP addresses the need 

for further research into the role that the wetlands 

managed by the district have on groundwater 

recharge and other ecological benefi ts to the 

environment of the Rainwater Basin such as the 

quantity and quality of surface and subsurface water 

resources.

Comment 37 omment 37—The draft CCP and EA represents 

a continuing violation of the NEPA and section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act due to the Service not 

doing the following: (1) preparing and environmental 

impact statement; (2) engaging in intra-Service 

consultations on the sport hunting program for 

the district and the Refuge System; and (3) using 

data from nonconsumptive and nonhunter surveys 

provided by the Humane Society. An environmental 

impact statement should be prepared because of 

sport hunting and overall recreation programs.

Response 37 esponse 37—Some citizens are concerned with 

hunting on units of the Refuge System. The Refuge 

System is guided by laws enacted by Congress and 

the president, as well as policy derived from those 

laws. The Improvement Act identifi es hunting as one 

of six, priority, wildlife-dependent, recreational uses 

to be facilitated when compatible with the mission 

of the Refuge System and the purposes of any of 

its units. Hunting is consistent with the purposes 

of the district. The district manages lands acquired 

with Federal Duck Stamp and other funds as WPAs. 
110 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Because the source of funding for land acquisition is 

from Duck Stamps, the district’s WPAs are open to 

public use including hunting. While the units of the 

Refuge System are managed fi rst and foremost for 

wildlife, the focus is on perpetuating populations, not 

individuals. Hunting does adversely affect individual 

animals, but is allowed when it will not threaten 

perpetuation of the population being hunted. 

The district has engaged in intra-Service, section 7 

(of the Endangered Species Act) consultation with 

the Service’s ecological services offi ce in Grand Island, 

Nebraska, to ensure that the actions delineated in the 

CCP do not adversely affect any federally listed species. 

The conclusion made by the ecological services offi ce is 

that the implementation of the CCP will not adversely 

affect federally listed species in the Rainwater Basin. 

The preferred alternative (CCP) was not a major 

federal action that would signifi cantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the meaning 

of section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA. Accordingly, the 

preparation of an environmental impact statement 

was not required.

Comment 38 omment 38—The Service should mow instead of 

using cattle to manage vegetation. Although grazing 

could help waterfowl, grazing has caused nothing but 

disaster.

Response 38 esponse 38—Like all management practices, 

grazing can produce results that cannot be achieved 

by other management actions. And like other 

practices, it must be used appropriately. The district 

staff has found, through years of observations, that 

livestock grazing can target specifi c plant species. 

Grazing that coincides with the beginning growth 

on undesirable plant species has caused that species 

to be overgrazed and reduced in number and health. 

The result is that other, preferred plant species can 

better compete. The more common use of grazing 

within the district is to control reed canarygrass. If 

left unmanaged, this species can displace all other 

plant species, resulting in a monotypic stand. For 

native, seed-producing plants to begin to return, the 

canarygrass has to be severely grazed; that level of 

grazing results in bare soil and torn-up roots. To the 

casual observer, the management practice appears 

to be a disaster. Unfortunately for the observer, 

the benefi t is not seen until the next year’s growing 

season. 

PLANNING MAILING LIST

The following mailing list was developed for this 

CCP’s planning effort.

FEDERAL OFFICIALS

U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, Washington DC; 

Area director, Lincoln, NE

U.S. Senator Ben Nelson, Washington DC; 

Area director, Lincoln, NE

U.S. Representative Adrian Smith, Washington DC; 

Area director, Grand Island, NE

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Bureau of Reclamation

National Park Service—Homestead National 

Monument, Beatrice, NE; Lewis and Clark National 

Trail, Omaha, NE

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Kearney, NE

USDA, Forest Service; Chadron, NE

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service in 

Nebraska—Holdrege Service Center, Grand Island 

Service Center, Clay Center Service Center, Hastings 

Service Center, Franklin Service Center, Elwood 

Service Center, York Service Center, Aurora Service 

Center, Geneva Service Center, Wilbur Service Center

USFWS in Nebraska—Ecological Services, Grand 

Island, NE; Crescent Lake NWR, North Platte NWR, 

Fort Niobrara NWR, Valentine NWR

USFWS–Northern Prairie Waterfowl Research Center 

USFWS—regional offi ces of regions 1–7 and 9; National 

Conservation Training Center

USGS–Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO; 

Northern Prairie Research Center; Jamestown, ND

NEBRASKA STATE OFFICIALS

Senator Greg Adams, York

Senator Ray Aguilar, Grand Island

Senator Carroll Burling, Kenesaw

Senator Tom Carlson, Holdrege

Senator Annette Dubas, Fullerton

Senator Ray Janssen, Nickerson

Senator Joel Johnson, Kearney

Senator Russ Karpisek, Wilber

Senator Chris Langemeier, Schuyler

STATE GOVERNMENT

NDEQ, Lincoln

Nebraska Corn Board, Lincoln

Nebraska Department of Agriculture, Lincoln

Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, Lincoln

Nebraska Department of Roads, Lincoln

Nebraska Department of Water Resources

Nebraska Emergency Management Agency, Lincoln

Nebraska Environmental Trust, Lincoln

Nebraska Forest Service, Lincoln

Nebraska State Historical Society

Nebraska State Historic Preservation Offi ce

NGPC, Lincoln 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Buffalo County Weed Board

Central Nebraska Public Power Irrigation District
Appendix D — Public Involvement 111

Central Platte NRD

Clay County Highway Department

Fillmore County Roads Department

Gosper County Weed Control

Hamilton County Board of Supervisors

Little Blue NRD

Lower Loup NRD

Lower Niobrara NRD

Meat Animal Research Center

Phelps County Road Department

Seward County Highway Department

Tri-Basin NRD

Upper Big Blue NRD

LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESS AND CIVIC

GROUPS

The 1980 Anawalt Family Trust

Abengo Energy

A C Feedyards Inc.

Agnes E. Johnson Farms

Audubon Society

Boyd Kaiser Trust

BSL LLC

Burt Partners

Clarence W. Schmidt Trust

Clay Center Critter Care

Crane Meadows Nature Center

C & R Hendrickson Farms Inc.

Cudmore-Kneifl Construction Company Inc.

Daniel R. Stengel Revocable Trust

Dannehl Farms Inc. 

Darleen Nielsen Trust

David B. Huber Revocable Trust

David High Farms Ltd.

Donald D. Lovegrove Trust

Donna Linder Trust

Dorothy I. Ebert Estate

Ducks Unlimited

Earl W. Frazier Revocable Trust

Flinthill Farms Ltd.

Gene Lundeen Inc.

Gladys W. Scharmann Trust

H-D Management Company

Kathleen M. Swartz Revocable Trust No. 1

Lauer Ag Inc.

Lazy T Milliron Inc.

Lipovsky Farm Corporation

L & K Irrevocable Living Trust

Marvin W. Volzke Trust

Max A. Gemar Family Trust

M & C Stadler Inc.

ME LLC

The Nature Conservancy

Nebraska Cattlemen

Nebraska Environmental Trust

Nebraska Farm Bureau

Nebraska Farmer

Nebraska Groundwater Foundation

Nebraska Hunters Connection

Nebraska State Historical Society

Nielsen Family Farms LLC

Ostgren Construction Company

Pheasants Forever

Playa Lakes Joint Venture

Prairie Plains Institute

Rainwater Basin Joint Venture

R Lazy K Inc. 

R L Kaliff Ranch Company

Rosetta Nelson Family Farms LLC

Ruby L. Real Trust

Semco Land Inc. 

Standard Farms of Nebraska Inc.

Stuckey Grandchildren Partnership

Submerged Land Co. Inc.

Sylvia L. Schmidt Irrevocable Trust

Thelma J. Arneson Trust

Thunderbird Farms Inc, 

Triple E Farms Inc.

VCK Farms LLC

Whooping Crane Trust

William Seng Trust

NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

American Bird Conservancy, VA

American Rivers, Washington DC

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington DC

Ducks Unlimited, TN

Isaac Walton League, MD

National Audubon Society; NY, Washington DC

National Trappers Association Inc., WV

National Wildlife Federation, VA

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington DC

The Nature Conservancy, CO

Sierra Club, CA

U.S. Humane Society, Washington DC

The Wilderness Society, Washington DC

Wildlife Management Institute; CO, OR, Washington DC

MEDIA

Aurora News-Register

Bertrand Herald

Blue Hill Leader

Clay County News

Doniphan Herald

Franklin County Chronicle

Friend Sentinel

Gibbon Reporter Offi ce

GI Family Radio

Grand Island Independent

Henderson News

Holdrege Daily Citizen

Kearney Hub

KGFW Radio

KHAS-TV

KOLN/KGIN-TV

KRVN Radio

Lincoln Star Journal

Milford Times

Minden Courier

Nebraska Signal

NTV Network
112 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Omaha World Herald

Tribune-Newspaper

Seward County Independent Newspaper

Shelton Clipper

York News Times/Advantage

UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Cooperative Unit

INDIVIDUALS

352 persons
Appendix E

Environmental Compliance

Environmental Action Statement

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Within the spirit and intent of the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act and other 

statutes, orders, and policies that protect fi sh and 

wildlife resources, I have established the following 

administrative record.

I have determined that the action of implementing 

the “Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Rainwater 

Basin Wetland Management District” is found not to 

have signifi cant environmental effects, as determined 

by the attached “Finding of No Signifi cant Impact” 

and the environmental assessment as found with the 

draft comprehensive conservation plan.

Rod Krey Date

Refuge Supervisor (KS,NE, ND, SD)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Gene Mack Date

Project Leader

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

Kearney, NE

J. Mitch King Date

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO

Richard A. Coleman, PhD Date

Assistant Regional Director, Region 6

National Wildlife Refuge System

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO
114 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Finding of No Signifi cant Impact

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6

Lakewood, Colorado

Fulfi ll the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

 Date

Two management alternatives for the Rainwater 

Basin Wetland Management District were assessed 

as to their effectiveness in achieving the district’s 

purposes and their impact on the human environment.

Q Alternative A, the “no-action” alternative, 

would continue current management.

Q Alternative B, “integrated partnership 

approach” (the proposed action), would 

focus on addressing resource management 

in a holistic manner, with an emphasis on 

cooperation, coordination, and better exchange 

of information. An expanded district staff would 

work with partners to improve the waterfowl 

production areas across the landscape of the 

Rainwater Basin. The emphasis would be on 

adaptive management—as more information 

is known, management would be changed 

to improve effects on the environment for 

the benefi t of migratory birds in the Central 

Flyway. 

Based on this assessment and comments received, 

I have selected alternative B as the preferred 

alternative for implementation.

The preferred alternative was selected because it 

best meets the purposes for which the Rainwater 

Basin Wetland Management District was established 

and is preferable to the “no-action” alternative in 

light of physical, biological, economic, and social 

factors. The preferred alternative will continue 

to provide public access for wildlife-dependent 

recreation, environmental education, and 

interpretation. 

I fi nd that the preferred alternative is not a major 

federal action that would signifi cantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the 

meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the 

preparation of an environmental impact statement on 

the proposed action is not required. 

The following is a summary of anticipated 

environmental effects from implementation of the 

preferred alternative:

Q The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact endangered or threatened species or 

their habitat.

Q The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact archaeological or historical resources.

Q The preferred alternative will not adversely 

impact wetlands nor does the plan call for 

structures that could be damaged by or that 

would signifi cantly infl uence the movement of 

fl oodwater.

Q The preferred alternative will not have a 

disproportionately high or adverse human 

health or environmental effect on minority or 

low-income populations.

Q The state of Nebraska has been instrumental 

in the development of this plan and has been 

notifi ed and given the opportunity to review 

the comprehensive conservation plan and 

associated environmental assessment. 

J. Mitch King 

Regional Director, Region 6 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lakewood, CO
Appendix F

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Plan

BLACK TAILED PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT PLAN

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District

 Written and Revised in 2003 by 

Tom Koerner, Deputy Refuge Manager

&

Jeff Drahota, Wildlife Biologist

Approvals and Concurrence

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District:

Project Leader

 Gene D. Mack 

 Signature Date

Mountain-Prairie Regional Office:

National Wildlife Refuge System

Refuge Supervisor, Nebraska, Kansas & Colorado:

 Ron Shupe 

 Signature Date

Regional Wildlife Biologist: 

 Wayne King 

Signature Date
116 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Introduction

Description

The scientific name for the black-tailed prairie dog is Cynomys ludovicianus. “Ludovicianus," is

the Latin form of Ludwig or Louis, relating back to the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1804-1806,

when prairie dogs were first collected for science. 

The prairie dog is a burrowing member of the order Rodentia, the largest group of mammals in the

world. An adult black-tailed prairie dog is between 12 and 16 inches long and generally weighs

between 1.5 and 2.5 pounds. Its tail is covered with hair and is about one-fourth of the animal's

total length. Its body is tan to pale brown in color, its underparts are white to buffy white, and its

tail is tipped with black. The prairie dog's legs are short, but its feet are large and have welldeveloped claws, especially on the forefeet. Its head is broad and rounded, and its eyes are fairly

large. 

Distribution and Abundance

The black-tailed prairie dog is one of five species of prairie dogs found in North America. It is the

most abundant and widely distributed species and is the only prairie dog found in Nebraska. It is

found throughout the Great Plains from southern Canada to just inside Mexico. The western edge

of its range is along the Rocky Mountains, and the eastern edge follows the natural boundary

between tall and mid-grass prairie. In Nebraska, prairie dogs are found roughly in the western

two-thirds of the state. Historic towns have been documented on a number of WPAs throughout

the WMD; however, the most active towns are found in the west half of the WMD.

Black-tailed prairie dogs live in colonies or "towns" that range in size from as small as one acre to

several thousand acres. The largest prairie dog colony on record was in Texas, and was about 100

miles wide, 250 miles long and contained an estimated 400 million animals. It is estimated that in

the late 1800s, some 700 million acres of North American rangeland were inhabited by prairie

dogs. Habitat changes and extensive eradication efforts have reduced the acreage by about 90 to 95

percent from historic levels. 

We believe that on WPAs, the cessation of regular grazing on these towns led to the eventual loss

of the town due to the creation of unsuitable habitat. This factor becomes more important the farthe

east one travels. Increasing precipitation levels, resulting in higher vegetative growth without

grazing may results in less suitable habitat.

Habitat and Home

Areas of short and mid-grass rangeland that are heavily grazed by livestock are the prairie dog's

preferred habitat. Prairie dog colonies are most recognizable by the mounds and holes at their

burrow entrances. A colony will typically have 30 to 50 burrow entrances per acre. 

The animal's burrow system can be quite complex and extensive. Mounds of excavated soil around

the burrow entrance are generally cone-shaped and vary from one to three feet in height and from

three to 10 feet in diameter. These mounds serve as lookout points and serve to prevent water from

entering the burrow system. Tunnels are generally three to six feet below the surface and about 15

Page 2

r
Appendix F — Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Plan 117

Introduction

feet long, although burrows have been reported to reach depths of 15 feet. Burrow systems

typically include several chambers, including one near the entrance where the prairie dog can sit

and listen for activity above ground, and one or more nest chambers where they sleep and care for

their young. 

Habits

The fact that prairie dogs live in colonies indicates they are highly social animals. The largest social

unit is the colony or town. Towns are often divided into "wards" by topographical barriers such as

roads, ridges or trees, and are generally five to 10 acres in size. Although prairie dogs in one ward

may be able to see and hear animals of an adjacent ward, movement among wards is unusual.

Wards are divided into several smaller prairie dog social units, called "coteries." Each coterie

generally consists of one adult male, one to four adult females, and any offspring less than two

years old. Members of one coterie defend their territory from invasion by members of other

coteries. 

Prairie dogs are active during the day, usually from about sunrise to sunset, and during summer

they spend about one-third to one-half of the daylight hours feeding. Another third is involved in

social interactions with other colony members as well as working on burrows and mounds and

responding to alarm calls. The remainder of daylight is spent underground, especially during

midday when temperatures above ground are high. The black-tailed prairie dog is active all year. In

winter, it remains underground for several days when weather is severe, but comes out on sunny

afternoons to look for food and bask in the sun. 

Black-tailed prairie dogs exhibit an elaborate communication system. At least 11 separate calls hav

been identified, and a variety of postures and displays are utilized. Calls range from signals of

alarm to "all-clear." Physical contact is another method of prairie dog communication. Mouth-tomouth contact is used to identify coterie members from strangers, and grooming among coterie

members is common. 

Food

Grasses are the preferred food of the prairie dog, and generally makes up about three fourths of its

diet. In the fall, broadleaf forbs become more important as green grass is less available. In winter,

any available green vegetation is consumed. In the spring and summer, each prairie dog consumes

up to two pounds of vegetation per week. 

In addition to the vegetation it eats, the prairie dog also clips much of the vegetation within its

colony. This is probably done to keep the vegetation clipped short to provide an unobstructed view

of approaching predators. Over a period of time, clipping, foraging and digging activities can alter

the composition of the vegetation in a prairie dog town. Short, native grass like buffalograss and

blue grama is favored when present. 

Reproduction

Page 3

e
118 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Site Description

A prairie dog reaches sexual maturity after its first winter and has one litter per year. Breeding

takes place in March and early April, and a litter of 4-6 young is born 30 to 35 days later. Young

prairie dogs are born hairless, helpless, and with their eyes closed. They remain underground for

about six weeks and first emerge from the den in May or June. They are weaned at this time and

begin feeding on green vegetation. They reach adult size by fall. 

Mortality

Although the prairie dog has been known to live for at least eight years in captivity, its average life

span in the wild is usually three to four years. In addition to actions of man, the prairie dog faces

many natural predators. Badgers are probably the main predators, but coyotes, weasels, golden

eagles, hawks, swift fox, and other predators take prairie dogs. Bullsnakes and rattlesnakes take

young prairie dogs but generally not adults. The black-footed ferret was once a primary prairie dog

predator, but it is now considered an endangered species and no wild ferrets have been verified in

Nebraska since the 1940s. 

A prairie dog is susceptible to a number of diseases, the most notable being plague. Plague is an

infectious disease transmitted by the bite of an infected flea. Plague can devastate prairie dog

populations, wiping out entire colonies in some areas. This disease was known as "black death" in

the 1300s when about one-third of Europe's human population was lost. Although it can be

transmitted to humans through the bite of an infected flea, plague has not been found in prairie

dogs in Nebraska and is now treatable in humans. 

Importance

In many ways, a prairie dog town can be considered a biological oasis. Many wildlife species

associate with prairie dogs. Some species feed on prairie dogs, but others utilize the burrow

systems or the unique habitat to fulfill their needs. Vacant burrows are used by cottontail rabbits,

several species of small rodents, tiger salamanders, and by burrowing owls. Our most active

towns have had successful nesting by burrowing owls. Meadowlarks, grasshopper sparrows, and

other birds are found in greater numbers in prairie dog towns than in the surrounding rangeland

because they are attracted to the open spaces, where seeds and insects are more accessible. In

addition to their importance to other wildlife species, prairie dogs are also important to wildlife

observers and photographers. 

SITE DESCRIPTION

Originally, the Rainwater Basin in south central Nebraska contained more than 3,900 wetland

basins within a 17-county area. The Basin region covers 4,200 square miles of flat to gently

rolling Peorial Loess Plains. Wetland basins are generally large, shallow depressions with deep

clay layers in the wetland basin–creating an impervious water barrier. The name Rainwater Basin

Page 4
Appendix F — Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Plan 119

Site Description

comes from the basins’ ability to go from dry to flooded conditions quickly–following heavy

rainstorms and snow melts. Continual siltation problems result from rapid runoff carrying heavy

silt loads from agricultural land resulting in poor water quality. Soils surrounding the basins are

very fertile, consisting of heavy silt loams and silty clay. Deep beneath the soil lies the Ogallala

Aquifer, which is the source of water for the extensive amount of irrigated corn and soybeans. 

Water from the Platte River, lying north of the region, is delivered by irrigation canals to irrigate

the southwest portion of the region. Agricultural and rural development has destroyed more than

90 percent of the original number of wetlands.

The Fish and Wildlife Service began acquiring wetlands in 1963 with the purchase of Massie

Waterfowl Production Area (WPA). By 1966, 7,000 acres were acquired and a management

office was established in Hastings, Nebraska. In 1976, the office was moved to its present

location: Kearney, Nebraska. 

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District (WMD) currently manages 63 tracts of land,

61 of which are Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) totaling 23,059 acres. One of the remaining

two areas is McMurtrey Wildlife Management Area that was transferred from the military. Its

1052 acres are closed to public use. The other tract is the Platte River National Wildlife

Management Area (438 acres). This property is owned by the state of Wyoming and managed

through a memorandum of understanding. WPAs are small isolated tracts of land scattered

throughout the District. Most WPAs contain only one large wetland. All WPAs are managed as

a grassland/wetland ecosystem. Wetland management is focused toward providing optimum

waterfowl and shorebird habitats. The uplands are managed for a high diversity of native tall and

mid-grass plant species. Thirty-eight FmHA conservation easements totaling 2350 acres are

managed by this office as well. 

Spring migration is the primary focus of the Rainwater Basin WMD. Each spring, about six

million snow geese, one million Canada geese, 90 percent of the mid-continent white-fronted

goose population, millions of ducks, and one-half million sandhill cranes use these wetlands and

associated Platte River areas. Habitat becomes very critical during this time of year. Extensive

pumping and aggressive wetland management are needed to maintain quality habitat for resting

and staging. 

In addition, we manage habitats to provide habitat for many other species of migratory birds and

resident wildlife which utilize these grasslands and adjacent uplands. 

Page 5
120 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Reintroduction

Soils

Soils throughout the Rainwater Basin vary. In general, they are characterized as Peorial Loess. 

The soils formed under tall and mid-grass prairies and are characterized as deep, well drained, and

fertile. The wetland or hydric soils are scattered throughout the WMD and are generally believed

to have formed through a combination of wind and water erosion. Scouring events created a

depression and rainfall events caused the migration of clays to the bottom of the basin. These

hydric soils (Massie, Scott, and Fillmore soils) have a clay layer from 1 to 10 feet thick. They

create an impermeable layer and restrict movement of water.

Surrounding Land Uses

The major industry and source of income throughout the WMD is crop and livestock production. 

Nearly every acre has been converted to agricultural use. Small to medium sized communities

(25,000 residents) are scattered across the WMD.

Current Status of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs on WPAs

We currently have 5 WPAs with known active black-tailed prairie dog towns (see Figure 1).

These are Prairie Dog (see Figure 2), Atlanta (see Figure 2), McMurtrey (see Figure 4), Hultine

(see Figure 5), and Clark (see Figure 6) WPAs. These were surveyed in 1999 and again in 2003. 

McMurtrey, Atlanta, and Prairie Dog WPAs appear to have viable populations at this time. 

Atlanta WPA currently has the largest dog town at 24 acres yet, most are less than 8 acres.

On Prairie Dog WPA, a number of abandoned burrows were re occupied after initiating grazing on

the sites. Likely, individuals from the active burrows relocated into these abandoned burrows.

The town on Atlanta WPA has remained relatively the same size, and has not expanded outside

of the electric fence lines placed to control grazing access. The population on McMurtrey NWR,

appears to be well established from re-introductions made in 2001.

The towns on Clark and Hultine WPAs established after several years of heavy grazing. The

newly established towns on both sites are small, containing less than 12 burrows each in the

summer of 2003. They both have the potential to expand into previously occupied burrows.

REINTRODUCTION

Page 6
Appendix F — Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Plan 121

Reintroduction

A number of additional WPAs have evidence that historic black-tailed prairie dog towns (see

Figure 7). Old burrows and mounds can still be found. We propose that re-introductions of

black-tailed prairie dogs be made into these historic sites. In addition, several high public use

sites on Harvard, Massie, Mallard Haven, and Funk WPAs that have the potential for

environmental education and interpretation along with establishing a viable population, are

proposed release sites. Although no evidence in the form of mounds or burrows exists at these

sites, it is believed that historically black-tailed prairie dogs could be found in the immediate

vicinity of these sites. Currently, seven release sights including both historic and new dog towns

are proposed (see Figure 8) and will be populated as circumstance allow. We propose reintroductions of black- tailed prairie dogs into these sites under the following conditions:

1. All landowners immediately adjacent to the proposed reintroduction site have been

contacted to discuss our intent, management options, and concerns.

2. Private rangeland is not located immediately adjacent to the proposed release site and/or

an adequate cultivated barrier exists to minimize movement from the re-introduction site

and discourage colonization on adjacent private land.

3. Suitable habitat exists at the time of release. Suitable habitat includes poor stands of grass

commonly dominated by introduced grasses.

Intended release sites should provide suitable black-tailed prairie dog habitat at the time of release. 

This would include vegetation 3" or less in height and a minimum of one “burrow” for every four

animals released. The vegetation could be grazed, or mowed if grazing were not possible, through

the growing season to keep it short. Burrows could be present from a historic town, or they could

be drilled in with the 6" auger attachment on the Bobcat. Drill one burrow for every two dogs

released. Both of these conditions will reduce the likelihood that the prairie dogs will abandon the

site upon release and would likely result in a higher survival rate of released animals. 

Pre-Capture

We are occasionally contacted by individuals wishing to remove prairie dogs from their property. 

They would be willing to allow these prairie dogs to be live trapped for relocation. If we have a

suitable re-introduction site where all three conditions stated above have been met, we may

consider accepting these prairie dogs for reintroduction purposes. Each proposal will be evaluated

on a case by case basis, giving preference to those sites closest to the proposed reintroduction site. 

If our staff will be required to conduct the trapping and relocation, time budgets of the staff will be

given priority and will only be conducted when our workload allows.

Prior to trapping, the prairie dog town that will be trapped should be surveyed for indications of

Page 7
122 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Reintroduction

disease. A walk through should be done looking for signs of dead animals including other species. 

Remote monitoring of animals should be done using a spotting scope for one hour during midday

(at least three hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset) on a sunny day. It is recommended

that all burrows be treated 10 days prior to trapping with Delta Dust to kill fleas currently

inhabiting the colony. If dead animals are found, two options can be taken: 1) bag the animal and

send to the disease lab to determine cause of death; 2) find another trapping sight. 

Pre-baiting with should start three days before trapping begins. Live traps can be placed within 3

feet of active burrows and locked open during pre-baiting. Trapping should start after June 1 and

can be done until sub-freezing temperatures occur. 

Monkey pox was recently a high profile news story with regards to handling of prairie dogs. The

origin of the outbreak was traced to a shipment of prairie dogs in the pet trade. These prairie dogs

then infected humans which handled them. USDA APHIS immediately placed restrictions on the

trade and handling of prairie dogs. At this time, it does not appear that these restrictions apply to

the US Fish and Wildlife Service with regards to ongoing research and/or management of wild

populations of prairie dogs. This new outbreak should reinforce the need to research the

background of any potential capture sites and exclude any that may have had captive black- tailed

prairie dogs released on site. 

Capture

New bait but smaller portions should be used during the trapping stage. Traps should be unlocked

with bait placed on the pan or just behind the pan. If needed, flagging should be used to mark traps

since they may be difficult to monitor from a distance so not to disturb the colony unless animals

have been captured. Traps should not be left unlocked if they cannot be checked at least every 24

hours.

Once animals have been captured, they should be dusted with flea powder (the product Seven is

recommended) before the trap is moved. Long gloves should be used to prevent fleas from bitting

around the wrist. Traps can then be placed in the back of a pickup and removed from the site and

taken to the quarantine site. 

A 24-hour quarantine is required after trapping. Captured animals should be left in the traps they

were captured in. They should be placed in a cool and dry area such as a pole barn or well

ventilated shed. If a longer quarantine is used, apple slices can be used to sustain the animals and

will meet their food and water requirements. 

Any dead animals found during the quarantine should be handled with extreme caution. These

animals should be sent to the disease lab for analysis. If plague is found, these animals should not

Page 8
Appendix F — Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Plan 123

Management

be used for reintroduction.

Post Release

After release, the site will be periodically surveyed to determine presence or absence of prairie

dogs, if vegetation is conducive to expansion, limiting expansion, or maintaining populations. 

Currently, 8-10 acre prairie dog towns appear to be manageable. Larger towns could be

maintained on a few WPA’s as long as the station’s mission and goals are not jeaprodized. Three

or four areas could have up to 30 acre prairie dog towns if further expansion is controllable and

the threat of colonization on adjacent land is minimal. It is also necessary to monitor adjacent

cropland for potential foraging impacts due to overcrowding, expansion, or changes in forage

quantity on WPA’s. 

MANAGEMENT

Management includes any activity conducted to control the size of the prairie dog town, maintain

the habitat suitability for black-tailed prairie dogs, and/or ensure its long term viability.

Hunting black-tailed prairie dogs on Federal Waterfowl Production Areas in the Rainwater Basin

WMD was closed as of 01/01/2003. We propose to leave this closure in place indefinitely. This

decision was made based upon the relatively small size of the towns, small populations, and

relative isolation from other active towns. Although significant harvest was not believed to be

occurring before the closure, changes in local interest in prairie dog shooting along with decreasing

opportunities would likely have led to an increase in harvest. 

Active prairie dog towns on Atlanta, Prairie Dog, McMurtrey, Clark, and Hultine WPAs have

been managed primarily through heavy grazing over the last four seasons. Grazing cooperators

are instructed to place water tanks on the town site. This results in short, clipped vegetation

which is more suited to maintaining a viable town. We have interseeded buffalo grass and blue

grama on these sites, with the expectation that increased grazing pressure will result in

establishment of these two, low growing grasses. Although not widely distributed in the mid and

tall grass prairie, buffalo grass and blue grama can be found in areas which are heavily grazed. We

plan to continue grazing at a rate sufficient to maintain a vegetative height less than 3" on active

towns. If grazing is not an option in some years, mowing may be considered as a possible

alternative.

Page 9
124 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Management

Historic black-tailed prairie dog towns may be re-occupied without re-introductions simply by

providing suitable habitat. Prairie dogs, especially the first year class, have been documented to

disperse into suitable habitat located several miles away. By grazing these historic towns at a

rate sufficient to provide suitable habitat, it is conceivable they may be re-occupied at some

point. This is what we believe occurred on Clark and Hultine WPAs.

Our land acquisition program has the potential to acquire new WPAs that may contain active

black-tailed prairie dog towns. Should we acquire lands with an active black-tailed prairie dog

town, we will manage the sites in a similar fashion to maintain a viable town within a defined

boundary. 

It has been demonstrated that fence placement alone has been sufficient to prevent the spread of

a town outside of the defined boundary on Prairie Dog and Atlanta WPAs (see Figure 2 & 3). 

We feel that this phenomenon will hold true across the WMD. The grassland vegetation in these

precipitation zones grows faster than the prairie dogs can cut it, resulting in unsuitable habitat. If

private pasture exists adjacent to the release site, it is conceivable to believe that some prairie

dogs would relocate to this pasture and cause damage by their burrowing activities. That is why

release under these circumstances will be carefully considered. The majority, however, have

adjacent cropland. The annual tillage and tall growth eliminate cropland as potential black- tailed

prairie dog habitat.

Control

In the event that our assumptions are wrong and that the black- tailed prairie dogs spread outside

of the defined boundaries, control measures will be taken. All legal and effective methods for

prairie dog control may be considered, excluding the use of any toxicants. 

Some options considered but are not limited too:

Box traps Although relatively ineffective at capturing large numbers, this may be considered

where individual animals may want to be salvaged for some purpose.

Leghold traps Placed in front of burrow entrances, may be relatively effective at reducing a small

number of animals.

Page 10
Appendix F — Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Plan 125

Management

Visual barriers The use of snow fence, hay bales, or other visual obstructions have proven

successful in some places with reducing or eliminating the spread of prairie dogs

from a defined boundary. 

Raptors The installation of raptor perches along the perimeter of prairie dog towns has

proven successful at some locations for reducing the spread of the town. 

Shooting Shooting individual animals which have spread outside of the designated

boundaries could prove effective. This could be accomplished by US Fish and

Wildlife Service staff or by an individual through a Special Use Permit. 

Page 11
126 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

References

REFERENCES

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Surveys for 1999 and 2003. Rainwater Basin Wetland Management

District. Unpublished report.

Boddicker, Major L. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. B-75 to B-84 Prairie Dogs.

Hyngstrom, Scott E., and Dallas R. Virchow. Prairie Dogs and the Prairie Ecosystem.

Luce, Bob, et. al. A Multi-State Conservation Plan for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Cynomys

ludovicianus, in the United States. 2002.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Website:

http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/wildlife/pdogs.html

Van Pelt, William E. The Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Assessment and Strategy.

.

Page 12
Appendix F — Black-tailed Prairie Dog Management Plan 127

References

Page 13
Page 14

H ALL

C LAY

YOR KPOLK

SA

AD AMS

BUT 

HAR LAN THA YER

PHELPS

SEW 

FRAN KLIN

FILLMOR E

GOSPER KEARN EY

NUC KOLLS

HAM ILTON

#

Atlanta

#

Pr air ie Do g

#

McMurtre y # Hultine

#

Clark

30 0 3 0 6 0 9 0 M il e

W 

2003 Activ e Pra irie Dog Tow ns on W PAs

Rai nw a ter Ba sin Co untiesWP As w ith Prai rie Do g to w nsAll roadsOther W PA s
Page 15

HALL

CLAY

YORK

POLK

SAL

ADAMS

BUT 

HARLAN THAYER

PHELPS

SEW 

FRA NK LIN

FILLM OR E GOSPER KEARN EY

NUC KOLLS

HAMILTON

# Je ns en

#

Hansen

#

Pet e rs on

#

P rairie D og

#

McMurtrey

#

Atlanta

#

Hultine

30 0 30 60 90 12

W 

Rainw ater Basin CountiesW PA s with know n historic  Prairie Dog tow nsAll roadsOth er W PAs

Historic Black-tailed Prairie Dog Towns on WPA
Page 16

HALL

C LAY

YOR K

POLK

S

ADAMS

B

HAR LAN THA Y ER

PHELPS

SE

FRANKLIN

FILLMORE GOSPER KEARN EY

NUC KOLLS

HAM ILTON

# Je ns en

#

Hansen

#

Pete rs on

#

Funk

# Quadham er

#

Harvard

#

Mal lard H a v

#

Mass ie

30030 60 90

S

N

W E

Oth er WP AsAll road sProp osed WPA s fo r futu re  Pra iri e D og re leasesRainw ater B asin Cou nties

Proposed Black-tailed Prairie Dog Release Area

Miles
Appendix G

Section 7 Biological Evaluation
132 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE
Appendix G — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 133

Appendix H

List of Plants

The Service maintains a list of plant species at <http:// 

www.fws.gov/nwi/bha/list88.html> that occur in 

wetlands. The following list of plants for WPAs managed 

by the Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

was generated using the region 5 map (1,523 plant 

species) from this website. The USDA Plants website 

at <http://plants.usda.gov> listed 9,485 plant species 

for Nebraska. Both the USDA Plants website and the 

NatureServe Explorer website at <http://www.

natureserve.org/explorer> were used to verify scientifi c 

names, common names, and habits for those species not 

listed on the Service website.

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Scientifi c name is the genus and species applied to the

taxon by the National List of Scientifi c Plant Names 

(1982), USDA Plants, NatureServe Explorer (2006).

NATIONAL RANGE OF INDICATORS

The national indicators refl ect the range of estimated

probabilities (expressed as a frequency of occurrence)

of a species occurring in wetland versus nonwetland 

across the entire distribution of the species. A 

frequency, for example, of 67%–99% (facultative 

wetland) means that 67%–99% 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 

confi rmed by regional review. When two indicators are 

given, they refl ect the range from the lowest to the 

highest frequency of occurrence in wetlands across the 

regions in which the species is found. A positive (+) or 

negative (–) sign was used with the facultative indicator 

categories to more specifi cally defi ne 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). Occur almost always (estimated

probability >99%) under natural conditions in wetlands.

Facultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in wetlands 

(estimated probability 67%–99%), but occasionally 

found in nonwetlands.

Facultative (FAC). Equally likely to occur in wetlands or 

nonwetlands (estimated probability 34%–66%).

Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in nonwetlands

(estimated probability 67%–99%), but occasionally 

found on wetlands (estimated probability 1%–33%).

Obligate Upland (UPL). Occur in wetlands in another 

region, but occur almost always (estimated probability 

>99%) under natural conditions in nonwetlands on the 

region specifi ed. 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 fl ooded 

wetlands, but a number of obligates also occur and 

some are restricted to wetlands that are only 

temporarily or seasonally fl ooded. 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 in 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 fl ooded wetlands.

REGION 5 WETLAND INDICATOR (REGIONAL INDICATOR

FOR 5—CENTRAL PLAINS NE, KS, CO [EASTERN])

The regional indicator refl ects the estimated 

probability (likelihood) of a species occurring in wetlands 

versus nonwetlands in the region. Regional indicators 

refl ect 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 

fi eld. An NI (no indicator) was recorded for those 

species for which insuffi cient 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 identifi es tentative assignments based on 

limited information from which to determine the 

indicator status. 
136 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

HABIT

Habit indicates the plant characteristics and life forms 

assigned to each species in the National List of 

Scientifi c Plant Names (1982) and by the Soil 

Conservation Service. Family names are listed 

alphabetically under specifi c life forms restricted to 

these families. The habit symbols are combined to 

describe the life form of the species (for example, ANG 

means annual native grass and IT means introduced 

tree).

Habit Symbol Characteristic or Life Form

A Annual

B Biennial

C

 E

F

Clubmoss 

Emergent

Forb

Lycopodiaceae

Selaginellaceae

/ 

F3

Floating 

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

HS

Partly woody

Half shrub

H2

I

Horsetail 

Introduced

Equisetaceae

N Native

P Perennial

+ Parasitic

P3

Q

S

Pepperwort 

Quillwort 

Shrub

Marsileaceae

Isoetaceae

–

Z

$

Saprophytic

Submerged

Succulent

T Tree

V Herbaceous vine

W Waterfern Azollaceae

 Salviniaceae

WV Woody vine
Appendix H — List of Plants 137

Scientifi c 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 smithii western wheatgrass FACU UPL,FAC– PNG

Agrostis hyemalis 

(A. antecedens) ticklegrass FACU FACU,FACW PNG

Agrostis gigantea redtop FAC+,FACW FAC+ PNG

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 carolinianus Carolina foxtail FACW FAC+,FACW ANG

Amaranthus arenicola sandhill amaranth UPL,FAC FACU ANF

Amaranthus retrofl exus 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 PNF

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

Ambrosia trifi da 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 spp.

(polyanthemos) crested pricklypoppy UPL PNF

Aristida oligantha three-awn grass FACU* NI PNG*

Artemisia ludoviciana white sagebrush FACU– UPL,FACU PNFH

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 junciformis rush aster OBL OBL PNF

Aster spp.

(see Symphyotrichum) wild aster UPL,OBL* NI PINF*

Astragalus canadensis Canadian milkvetch FACU FACU,FACW– PNF

Astragalus crassicarpus groundplum milkvetch UPL PNF
138 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Scientifi c Name Common Name Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Azolla mexicana Mexican mosquito fern OBL OBL PN/W

Bacopa rotundifolia disk water-hyssop OBL OBL PNF

Baptisia bracteata long-bract indigo UPL PNF

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 big devil’s 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*

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 OBL FAC,OBL 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 

(Convolvulus sepium) hedge false bindweed FAC PNFV

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 gravida heavy sedge OBL* PNGL

Carex laeviconica smooth-cone sedge OBL OBL PNEGL

Carex lanuginosa 

(C. pellita) woolly sedge OBL OBL PNGL

Carex tribuloides blunt broom sedge FACW,OBL FACW PNGL

Carex vulpinoidea fox sedge OBL OBL PNEGL
Appendix H — List of Plants 139

Scientifi c Name Common Name Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

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

Chenopodium desiccatum aridland goosefoot UPL ANF

Chenopodium leptophyllum narrowleaf goosefoot NI UPL,FAC ANF

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 fl odmanii 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-fl ax UPL,FACU UPL PN+F

Convolulus spp. fi eld bindweed FAC* NI PNF*

Convolvulus arvense fi eld bindweed FAC* NI PNF*

Conyza canadensis Canada horseweed FACU– UPL,FAC ANF

Conyza ramosissima dwarf horseweed FAC* NI ANF

Coreopsis tinctoria golden tickseed FAC FACU,FAC ANF

Crepis runcinata hawksbeard dandelion FAC FACU,FACW PNF

Cyperus acminatus short-point fl atsedge OBL OBL ABPNGL

Cyperus aristatus awned fl atsedge OBL FACW+,OBL ANGL

Cyperus erythrorhizos redrooted cyperus OBL FACW+,OBL APNEGL

Cyperus esculentes chufa FACW FAC,FACW PNGL

Cyperus lupulinus Houghton fl atsedge FACU PNG

Dalea candida white prairie clover UPL PNF

Dalea purpurea violet prairie clover UPL PNF
140 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Scientifi c Name Common Name Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Dalea villosa silky prairie clover UPL PNFHS

Delphinium carolinianum Carolina larkspur UPL PNF

Delphinium virescens prairie larkspur UPL PNF

Desmanthus illinoensis prairie bundlefl ower 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

Echinacea angustifolia blacksamson echinacea UPL PNG

Echinochloa crusgalli barnyard grass FACW FACU,FACW AIG

Echinochloa muricata rough barnyard grass OBL FAC,OBL ANG

Elatine rubella red waterwort ANF

Eleocharis compressa fl at-stem spikerush FACW FACW, FACW+ PNEGL

Eleocharis erythropoda bald spikerush OBL OBL PNGL

Eleocharis obtusa blunt spikerush OBL OBL APNEGL

Eleocharis ovata ovate spikerush OBL OBL ANEGL

Eleocharis palustris creeping spikerush OBL OBL PNEGL

Eleocharis smallii Small’s spikerush OBL OBL PNGL

Elymus canadensis nodding wild rye FACU FACU, FAC+ PNG

Elymus smithii western wheatgrass FACU PNG

Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass FACU PNG

Elymus virginiana Virginia wild rye FAC FAC,FACW PNG

Eragrostis spectabilis purple lovegrass FACU UPL,FACU PNG

Erigeron annuus white-top fl eabane FACU FACU,FAC ANF

Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia fl eabane FACU FACU,FAC ANF

Erigeron strigosus prairie fl eabane FAC FACU,FAC ANF

Eupatorium perfoliatum common boneset OBL FACW+,OBL PNF

Euphorbia cyathophora fi re-on-the-mountain UPL NAPF

Euphorbia dentata toothed spurge UPL AIF

Euphorbia maculata 

(Chamaesyce maculata) spotted broomspurge FACU– UPL,FACU ANF

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

Euphorbia nutans eyebane broomspurge FACU–,FACU FACU– AIF
Appendix H — List of Plants 141

Scientifi c Name Common Name Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

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 FACW FAC,FACW NT

Gaillardia pulchella blanketfl ower UPL PNF

Galium aparine catchweed bedstraw FACU FACU,FAC– ANF

Gaura coccinea scarlet gaura UPL PNS/F

Gaura parvifl ora velvet-leaf butterfl y-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*

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 sunfl ower FACU FACU,FAC ANF

Helianthus grosseserratus saw-tooth sunfl ower FACW FAC,FACW PNF

Helianthus maximiliani Maximilian’s sunfl ower UPL UPL,FACU PNF

Helianthus petiolaris prairie sunfl ower UPL ANF

Helianthus rigidus stiff sunfl ower UPL PNF

Hesperis matronalis dames rocket IBPF

Hesperostipa spartea porcupinegrass UPL PNG

Hesperostipa viridula green needlegrass UPL NG

Heteranthera limosa blue mud-plantain OBL OBL ANEF

Heteranthera multifl ora 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
142 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Scientifi c Name Common Name Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Juncus dudleyi Dudley rush PNG

Juncus interior inland rush FAC FACU,FACW PNGL

Juncus spp. rush FACW* NI 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

Leersia oryzoides rice cutgrass OBL OBL PNG

Lemna minor lesser duckweed OBL OBL PN/F

Lemna trisulca star duckweed OBL OBL PN/F

Lepidium densifl orum common pepperweed FAC ABNF

Lepidium virginicum Virginia pepperweed UPL,FAC– FACU ABNF

Leptochloa 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 OBL ANF

Linum rigidum stiffstem fl ax APNF

Lithospermum incisum narrow-leaved puccoon UPL PNF

Lomatium foeniculaceum wild parsley UPL PNF

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
Appendix H — List of Plants 143

Scientifi c Name Common Name Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Melilotus alba white sweetclover FACU FACU–,FACU+ ABIF

Melilotus offi cinalis yellow sweetclover FACU FACU–,FACU+ ABIF

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 fi stulosa wild bergamot UPL,FAC+ FACU– PNF

Morus alba white mulberry UPL,FAC FAC IT

Morus rubra red mulberry FACU FACU, FAC NT

Muhlenbergia mexicana Mexican 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 dichotomifl orum fall panic grass FAC FAC,FACW ANG

Panicum virgatum switchgrass FAC FAC,FACW PNG

Parientaria pensylvanica Pennsylvania pellitory FAC FACU–,FACW– ANF

Penstemon grandifl orus large-fl ower beardtongue UPL PNF

Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass FACW+ FACW,OBL PNG

Phleum pratense timothy FACU FACU PIG

Phyla cuneifolia wedgeleaf fog-fruit FAC PNS/F

Physalis heterophylla clammy groundcherry UPL PNF

Physalis longifolia longleaf groundcherry UPL PNF

Physalis spp. groundcherry FAC* NI AP*

Physalis virginiana Virginia groundcherry UPL PNF

Poa compressa Canada bluegrass FACU FACU–,FAC PIG

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass FACU FACU,FAC– PNG

Polygala alba white milkwort PNF

Polygonum arenastrum knotweed UPL* NI APNF*
144 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Scientifi c Name Common Name Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Polygonum bicorne 

(P. pensylvanicum) pink smartweed FACW+ FACW–,OBL ANEF

Polygonum coccineum water smartweed OBL OBL PNE/F

Polygonum hydropiper swamp smartweed OBL OBL PNEF

Polygonum lapathifolium curlytop knotweed OBL FAC,OBL ANF

Polygonum persicaria spotted ladysthumb OBL FAC,OBL AIF

Polygonum punctatum dotted smartweed OBL FACW,OBL PNEF

Polygonum ramosissimum bushy knotweed FAC FACU–,FACW ANF

Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood FAC FAC,FACW NT

Portulaca oleracea common purslane FAC FACU,FAC AN$F

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-fl owered scurfpea UPL PNF

Psoralidium lanceolatum lemon scurfpea UPL PNF

Pulsatilla patens pasquefl ower UPL PNF

Ranunculus fl abellaris yellow water buttercup OBL OBL PNEF

Ranunculus longirostris longbeak buttercup OBL OBL PNZ/F

Ranunculus pensylvanicus Pennsylvania buttercup FACW,OBL OBL APNEF

Ranunculus sceleratus cursed buttercup OBL OBL APNEF

Ratibida columnifera upright prairie conefl ower UPL PNF

Rhus glabra smooth sumac UPL NT

Riccia fl uitans liverwort

Robinia pseudoacacia black locust UPL UPL,FAC NT

Rorippa palustris bog yellowcress OBL FAC,OBL ANEF

Rorippa sessilifl ora stalkless yellowcress OBL FACW+,OBL ANEF

Rorippa sinuata spreading yellowcress FACW FAC+,FACW PNF

Rosa arkansana wild prairie rose NI FAC? NSH
Appendix H — List of Plants 145

Scientifi c Name Common Name Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Rosa multifl ora multifl ora 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

Schizachyrium scoparium little bluestem FACU FACU–,FACU+ PNG

Schoenoplectus fl uviatilis 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

Senecio plattensis prairie groundsel UPL,FACU FACU BPNF

Setaria glauca yellow foxtail grass FACU,FAC FAC AIG

Setaria pumila yellow bristle grass FAC FACU,FAC AIG

Setaria viridis green foxtail FAC* NI ANG*

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

Sisyrinchium campestre blue-eyed grass UPL PNF

Sisyrinchium montanum strict blue-eyed grass FACU,FACW FAC PNF
146 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Scientifi c Name Common Name Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

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 

(Euthamia graminifolia) fl at-top goldenrod UPL PNF

Solidago missouriensis Missouri goldenrod FACU* NI PNF

Solidago rigida stiff goldenrod FACU UPL,FACU PNF

Sonchus arvensis fi eld 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 asper tall dropseed UPL,FACU FACU PNG

Sporobolus cryptandrus sand dropseed FACU– UPL,FACU PNG

Sporobolus vaginifl orus poverty dropseed FACU UPL,FACU ANG

Stachys palustris marsh hedgenettle FACW,OBL OBL PIF

Strophostyles leiosperma slickseed fuzzybean ANFV

Symphoricarpos occidentalis western snowberry PNS

Symphoricarpos orbiculatus coralberry UPL,FAC– FACU– NS

Symphyotrichum ericoides white heath aster FACU UPL,FACU PNF

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum panicled aster FACW FACW PNF

Symphyotrichum novaeangliae

Symphyotrichum praealtum

var. nebraskense

New England aster

Nebraska aster

FACW

FACW

FACW–, FACW

FACW–, FACW

PNF

PNF

Tamarix ramosissima saltcedar FAC,FACW FACW IT

Taraxacum offi cinale common dandelion FACU FACU–,FACU+ PIF

Teucrium canadense 

(T. occidentale) American germander FACW FAC+,FACW PNEF

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

Thinopyrum intermedium intermediate wheatgrass UPL PIG
Appendix H — List of Plants 147

Scientifi c Name Common Name Region 5 Wetland 

Indicator 

National Wetland 

Indicator Habit

Thlaspi arvense fi eld 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

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’ lookingglass UPL,FAC FAC ANF

Tripsacum dactyloides eastern gama grass FAC,FACW FAC PNG

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

Wolffi a columbiana Columbian watermeal OBL OBL PN/F

Xanthium strumarium rough cocklebur FAC FAC–, FAC+ ANF

Yucca gloriosa moundlily yucca FAC NI NT

Zea mays corn AIF

Appendix I

List of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals

AMPHIBIANS

Common Name National Status in Nebraska

American toad critically imperiled

Great Plains toad secure

Woodhouse’s toad secure

northern cricket frog secure

Cope’s gray treefrog secure

western chorus frog secure

Great Plains narrowmouth toad imperiled

plains leopard frog secure

bullfrog secure

northern leopard frog secure

smallmouth salamander critically imperiled

tiger salamander secure

REPTILES

Common Name National Status in Nebraska

snapping turtle secure

smooth softshell secure

spiny softshell secure

yellow mud turtle vulnerable

painted turtle secure

Blanding’s turtle apparently secure

false map turtle vulnerable

western box turtle secure

lesser earless lizard secure

greater short-horned lizard vulnerable

sagebrush lizard critically imperiled

fence/prairie/plateau lizard secure

six-lined racerunner secure

fi ve-lined skink critically imperiled

many-lined skink secure

Great Plains skink vulnerable

prairie skink secure

slender glass lizard critically imperiled

glossy snake imperiled

worm snake secure

racer secure

ringneck snake secure

corn snake apparently secure
150 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Common Name National Status in Nebraska

western ratsnake apparently secure

fox snake secure

western hognose snake secure

eastern hognose snake apparently secure

prairie kingsnake vulnerable

common kingsnake imperiled

milk snake secure

smooth green snake critically imperiled

coachwhip vulnerable

northern water snake secure

gopher snake secure

Graham’s crayfi sh snake imperiled

brown snake vulnerable

redbelly snake critically imperiled

plains black-headed snake critically imperiled

western terrestrial garter snake apparently secure

western ribbon snake imperiled

plains garter snake secure

common garter snake secure

lined snake secure

copperhead critically imperiled

western rattlesnake apparently secure

MAMMALS

Common Name National Status in Nebraska

Townsend’s big-eared bat critically imperiled

big brown bat secure

silver-haired bat secure

eastern red bat secure

hoary bat secure

western small-footed myotis apparently secure

little brown bat apparently secure

northern myotis vulnerable

fringed myotis critically imperiled

fringe-tailed myotis critically imperiled

long-legged myotis imperiled

evening bat vulnerable

eastern pipistrelle critically imperiled

Brazilian free-tailed bat unranked

black-tailed prairie dog apparently secure

woodchuck apparently secure

eastern fox squirrel secure

Wyoming ground squirrel possibly extirpated

Franklin’s ground squirrel secure

spotted ground squirrel apparently secure

thirteen-lined ground squirrel secure

least chipmunk vulnerable
Appendix I — List of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals 151

Common Name National Status in Nebraska

American beaver secure

plains pocket gopher secure

northern pocket gopher apparently secure

hispid pocket mouse secure

Ord’s kangaroo rat secure

olive-backed pocket mouse vulnerable

plains pocket mouse secure

silky pocket mouse apparently secure

meadow jumping mouse secure

prairie vole secure

 meadow vole secure

woodland vole vulnerable

house mouse exotic

muskrat secure

northern grasshopper mouse secure

white-footed mouse secure

deer mouse exotic

Norway rat exotic

western harvest mouse secure

plains harvest mouse apparently secure

hispid cotton rat vulnerable

southern bog lemming apparently secure

northern short-tailed shrew vulnerable 

short-tailed shrew vulnerable

least shrew apparently secure

prairie shrew apparently secure

Merriam’s shrew critically imperiled

eastern mole secure

Virginia opossum secure

mule deer secure

white-tailed deer secure

black-tailed jackrabbit secure

white-tailed jackrabbit secure

European rabbit exotic

eastern cottontail secure

coyote secure

swift fox imperiled

red fox secure

bobcat secure

northern river otter imperiled

long-tailed weasel secure

black-footed ferret extirpated

least weasel secure

American mink secure

American badger secure

striped skunk secure

eastern spotted skunk secure

northern raccoon secure

Appendix J

List of Birds

The order of bird species follows the AOU Check-list 

of North American Birds (American Ornithological 

Union 2004). 

Seasonal abundance codes follow each species name, 

in order of seasons (spring, summer, fall, winter). The 

letter “m” is used to indicate that the species is not 

present during a particular season. For example, 

“American coot acar” (abundant in spring, common 

summer, abundant in fall, and rare in Winter) or 

“California gull omom” (occasional in spring, not present 

in summer or winter, and occasional in fall).

Nesting species documented at the WPAs 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 roughwinged swallow are not marked as nesters because 

WPAs do not provide preferred nesting habitat. For 

the most part, cavity nesters are excluded (the redbellied woodpecker prefers mature, natural woodlands) 

due to the absence of mature or dying trees that 

typically provide cavities. The district’s WPAs are 

managed as grassland–playa lake ecosystems. 

Nonnative trees and shrubs have been removed at most 

WPAs. Due to remaining shelterbelts at WPAs, a few 

woodland nesters are marked as nesting if they are 

known to use shelterbelts. 

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). For example, “pectoral sandpiper cccm” 

(common in spring, summer due to peak migration 

occurring mid-August, and fall; not present in winter).

SEASONS

Spring (March–May) 

Summer (June–August) 

Fall (September–November) 

Winter (December–February) 

SEASONAL ABUNDANCE

a = abundant (occur 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)

x = outside normal range (but has been documented)

SWANS, GEESE, AND DUCKS

black-bellied whistling-duck xxxm

bean goose xmmm

greater white-fronted goose arao

emperor goose xmmm

snow goose aoao

Ross’ goose crco

*Canada goose auac

brant rmrm 

trumpeter swan hxmh

tundra swan omrm

wood duck cucm

*gadwall cuco

Eurasian wigeon rmrm

*American wigeon aoao

American black duck rmrr

*mallard acac

*blue-winged teal acar

*cinnamon teal uoum

*northern shoveler acar

*northern pintail auao

garganey xmmm

*green-winged teal aoao

canvasback umum

*redhead cucm

ring-necked duck crum

greater scaup umrm

lesser scaup cocm

white-winged scoter xmmm

black scoter xmmm

buffl ehead cmcm

common goldeneye omum

Barrow’s goldeneye mmxm

hooded merganser urum

common merganser omoo

*ruddy duck cucm

GALLINACEOUS BIRDS

*ring-necked pheasant cccc

sharp-tailed grouse rhro

*greater prairie-chicken ooou

*northern bobwhite cccc
154 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

LOONS 

common loon omrm

GREBES

Clark’s grebe xmrm

*pied-billed grebe cccm

horned grebe uhrm

red-necked grebe hmrm

*eared grebe cocm

western grebe rmrm

PELICANS

American white pelican cocm

CORMORANTS

double-crested cormorant cucm

BITTERNS, HERONS, AND EGRETS

*American bittern ucum

*least bittern uuom

*great blue heron cccr

great egret omom

snowy egret uuum

little blue heron orrm

tricolored heron hrrm

cattle egret uoum

*green heron cucm

*black-crowned night-heron cocm

yellow-crowned night-heron rmrm

IBISES AND SPOONBILLS

white ibis hxxm

glossy ibis xmmm

white-faced ibis uurm

roseate spoonbill mxmm

NEW WORLD VULTURES

black vulture mxmm

turkey vulture cucm

OSPREY, KITES, HAWKS, AND EAGLES

osprey omom

white-tailed kite xmxm

Mississippi kite xmxm

bald eagle cmco

*northern harrier cucu

sharp-shinned hawk uruu

Cooper’s hawk umur

northern goshawk rmrr

red-shouldered hawk mrrx

broad-winged hawk mxmm

*Swainson’s hawk cuur

*red-tailed hawk cucu

ferruginous hawk uxuo

rough-legged hawk uhuu

golden eagle omoo

FALCONS AND CARACARAS

*American kestrel cccc

merlin umuo

gyrfalcon mmmr

peregrine falcon omor

prairie falcon omou

RAILS

yellow rail rmrm

black rail xxmm

king rail rrmm

*Virginia rail uuum

*sora cccm

purple gallinule xmmm

*common moorhen uurm

*American coot acar

CRANES

*sandhill crane crum

common crane xmmm

whooping crane omom

PLOVERS 

black-bellied plover umum

American golden-plover umum

snowy plover rrmm

semipalmated plover umum

piping plover rhrm

*killdeer cccm

STILTS AND AVOCETS

*black-necked stilt rrrm

*American avocet urum

SANDPIPERS AND PHALAROPES

greater yellowlegs cocm

lesser yellowlegs cucm

solitary sandpiper ccum

willet uoum

spotted sandpiper cccm

*upland sandpiper uuum

Eskimo curlew hmhm

whimbrel omrm

long-billed curlew rmrm

Hudsonian godwit umxm

marbled godwit umrm

ruddy turnstone rmrm

red knot xmrm

sanderling omom

semipalmated sandpiper aucm

western sandpiper room

least sandpiper cccm

white-rumped sandpiper coom

Baird’s sandpiper acum

pectoral sandpiper cccm

sharp-tailed sandpiper mmxm

dunlin umum

curlew sandpiper mxmm

stilt sandpiper accm
Appendix J — List of Birds 155

buff-breasted sandpiper uuum

ruff xmxm

short-billed dowitcher uurm

long-billed dowitcher aucm

*Wilson’s snipe (common) cocm

American woodcock rmrm

*Wilson’s phalarope aocm

red-necked phalarope rmrm

red phalarope mxmm

SKUAS, JAEGERS, GULLS, AND TERNS

laughing gull xmmm

Franklin’s gull arcm

Bonaparte’s gull rmrm

mew gull rmmm

ring-billed gull acco

California gull omom

herring gull umuu

common tern umum

Forster’s tern cucm

least tern rrrm

*black tern acam

PIGEONS AND DOVES

rock pigeon cccc

European collared-dove oooo

white-winged dove mrmm

*mourning dove aaao

Inca dove mmxm

CUCKOOS AND ANIS

black-billed cuckoo ooom

*yellow-billed cuckoo uuum

BARN OWLS

barn owl oooo

TYPICAL OWLS

eastern screech-owl uuuu

*great horned owl cucu

snowy owl mmmx

*burrowing owl uuum

barred owl rrrr

long-eared owl oroo

short-eared owl uruu

boreal owl mmxm

NIGHTJARS

*common nighthawk cccm

chuck-will’s-widow mrmm

SWIFTS

chimney swift aacm

HUMMINGBIRDS 

ruby-throated hummingbird ooom

broad-tailed hummingbird hrrm

rufous hummingbird mmrm

KINGFISHERS

belted kingfi sher uuur

WOODPECKERS

Lewis’ woodpecker rmxm

*red-headed woodpecker ccco

red-bellied woodpecker uuuu

*downy woodpecker cccc

hairy woodpecker cccr

*northern fl icker cccc

TYRANT FLYCATCHERS

olive-sided fl ycatcher omom

eastern wood-pewee ooom

yellow-bellied fl ycatcher rmrm

Acadian fl ycatcher rmrm

alder fl ycatcher rmrm

willow fl ycatcher orom

least fl ycatcher umum

Hammond’s fl ycatcher mmxm

eastern phoebe uuum

Say’s phoebe urrm

*great crested fl ycatcher cocm

*western kingbird cccm

*eastern kingbird cccm

*scissor-tailed fl ycatcher rxrm

SHRIKES

*loggerhead shrike cccc

northern shrike mmuu

VIREOS

white-eyed vireo rmmm

*Bell’s vireo uoum

yellow-throated vireo rxrm

*warbling vireo cucm

Philadelphia vireo umum

red-eyed vireo urum

CROWS, JAYS, AND MAGPIES

*blue jay cccc

pinyon jay mmmx

*black-billed magpie uuuu

*American crow aoac

LARKS

*horned lark acaa

SWALLOWS 

purple martin cucm

tree swallow cocm

violet-green swallow xmmm

northern rough-winged swallow cccm

bank swallow uuum

cliff swallow ccam

barn swallow aaam
156 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

TITMICE AND CHICKADEES

*black-capped chickadee cccc

tufted titmouse xxxm

NUTHATCHES

red-breasted nuthatch mxmo

white-breasted nuthatch ooou

CREEPERS

brown creeper mooo

WRENS

Carolina wren roor

Bewick’s wren xmmm

*house wren cccm

winter wren rmro

*sedge wren rurm

*marsh wren uuur

KINGLETS

golden-crowned kinglet umur

ruby-crowned kinglet omom

OLD WORLD WARBLERS

blue-gray gnatcatcher orom

THRUSHES

*eastern bluebird cucr

mountain bluebird omor

Townsend’s solitaire rmro

veery rmmm

gray-cheeked thrush umrm

Swainson’s thrush cmum

hermit thrush rmrm

wood thrush rmrm

*American robin acac

MIMIC THRUSHES

*gray catbird uuur

northern mockingbird uuum

*brown thrasher cccr

STARLINGS

*European starling aaac

WAGTAILS AND PIPITS

American (water) pipit cmcr

Sprague’s pipit omom

WAXWINGS

Bohemian waxwing mmmr

cedar waxwing cucu

WOOD WARBLERS 

golden-winged warbler rmmm

Tennessee warbler cmcm

orange-crowned warbler cmcm

Nashville warbler umum

northern parula umrm

*yellow warbler cccm

chestnut-sided warbler umum

magnolia warbler umum

black-throated blue warbler rmrm

yellow-rumped warbler cmcm

black-throated gray warbler xmmm

black-throated green warbler omom

Townsend’s warbler rmrm

Blackburnian warbler omom

yellow-throated warbler rmrm

pine warbler hmrm

prairie warbler rmrm

palm warbler omrm

bay-breasted warbler omom

blackpoll warbler cmrm

black-and-white warbler cmum

American redstart cocm

prothonotary warbler rmrm

ovenbird umum

northern waterthrush umum

Louisiana waterthrush rmhm

Kentucky warbler rmhm

Connecticut warbler rmxh

mourning warbler rmhm

MacGillivray’s warbler omrm

*common yellowthroat cccm

hooded warbler rmrm

Wilson’s warbler umum

Canada warbler rmrm

yellow-breasted chat ooom

TANAGERS

summer tanager rmxm

scarlet tanager omom

SPARROWS AND TOWHEES

green-tailed towhee rmrm

potted towhee uoum

astern towhee umum

assin’s sparrow xmmm

merican tree sparrow aoaa

chipping sparrow aoar

lay-colored sparrow chcr

rewer’s sparrow rmrm

 eld sparrow cucr

vesper sparrow cocx

ark sparrow cccm

lark bunting ouom

avannah sparrow cmch

grasshopper sparrow cccm

aird’s sparrow umum

enslow’s sparrow rrrm

e Conte’s sparrow umcm

elson’s sharp-tailed sparrow rmum

ox sparrow omor

ong sparrow cucu

incoln’s sparrow crcm

swamp sparrow uoum

s

e

C

A

*

c

B

fi

*

l

*

S

*

B

H

L

N

f

s

L

*
Appendix J — List of Birds 157

white-throated sparrow cour

Harris’ sparrow cocu

white-crowned sparrow cruo

golden-crowned sparrow rmrm

dark-eyed junco cmca

McCown’s longspur rmrm

Lapland longspur amaa

Smith’s longspur omur

chestnut-collared longspur omom

snow bunting rmro

CARDINALS, GROSBEAKS, AND ALLIES

*northern cardinal cccc

rose-breasted grosbeak uurm

black-headed grosbeak crcm

*blue grosbeak uuum

lazuli bunting xmxm

indigo bunting uuum

painted bunting rmxm

*dickcissel cacm

BLACKBIRDS AND ORIOLES

*bobolink cccm

*red-winged blackbird acao

*eastern meadowlark uuuo

*western meadowlark acac

*yellow-headed blackbird aocr

rusty blackbird cour

*Brewer’s blackbird cuco

*common grackle aaao

*great-tailed grackle cccr

*brown-headed cowbird acar

orchard oriole cccm

*Baltimore oriole cccm

Scott’s oriole mxmm

FINCHES

pine grosbeak xmxm

purple fi nch umuo

*house fi nch cccc

red crossbill mrmo

common redpoll ormo

pine siskin uouu

*American goldfi nch cccc

evening grosbeak rmrr

OLD WORLD SPARROWS

*house sparrow aaaa

Appendix K

Rainwater Basin Vegetation Classifi cation

The National Vegetation Classifi cation System (NVCS) 

for the United States was used to classify vegetation 

communities at the Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District in 2004. The NVCS is the system 

mandated by the USGS–National Park Service 

Vegetation Mapping Program. In addition, the Federal 

Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) adopted the 

NVCS to the formation level as a standard for federal 

agencies (FGDC 1997). This system provides a 

national (versus regional, state, or local) vegetation 

classifi cation system that facilitates resource 

stewardship by ensuring the same plant associations 

get the same names throughout the Refuge System. 

The strengths of the NVCS include the following:

Q is vegetation based

Q uses a systematic approach to classify a continuum

Q emphasizes natural and existing vegetation

Q uses a combined physiognomic-fl oristic hierarchy

Q identifi es vegetation units based on both 

qualitative and quantitative data

Q is appropriate for mapping at multiple scales

The NVCS was established primarily by The Nature 

Conservancy and is being implemented and updated 

by NatureServe in support of the network of natural 

heritage programs (Grossman et al. 1998). Development 

and refi nement of the classifi cation is an ongoing process 

and proposed revisions are reviewed both locally and 

nationally. The Nature Conservancy published two 

volumes describing the classifi cation of United States 

vegetation as of April 1997 (Grossman et al. 1998). This 

publication can be found on the Internet at <http://

www.natureserve.org/publications/icec/index.html>. 

NatureServe posts regular updates to the list of plant 

associations in the United States and Canada on their 

online database server at <http://www.natureserve.

org/explorer>.

CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURE

The procedure for classifying vegetation followed 

guidelines described in the “vegetation classifi cation 

standard” (FGDC 1997), which was derived from the 

NVCS. The NVCS is a species-based, hierarchical 

system with seven levels (Grossman et al. 1998). The 

highest—“coarse”—levels of the hierarchy have a 

broad geographic perspective and use physiognomic 

features to distinguish among groups of plant 

communities. The lowest—“fi nest”—levels have a 

local and site-specifi c perspective and are based on 

fl oristic features (fi gure I-1). The fi nest level 

(association) was used in the “Rainwater Basin 

Vegetation and Monitoring Project.” 

The association is defi ned as “a plant community of 

defi nite fl oristic composition, uniform habitat conditions, 

and uniform physiognomy” (see Flahault and Schroter 

1910 in Moravec 1993). Associations are separated 

from alliances through the use of total fl oristic 

composition and are named by the most dominant or 

indicator species. If two or more dominant species 

occur in the same stratum, a dash (–) is used between 

the names. If the species occur in different strata, a 

slash (/) is used. Parentheses ( ) indicate that a 

diagnostic species is not always present. 

Alliances are physiognomically uniform groups of 

plant associations that share dominant or diagnostic 

species, usually found in the uppermost stratum of the 

vegetation. For forested types, the alliance is roughly 

equivalent to the “cover type” of the Society of 

American Foresters. Alliances also include nonforested 

types.

Unlike classifi cations based on habitat types or 

potential vegetation, the NVCS strives to describe 

existing vegetation, whether natural or cultural 

vegetation. However, due in part to the conservation 

focus of The Nature Conservancy and NatureServe, 

the classifi cation of natural vegetation types is often 

better developed than that of cultural or modifi ed types. 

The NVCS is unique in that the association is the basic 

unit, with the higher levels of the hierarchy 

representing aggregations of units in the lower levels. 

This differs from other types that work from the top 

down.

PREPARING THE DATA FOR ANALYSIS

The vegetation classifi cation for the Rainwater Basin 

began with the vegetation mapping team completing 

a literature review of all associations identifi ed in 

Nebraska and the Great Plains region to identify 

associations that were present in the basin. From this 

list, the associations that occurred at WPAs were 

identifi ed. This was done by bringing together all 

biologists working in the area and having them identify 

the known associations, as well as creating map units 

to delineate species of management concern. The 

following summaries show the lineage for each plant 

community for the basin starting with the NVCS 

community names (see also table I-1).
160 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Figure I-1. An example of the NVCS physiognomic-fl oristic classifi cation hierarchy.
Appendix K — Rainwater Basin Vegetation Classifi cation 161

Table I-1. 

 Formation Alliance Alliance Unique Association Common 

 Name Name Code Identifi er Name Name

Formation Class/Subclass: Shrubland/Deciduous Shrubland

Temporarily Salix (exigua, III.B.2.N.d.6 CEGL001203 Salix exigua/mesic d.6 sandbar willow/

fl ooded, cold- interior) graminoids mesic graminoids 

deciduous temporarily shrubland shrubland

shrubland fl ooded shrubland

Temporarily Cornus sericea III.B.2.N.d.27 CEGLOO5219 Cornus drummondii– d.27 sumac–dogwood 

fl ooded, cold– temporarily Amorpha fruiticosa– shrubland

deciduous fl ooded shrubland Cornus sericea 

shrubland shrubland

Formation Class/Subclass: Woodland/Deciduous Woodland

Temporarily Populus II.B.2.N.b.4 CEGL000659 Populus deltoides– b.4 cottonwood–

fl ooded, cold– deltoides (Salix amygdaloides)/ peachleaf willow, 

deciduous temporarily Salix (exigua, fl oodplain 

woodland fl ooded woodland interior) woodland woodland

Formation Class/Subclass: Herbaceous Vegetation/Perennial Graminoid Vegetation

Semipermanently Carex pellita V.A.5.N.k.53 CEGL005272 Carex spp.–(Carex k.53 central Midwest, 

fl ooded, temperate seasonally pellita, Carex sedge meadow

or subpolar fl ooded herbaceous vulpinoidea) 

grassland vegetation herbaceous 

vegetation

Semipermanently Eleocharis V.A.5.N.k.61 CEGL001833 Eleocharis palustris k.61 creeping 

fl ooded, temperate palustris herbaceous spikerush, wet 

or subpolar seasonally vegetation meadow

grassland fl ooded herbaceous 

vegetation

Semipermanently Pascopyrum V.A.5.N.i.1 CEGL002038 Pascopyrum smithii– i.1 wheatgrass, Association 

fl ooded, temperate smithii Buchloe dactyloides– playa grassland Code

or subpolar intermittently (Phyla cuneifolia, 

grassland fl ooded herbaceous Oenothera canescens) 

vegetation herbaceous 

vegetation

Semipermanently Phalaris V.A.5.N.k.20 CEGL001474 Phalaris k.20 reed canarygrass, 

fl ooded, temperate arundinacea arundinacea wet meadow

or subpolar seasonally western herbaceous 

grassland fl ooded herbaceous vegetation

vegetation

Semipermanently Polygonum spp.– V.A.5.N.j.12 CEGL002039 Polygonum spp.– j.12 playa marsh

fl ooded, temperate Echinochloa spp. Echinochloa spp.–

or subpolar temporarily Distichlis spicata

grassland fl ooded herbaceous playa lake, 

vegetation herbaceous 

vegetation
162 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Table I-1. 

 Formation 

 Name

Semipermanently 

fl ooded, temperate 

or subpolar 

grassland

Alliance 

Name

Typha

(angustifolia, 

latifolia)–

(Schoenoplectus

spp.) 

semipermanently 

fl ooded, 

herbaceous 

vegetation

Alliance 

Code

V.A.5.N.l.9

Unique 

Identifi er

CEGL002389

Association 

Name

Typha spp. Great 

Plains, herbaceous 

vegetation

l.9Association Code

Common 

Name

northern Great 

Plains, cattail 

marsh

Semipermanently 

fl ooded, temperate 

or subpolar 

grassland

Semipermanently 

fl ooded, temperate 

or subpolar 

grassland

Typha spp.–

(Schoenoplectus

spp., Juncus spp.) 

seasonally fl ooded 

vegetation

Potamogeton spp.–

Ceratophyllum

spp.–Elodea spp. 

permanently 

fl ooded, 

herbaceous 

vegetation

V.A.5.N.k.33 CEGL002026 Schoenoplectus 

tabernaemontani–

Typha spp.–

(Sparganium spp., 

Juncus spp.) 

herbaceous 

vegetation

k.33 bulrush–cattail–

burreed, shallow 

marsh

V.C.2.N.a.14 CEGL002044 Potamogeton spp.– 

Ceratophyllum 

demersum Great 

Plains herbaceous, 

central Midwest 

vegetation 

a.14 Great Plains, 

pondweed, 

submerged, 

aquatic wetland

Short-sod, 

temperate or 

subpolar grassland 

Tall-sod, 

temperate 

grassland 

Bouteloua gracilis 

herbaceous 

alliance

Andropogon 

gerardii–

(Sorghastrum 

nutans) 

herbaceous 

alliance 

V.A.5.N.e.9 CEGL001756 Bouteloua gracilis–

Buchloe dactyloides

herbaceous 

vegetation

e.9 blue grama–

buffalograss, 

short-grass 

prairie

V.A.5.N.a.2 CEGL002025 Andropogon gerardii–

Sorghastrum nutans–

Hesperostipa spartea 

loess hills, 

herbaceous 

vegetation

a.2 central tall-grass, 

big bluestem, 

loess prairie

Medium- to tallsod, temperate or 

subpolar grassland 

Schizachyrium 

scoparium–

Bouteloua 

curtipendula 

herbaceous 

alliance

V.A.5.N.c.20 CEGL002035 Schizachyrium 

scoparium–

Bouteloua 

curtipendula–

Bouteloua hirsuta–

(Yucca glauca) 

herbaceous 

vegetation

c.20 loess hills, little 

bluestem, dry 

prairie
Appendix K — Rainwater Basin Vegetation Classifi cation 163

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Carex spp. (Carex 

pellita, Carex vulpinoidea) Herbaceous Vegetation

Translated Scientifi c Name: Sedge species (woolly sedge, 

fox sedge) herbaceous vegetation

Common Name: Central Midwest sedge meadow

Unique Identifi er: CEGL005272

Classifi cation Code: V.A.5.N.k.53

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Weak

Association Summary: This sedge, wet meadow type is 

found in the central midwestern United States. Stands 

occur on nearly level fl oodplains, often in bands 

surrounding channels, or in basins. Soils are poorly 

drained, silty and clay loams formed in alluvium. Stands 

are fl ooded for much of the growing season, but may 

dry out in late summer. The vegetation cover is quite 

dense and may be patchy. The structure is dominated by 

graminoids 20–60 inches (0.5–1.5 m) tall. Typical species 

include Carex cristatella, Carex molesta, Carex 

pellita (=Carex lanuginosa), Carex stipata, Carex 

tribuloides, and Carex vulpinoidea (a dominant in 

southeast Nebraska meadows). Other frequent 

emergent graminoids include Eleocharis spp., Juncus 

interior, Juncus torreyi and Scirpus atrovirens. Leersia 

oryzoides may be common where the stand borders a 

marsh. Forbs are common and may be conspicuous. 

Among the more common are Apocynum cannabinum, 

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum (=Aster lanceolatus), 

Lycopus americanus, Lythrum alatum, and Verbena 

hastata. Phalaris arundinacea may invade this 

community to the point of excluding many of the native 

species.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Bouteloua gracilis–

Buchloe dactyloides Herbaceous Vegetation

Translated Scientifi c Name: Blue grama–buffalograss 

herbaceous vegetation

Common Name: Blue grama–buffalograss, short-grass 

prairie

Unique Identifi er: CEGL001756

Classifi cation Code: V.A.5.N.e.9

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Moderate

Association Summary: This blue grama–buffalograss, shortgrass prairie type is common across much of the central 

and southern Great Plains of the United States. Stands 

occur on fl at to rolling uplands. The surface soil may be 

sandy loam, loam, silt loam, or loamy clay. The subsoil 

is often fi ner than the surface soil. This community is 

characterized by a moderate to dense sod of short 

grasses with scattered mid-grasses and forbs. The 

dominant species are Bouteloua gracilis and Buchloe 

dactyloides. The foliage of these species is 2.8–7.6 

inches (7–19 cm) tall, while the fl owering stalks of 

Bouteloua gracilis may reach 18 inches (45 cm). The 

mid-grasses are usually stunted by the arid conditions 

and often do not exceed 28 inches (0.7 m). Other short 

graminoids found in this community are Bouteloua 

hirsuta, Carex duriuscula, Carex inops, Carex 

heliophila, and Carex fi lifolia (in Nebraska). Several 

mid-grasses occur regularly, such as Aristida purpurea, 

Bouteloua curtipendula, Pascopyrum smithii, 

Schizachyrium scoparium, Elymus elymoides, 

Sporobolus cryptandrus, Hesperostipa comata (=Stipa 

comata), and Vulpia octofl ora. Forbs such as 

Astragalus spp., Gaura coccinea, Machaeranthera 

pinnatifi da var. pinnatifi da, Opuntia polyacantha, 

Plantago patagonica, Psoralidium tenuifl orum, 

Ratibida columnifera, and Sphaeralcea coccinea are 

common throughout this community. Shrubs are very 

rare except in the southern part of this community’s 

range where scattered individuals may occur. In 

Oklahoma, other characteristic species include 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Aristida oligantha, 

Machaeranthera tanacetifolia, Melampodium 

leucanthum, Muhlenbegria torreyi, Sporobolus 

compositus, Sporobolus cryptandrus, and Zinnia 

grandifl ora. In Texas, associated species include 

Prosopis glandulosa, Bouteloua curtipendula, and 

Sporobolus cryptandrus.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Andropogon gerardii–

Sorghastrum nutans–Hesperostipa spartea Loess 

Hills Herbaceous Vegetation

Translated Scientifi c Name: Big bluestem–yellow 

Indiangrass–porcupine grass, loess hills, herbaceous 

vegetation

Common Name: Central tall-grass, big bluestem, loess 

prairie

Unique Identifi er: CEGL002025

Classifi cation Code: V.A.5.N.a.2

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Moderate

Association Summary: This big bluestem, tall-grass prairie

type is found in the west-central, tall-grass prairie 

region of the United States, including the Loess Hills. 

Stands occur on moderately steep mid- to upper slopes 

of loess hills and along ridges. It is most common 

on southern and western aspects. The soil is welldrained, acidic to neutral, and shallow to deep loess 

(16–40 inches [40–100 cm]). The parent material is a 

deep loess or glacial till and other deeply weathered 

substrates. This community is virtually lacking in 

shrubs and trees. Woody vegetation that is present, 

such as Amorpha canescens, is usually less than 

20 inches (0.5 m) tall. The dominant vegetation is tall 

grasses. Of the dominant species, Andropogon gerardii, 

Sorghastrum nutans, and Hesperostipa spartea (=Stipa 

spartea) typically exceed 40 inches (1 m). Schizachyrium 

scoparium, also very common, is shorter. In Missouri, 

some other species that are usually found in this 

community are Echinacea pallida, Potentilla arguta, 

Silphium laciniatum, and Sporobolus compositus 

var. compositus.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Schizachyrium 

scoparium–Bouteloua curtipendula–Bouteloua 

hirsuta–(Yucca glauca) Herbaceous Vegetation

Translated Scientifi c Name: Little bluestem–sideoats grama–

hairy grama–(soapweed yucca) herbaceous vegetation

Common Name: Loess hills, little bluestem, dry prairie

Unique Identifi er: CEGL002035

Classifi cation Code: V.A.5.N.c.20

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Moderate
164 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Association Summary: This bluestem-grama grass, dry 

prairie type is found on the loess bluffs along the east 

side of Missouri River in the central midwestern 

United States. The soil is somewhat rapidly drained 

and very shallow (0–16 inches [0–40 cm]). The 

vegetative structure is comprised of a single layer of 

dominant grasses intermixed with forbs. Shrubs, 

especially Yucca glauca, are sometimes present. This 

community is a short- to midgrass prairie dominated 

by the bunchgrasses Andropogon gerardii, Bouteloua 

curtipendula, and Schizachyrium scoparium. 

Bouteloua hirsuta can be common. Sporobolus 

cryptandrus, Dalea leporina, Dalea candida, Dalea 

enneandra, Astragalus lotifl orus, and Astragalus 

missouriensis can also be common. Other herbaceous 

species include Pulsatilla patens ssp. multifi da

(=Anemone patens), Symphyotrichum sericeum

(Aster sericeus), Buchloe dactyloides, Bouteloua 

gracilis, Delphinium carolinianum, Gaura coccinea, 

and Pediomelum argophyllum, and the lichens 

Dermatocarpon lachneum and Psora decipiens.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Eleocharis palustris 

Herbaceous Vegetation

Translated Scientifi c Name: Marsh spikerush, herbaceous 

vegetation

Common Name: Creeping spikerush, wet meadow

Unique Identifi er: CEGL001833

Classifi cation Code: V.A.5.N.k.61

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Strong

Association Summary: This spikerush, wet meadow 

community is found in the central Great Plains of the 

United States and Canada and in the western United 

States. Stands occur in small depressions in intermittent 

streambeds or depression ponds that fl ood early in the 

season and may dry out by summer. Stands comprise 

submersed and emergent rooted vegetation under 

40 inches (1 m) tall that is dominated by Eleocharis 

palustris, often in nearly pure stands. Soils are 

generally fi ne-textured.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Pascopyrum smithii–

Buchloe dactyloides–(Phyla cuneifolia, Oenothera 

canescens) Herbaceous Vegetation

Translated Scientifi c Name: Western wheatgrass–

buffalograss–(wedgeleaf frogfruit, spotted eveningprimrose) herbaceous vegetation

Common Name: Wheatgrass, playa grassland

Unique Identifi er: CEGL002038

Classifi cation Code: V.A.5.N.i.1

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Moderate

Association Summary: This wheatgrass, playa grassland 

community represents the common vegetation type 

of playa lake basins (depressional wetlands) under 

rangeland conditions in the southern and central 

Great Plains of the United States. In the central 

plains soils are dense silts and clays, occasionally 

loess-derived, that fl ood in winter and dry out by early 

summer. Perennial herbaceous graminoids and forbs 

less than 40 inches (1 m) tall dominate the community, 

with composition varying depending on water levels. 

In the central plains Pascopyrum smithii is most 

abundant, with Agrostis hyemalis, Eleocharis 

palustris, Eleocharis macrostachya, Elymus 

virginicus, and Hordeum jubatum locally abundant. 

Buchloe dactyloides can be abundant in grazed sites. 

Early season ephemeral annuals include Alopecurus 

carolinianus, Elatine rubella, Myosurus minimus, 

Veronica peregrina ssp. xalapensis, and, more 

westward, Limosella aquatica and Plagiobothrys 

scouleri. Perennial forbs including Ambrosia grayi, 

Phyla cuneifolia, Oenothera canescens, Rorippa 

sinuata, and Vernonia fasciculata are conspicuous in 

places. In the southern plains, species characteristic 

of the type include Buchloe dactyloides, Distichlis 

spicata, and Panicum obtusum.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Potamogeton spp.–

Ceratophyllum demersum Great Plains Herbaceous 

Vegetation

Translated Scientifi c Name: Pondweed species–coontail, 

Great Plains herbaceous vegetation

Common Name: Great Plains pondweed, submerged 

aquatic wetland

Unique Identifi er: CEGL002044

Classifi cation Code: V.C.2.N.a.14

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Weak

Association Summary: This community type is found in the 

Great Plains of the United States in shallow to 

relatively deep (40 inches [1 m]) freshwater basins or 

bands in marshes or bays that remain fl ooded in all but 

the driest years. Vegetation varies from sparse to 

dense, with submersed rooted and free-fl oating 

macrophytes. Species composition varies with substrate, 

water depth, water chemistry, turbidity, water 

temperatures, and other factors, but these are poorly 

understood. Dominant species in Nebraska include 

narrow-leaved pondweeds (Potamogeton foliosus, 

Stuckenia pectinata (=Potamogeton pectinatus), 

Potamogeton pusillus, Najas guadalupensis, and 

Zannichellia palustris. Ceratophyllum demersum and 

Utricularia macrorhiza can be locally abundant. In 

quiet bays, Potamogeton nodosus and Lemna spp. are 

common. In clear water with sandy bottoms Chara spp. 

may also be common.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Phalaris arundinacea

Western Herbaceous Vegetation

Translated Scientifi c Name: Reed canarygrass, western 

herbaceous vegetation

Common Name: Reed canarygrass, wet meadow

Unique Identifi er: CEGL001474

Classifi cation Code: V.A.5.N.k.20

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Strong

Association Summary: This association is reported from 

throughout Washington, Colorado, Nebraska, Montana, 

Idaho, and into northeastern Utah, and is likely more 

widespread in the western United States. Its 

distribution as a natural type is complicated because 

this native species is widely cultivated as a forage crop 
Appendix K — Rainwater Basin Vegetation Classifi cation 165

and has escaped and established in wetlands and 

riparian areas, displacing the local fl ora. Elevations 

range from near sea level to 5,576 feet (1,700 m). 

Stands are found along riparian areas, pond and lake 

margins, wet meadows, and intermittent drainages. 

Soils are commonly fi ne-textured and may be fl ooded 

for brief to extended periods. The vegetation is 

characterized by a dense, tall herbaceous layer (often

greater than 80% canopy cover and 60–80 inches 

[1.5–2 m] tall) that is dominated by Phalaris 

arundinacea, which tends to occur in monocultures. 

Associated species may include Equisetum arvense, 

Muhlenbergia asperifolia, Mentha arvensis, 

Schoenoplectus acutus (=Scirpus acutus), and many 

other species in trace amounts where disturbed. 

Introduced species such as Lepidium latifolium, 

Cirsium arvense, Sonchus oleraceus, Euphorbia esula,

and Phleum pratense are common in some stands.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Polygonum spp.–

Echinochloa spp.–Distichlis spicata Playa Lake 

Herbaceous Vegetation

Translated Scientifi c Name: Smartweed species–barnyard 

grass species–saltgrass playa lake herbaceous 

vegetation

Common Name: Playa marsh

Unique Identifi er: CEGL002039

Classifi cation Code: V.A.5.N.j.12

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Weak

Association Summary: This wetland community is found 

in the central Great Plains of the United States, where

it occurs in shallow depressions on gently to moderately

sloping topography. Soils are deep to moderately deep 

loams or clay loams underlain by a dense clay sublayer.

Ponds often draw down periodically in these playa-type

habitats. Annual herbaceous graminoids and forbs, 

mostly less than 40 inches (1 m) tall, dominate the 

exposed mud fl ats, and species composition and extent 

of the community fl uctuate from site to site and year 

to year. In Nebraska, graminoids include Cyperus 

acuminatus, Eleocharis engelmannii, and Echinochloa

muricata, and forbs include Bacopa rotundifolia, 

Coreopsis tinctoria, Elatine rubella, Heteranthera 

limosa, Limosella aquatica, Lindernia dubia, Mollugo 

verticillata, Polygonum pensylvanicum (=Polygonum 

bicorne), Polygonum lapathifolium, Rumex 

stenophyllus, and Sagittaria calycina. In Kansas, 

graminoids include Hordeum jubatum, and forbs 

include Ambrosia grayi, Symphyotrichum subulatum 

(=Aster subulatus), and Chenopodium berlandieri. 

The frequent water fl uctuations and thick clay pan 

prevent establishment of most perennial hydrophytes, 

such as Schoenoplectus spp. (=Scirpus spp.) and 

Typha spp.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Typha spp. Great 

Plains Herbaceous Vegetation

Translated Scientifi c Name: Cattail species, Great Plains 

herbaceous vegetation

Common Name: Northern Great Plains cattail marsh

Unique Identifi er: CEGL002389

Classifi cation Code: V.A.5.N.l.9

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Moderate

Association Summary: This cattail community type is 

found throughout the northern Great Plains of the 

United States and Canada. Stands occur in shallow 

(less than 20 inches [0.5 m]) or deep depressions, stock 

ponds, and seepy drainages. The vegetation is 

dominated by relatively pure stands of Typha spp., 

either T. latifolia or T. angustifolia or both. Many 

associates can occur including Eleocharis spp. and 

Sagittaria latifolia. This type may simply be a less 

diverse variation of Typha spp.–Schoenoplectus spp.–

mixed herbs, Great Plains herbaceous vegetation 

(CEGL002228) that arises in disturbed wetland areas.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Schoenoplectus 

tabernaemontani–Typha spp.–(Sparganium spp., 

Juncus spp.) Herbaceous Vegetation

Translated Scientifi c Name: Softstem bulrush–cattail 

species–(burreed species, rush species) herbaceous 

vegetation

Common Name: Bulrush-cattail-burreed shallow marsh

Unique Identifi er: CEGL002026

Classifi cation Code: V.A.5.N.k.33

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Weak

Association Summary: This shallow marsh, mixed emergent 

community ranges broadly over the midwestern 

United States and adjacent Canada. It is found in basinlike depressions, backwater areas of fl oodplains, and 

shallow margins of lakes or ponds. Soils are shallow to 

deep, very poorly drained, consisting of peats, mucks, 

or mineral materials, and often found in alluvium. 

Vegetation varies from zones dominated by tall 

emergents 40–80 inches (1–2 m) tall to those with 

hydrophytic annual and perennial forbs less than 

40 inches (1 m) tall. In the tall emergent zone, 

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (=Scirpus 

tabernaemontani), Schoenoplectus fl uviatilis (=Scirpus 

fl uviatilis), Schoenoplectus acutus (=Scirpus acutus), 

Typha angustifolia, and Typha latifolia may dominate, 

mixed with a variety of other herbaceous species such 

as Leersia oryzoides, Eleocharis palustris, Juncus spp., 

and Sparganium spp. The hydrophytic annual and 

perennial forb zone is dominated by Alisma 

subcordatum, Alisma plantago-aquatica, Sagittaria 

latifolia, Sparganium eurycarpum, and Pontederia 

cordata, along with Bacopa rotundifolia and 

Heteranthera limosa. Occasional fl oating-leaved 

aquatics are sometimes present including Azolla 

caroliniana, Lemna spp., Spirodela polyrrhiza, and 

Utricularia macrorhiza.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Populus deltoides–

(Salix amygdaloides)/Salix (exigua, interior) 

Woodland

Translated Scientifi c Name: Eastern cottonwood–(peachleaf 

willow)/(coyote willow, sandbar willow) woodland

Common Name: Cottonwood–peachleaf willow 

fl oodplain woodland

Unique Identifi er: CEGL000659

Classifi cation Code: II.B.2.N.b.4
166 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Moderate

Association Summary: This cottonwood-willow woodland 

is found widely in the central Great Plains of the 

United States. Stands occur on recently deposited 

alluvial material along rivers and streams. The soils are 

derived from alluvial sand, silt, and clay and are poorly 

developed. The water table fl uctuates with the level of 

the adjacent river or stream. Populus deltoides is the 

dominant species in this community, although Salix 

exigua and/or Salix interior is generally more dominant 

in the initial stage following a major fl ood event. Salix 

amygdaloides is rare to codominant. The shrub/sapling 

layer is conspicuous, especially near the streambank, 

and consists mainly of Salix exigua, Populus deltoides, 

and Salix amygdaloides, or occasionally Salix lutea. 

In the more easterly parts of the range, Salix interior

may replace Salix exigua. On the older margins of this 

community Fraxinus pennsylvanica is often found as 

a sapling or small canopy tree. The herbaceous stratum 

is variable. Graminoids typical of undisturbed sites 

include Carex emoryi, Carex pellita (=Carex 

lanuginosa), Pascopyrum smithii, and Spartina 

pectinata. Equisetum arvense and Glycyrrhiza 

lepidota are common forbs in these sites. Widely 

distributed species that are adapted to these sites 

include Ambrosia psilostachya, Artemisia campestris 

ssp. caudata, Artemisia ludoviciana, Calamovilfa 

longifolia, Cenchrus longispinus, Chamaesyce 

serpyllifolia (=Euphorbia serpyllifolia), Euphorbia 

esula, Grindelia squarrosa, Helianthus petiolaris, 

Heterotheca villosa, Phyla lanceolata (=Lippia 

lanceolata), Opuntia macrorhiza, Poa pratensis, and 

Sporobolus cryptandrus. These sites are prone to 

invasion by exotic grasses and forbs, the most widely 

established being Agrostis stolonifera, Bromus 

tectorum, Cirsium arvense, Bassia scoparia (=Kochia 

scoparia), Melilotus spp., Taraxacum offi cinale, and 

Tragopogon dubius.

Association (Scientifi c) Name: Salix exigua/Mesic 

Graminoids Shrubland

Translated Scientifi c Name: Coyote willow/mesic graminoids 

shrubland

Common Name: Sandbar willow/mesic graminoids 

shrubland

Unique Identifi er: CEGL001203

Classifi cation Code: III.B.2.N.d.6

Association Classifi cation Confi dence Level: Strong

Association Summary: This riparian association is found 

primarily in the central Great Plains, but also occurs 

in parts of the Rocky Mountains and the Intermountain 

Region’s semidesert areas. It generally occurs along 

backwater channels and other perennially wet, but 

less scoured sites such as fl oodplain swales and 

irrigation ditches. In Nebraska, this community is 

found on sandbars, islands, and shorelines of stream 

channels and braided rivers. The vegetation is 

characterized by the dominance of Salix exigua in a 

moderately dense tall-shrub canopy with a dense 

herbaceous layer dominated by graminoids. Other 

common shrubs include saplings of Populus deltoides

or Salix amygdaloides, Salix eriocephala, Salix lutea, 

and Amorpha fruticosa. Tall perennial grasses can 

appear to codominate the stand when Spartina 

pectinata, Panicum virgatum, or other tall grasses 

are present. Other mesic graminoids such as Carex spp., 

Eleocharis spp., Juncus spp., Pascopyrum smithii, 

Schoenoplectus pungens (=Scirpus pungens), and 

Sphenopholis obtusata may be present. Common forb 

species include Bidens spp., Lobelia siphilitica, 

Lycopus americanus, Lythrum alatum, Polygonum

spp., and Xanthium strumarium. Diagnostic features 

of this association include the nearly pure stands of 

Salix exigua shrubs, with a dense herbaceous layer of 

at least 30% cover of mesic graminoids.

FIELD VEGETATION ASSOCIATION 

PLANT COMMUNITY SUMMARY

The NVCS clearly defi nes plant communities that can 

be discriminated on the landscape and at the association 

level is of fi ne enough detail to allow evaluation of 

management actions. 

NVCS ASSOCIATIONS IN THE RAINWATER BASIN

WETLAND COMPLEX

The following is a listing of the NVCS associations as 

they are used in the GIS data layer for plant 

communities that occur in the Rainwater Basin. The 

categories were divided into fi ve representative 

classes: wet meadow, wetland plants, shrubs, trees, 

and uplands.

Wet Meadow

k.53 Carex spp.–(C. pellita, C. vulpinoidea) herbaceous 

vegetation (sedge species–[woolly sedge, fox sedge] 

herbaceous vegetation)

This sedge wet meadow type is found in the central 

midwestern United States. Stands occur on nearly 

level fl oodplains, often in bands surrounding channels, 

or in basins. Soils are poorly drained silty and clay 

loams formed in alluvium. Stands are fl ooded for much 

of the growing season, but may dry out in late summer. 

The vegetation cover is quite dense and may be patchy. 

The structure is dominated by graminoids 20–60 inches 

(0.5–1.5 m) tall. Typical species include Carex 

cristatella, Carex molesta, Carex pellita (=Carex 

lanuginosa), Carex stipata, Carex tribuloides, and 

Carex vulpinoidea (a dominant in southeast Nebraska 

meadows). Other frequent emergent graminoids 

include Eleocharis spp., Juncus interior, Juncus 

torreyi and Scirpus atrovirens. Leersia oryzoides may 

be common where the stand borders a marsh. Forbs 

are common and may be conspicuous. Among the more 

common are Apocynum cannabinum, Symphyotrichum 

lanceolatum (=Aster lanceolatus), Lycopus 

americanus, Lythrum alatum, and Verbena hastata. 

Phalaris arundinacea may invade this community to 

the point of excluding many of the native species.
Appendix K — Rainwater Basin Vegetation Classifi cation 167

k.61 Eleocharis palustris herbaceous vegetation (creeping 

spikerush, wet meadow)

This spikerush, wet meadow community is found in the 

central Great Plains of the United States and Canada 

and in the western United States. Stands occur in small 

depressions in intermittent streambeds or depression 

ponds that fl ood early in the season and may dry out 

by summer. Stands are composed of submersed and 

emergent rooted vegetation under 40 inches (1 m) tall

that is dominated by Eleocharis palustris, often in 

nearly pure stands. Soils are generally fi ne-textured.

i.1 Pascopyrum smithii–Buchloe dactyloides–(Phyla cuneifolia,

Oenothera canescens) herbaceous vegetation, western 

wheatgrass–buffalograss–(wedgeleaf frogfruit, spotted 

evening-primrose) herbaceous vegetation

This wheatgrass, playa grassland community represents

the common vegetation type of playa lake basins 

(depressional wetlands) under rangeland conditions in

the southern and central Great Plains of the United 

States. In the central plains, soils are dense silts and 

clays, occasionally loess-derived, that fl ood in winter 

and dry out by early summer. Perennial herbaceous 

graminoids and forbs less than 40 inches (1 m) tall 

dominate the community, with composition varying 

depending on water levels. In the central plains, 

Pascopyrum smithii is most abundant with Agrostis 

hyemalis, Eleocharis palustris, Eleocharis 

macrostachya, Elymus virginicus, and Hordeum 

jubatum locally abundant. Buchloe dactyloides can be 

abundant in grazed sites. Early season ephemeral 

annuals include Alopecurus carolinianus, Elatine 

rubella, Myosurus minimus, Veronica peregrina ssp.

xalapensis, and more westward Limosella aquatica

and Plagiobothrys scouleri. Perennial forbs including 

Ambrosia grayi, Phyla cuneifolia, Oenothera canescens,

Rorippa sinuata, and Vernonia fasciculata are 

conspicuous in places. In the southern plains, species 

characteristic of the type include Buchloe dactyloides,

Distichlis spicata, and Panicum obtusum.

Wetland Plants

k.20 Phalaris arundinacea western herbaceous vegetation 

(reed canarygrass, western herbaceous vegetation)

This association is reported from throughout 

Washington, Colorado, Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, and

into northeastern Utah, and is likely more widespread 

in the western United States. Its distribution as a 

natural type is complicated because this native species 

is widely cultivated as a forage crop and has escaped 

and established in wetlands and riparian areas, 

displacing the local fl ora. Elevations range from near 

sea level to 5,576 feet (1,700 m). Stands are found along 

riparian areas, pond and lake margins, wet meadows, 

and intermittent drainages. Soils are commonly fi netextured and may be fl ooded for brief to extended 

periods. The vegetation is characterized by a dense, 

tall herbaceous layer (often >80% canopy cover and 

60–80 inches [1.5–2 m] tall) that is dominated by 

Phalaris arundinacea, which tends to occur in 

monocultures. Associated species may include 

Equisetum arvense, Muhlenbergia asperifolia, Mentha 

arvensis, Schoenoplectus acutus (=Scirpus acutus), and 

many other species in trace amounts where disturbed. 

Introduced species such as Lepidium latifolium, 

Cirsium arvense, Sonchus oleraceus, Euphorbia esula, 

and Phleum pratense are common in some stands.

j.12 Polygonum spp.–Echinochloa spp.–Distichlis spicata 

playa lake, herbaceous vegetation (smartweed species–

barnyard grass species–saltgrass, playa lake, herbaceous 

vegetation)

This wetland community is found in the central Great 

Plains of the United States, where it occurs in shallow 

depressions on gently to moderately sloping topography. 

Soils are deep to moderately deep loams or clay loams 

underlain by a dense clay sublayer. Ponds often draw 

down periodically in these playa-type habitats. Annual 

herbaceous graminoids and forbs, mostly less than 

40 inches (1 m) tall, dominate the exposed mud fl ats, 

and species composition and extent of the community 

fl uctuate from site to site and year to year. In Nebraska, 

graminoids include Cyperus acuminatus, Eleocharis 

engelmannii, and Echinochloa muricata. Forbs 

include Bacopa rotundifolia, Coreopsis tinctoria, 

Elatine rubella, Heteranthera limosa, Limosella 

aquatica, Lindernia dubia, Mollugo verticillata, 

Polygonum pensylvanicum (=Polygonum bicorne), 

Polygonum lapathifolium, Rumex stenophyllus, and 

Sagittaria calycina. In Kansas, graminoids include 

Hordeum jubatum and forbs include Ambrosia grayi, 

Symphyotrichum subulatum (=Aster subulatus), and 

Chenopodium berlandieri. The frequent water 

fl uctuations and thick clay pan prevent establishment 

of most perennial hydrophytes, such as Schoenoplectus

spp. (=Scirpus spp.) and Typha spp.

l.9 Typha spp. Great Plains herbaceous vegetation 

(CEGL002389) (cattail species, Great Plains herbaceous 

vegetation)

This cattail community type is found throughout the 

northern Great Plains of the United States and Canada. 

Stands occur in shallow (less than 20 inches [0.5 m]) 

or deep depressions, stock ponds, and seepy drainages. 

The vegetation is dominated by relatively pure stands 

of Typha spp., either T. latifolia or T. angustifolia or 

both. Many associates can occur, including Eleocharis

spp. and Sagittaria latifolia. This type may simply be 

a less diverse variation of Typha spp.–Schoenoplectus 

spp.–mixed herbs, Great Plains herbaceous vegetation 

(CEGL002228) that arises in disturbed wetland areas.

k.33 Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani–Typha spp.–

(Sparganium spp., Juncus spp.) herbaceous vegetation 

(softstem bulrush–cattail species–[burreed species, rush 

species] herbaceous vegetation)

This shallow marsh, mixed emergent community 

ranges broadly over the midwestern United States 

and adjacent Canada. It is found in basin-like 

depressions, backwater areas of fl oodplains, and 

shallow margins of lakes or ponds. Soils are shallow to 

deep, very poorly drained, consisting of peats, mucks, 

or mineral materials, and often found in alluvium. 
168 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Vegetation varies from zones dominated by tall 

emergents 40–80 inches (1–2 m) tall to those with 

hydrophytic annual and perennial forbs less than 

40 inches (1 m) tall. In the tall emergent zone, 

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (=Scirpus 

tabernaemontani), Schoenoplectus fl uviatilis (=Scirpus 

fl uviatilis), Schoenoplectus acutus (=Scirpus acutus), 

Typha angustifolia, and Typha latifolia may dominate, 

mixed with a variety of other herbaceous species such 

as Leersia oryzoides, Eleocharis palustris, Juncus spp., 

and Sparganium spp. The hydrophytic annual and 

perennial forb zone is dominated by Alisma 

subcordatum, Alisma plantago-aquatica, Sagittaria 

latifolia, Sparganium eurycarpum, Pontederia 

cordata, along with Bacopa rotundifolia and 

Heteranthera limosa. Occasional fl oating-leaved 

aquatics are sometimes present, including Azolla 

caroliniana, Lemna spp., Spirodela polyrrhiza, and 

Utricularia macrorhiza.

a.14 Ceratophyllum demersum Great Plains herbaceous 

vegetation (Great Plains pondweed, submerged aquatic 

wetland)

This community type is found in the Great Plains of the 

United States in shallow to relatively deep (40 inches 

[1 m]) freshwater basins or bands in marshes or bays 

that remain fl ooded in all but the driest years. 

Vegetation varies from sparse to dense, with submersed 

rooted and free-fl oating macrophytes. Species 

composition varies with substrate, water depth, water 

chemistry, turbidity, water temperatures, and other 

factors, but these are poorly understood. Dominant 

species in Nebraska include narrow-leaved pondweeds 

(Potamogeton foliosus, Stuckenia pectinata 

(=Potamogeton pectinatus), Potamogeton pusillus), 

Najas guadalupensis, and Zannichellia palustris. 

Ceratophyllum demersum and Utricularia macrorhiza

can be locally abundant. In quiet bays, Potamogeton 

nodosus and Lemna spp. are common. In clear water 

with sandy bottoms Chara spp. may also be common.

Trees

b.4 Populus deltoides–(Salix amygdaloides)/Salix (exigua, 

interior) woodland (eastern cottonwood–[peachleaf willow]/

[coyote willow, sandbar willow] woodland)

This cottonwood-willow woodland is found widely in 

the central Great Plains of the United States. Stands 

occur on recently deposited alluvial material along 

rivers and streams. The soils are derived from alluvial 

sand, silt, and clay and are poorly developed. The water 

table fl uctuates with the level of the adjacent river or 

stream. Populus deltoides is the dominant species in 

this community, although Salix exigua and/or Salix 

interior is generally more dominant in the initial stage 

following a major fl ood event. Salix amygdaloides is rare 

to codominant. The shrub/sapling layer is conspicuous, 

especially near the streambank, and consists mainly 

of Salix exigua, Populus deltoides, and Salix 

amygdaloides, or occasionally Salix lutea. In the more 

easterly parts of the range, Salix interior may replace 

Salix exigua. On the older margins of this community 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica is often found as a sapling or 

small canopy tree. The herbaceous stratum is variable. 

Graminoids typical of undisturbed sites include Carex 

emoryi, Carex pellita (=Carex lanuginosa), 

Pascopyrum smithii, and Spartina pectinata. 

Equisetum arvense and Glycyrrhiza lepidota are 

common forbs in these sites. Widely distributed species 

that are adapted to these sites include Ambrosia 

psilostachya, Artemisia campestris ssp. caudata, 

Artemisia ludoviciana, Calamovilfa longifolia, 

Cenchrus longispinus, Chamaesyce serpyllifolia 

(=Euphorbia serpyllifolia), Euphorbia esula, 

Grindelia squarrosa, Helianthus petiolaris, 

Heterotheca villosa, Phyla lanceolata (=Lippia 

lanceolata), Opuntia macrorhiza, Poa pratensis, and 

Sporobolus cryptandrus. These sites are prone to 

invasion by exotic grasses and forbs, the most widely 

established being Agrostis stolonifera, Bromus 

tectorum, Cirsium arvense, Bassia scoparia (=Kochia 

scoparia), Melilotus spp., Taraxacum offi cinale, and 

Tragopogon dubius.

Shrubs

d.6 Salix exigua/mesic graminoids shrubland (coyote willow/

mesic graminoids shrubland)

This riparian association is found primarily in the 

central Great Plains, but also occurs in parts of the 

Rocky Mountains and Intermountain Region’s 

semidesert areas. It generally occurs along backwater 

channels and other perennially wet, but less scoured, 

sites such as fl oodplain swales and irrigation ditches. 

In Nebraska, this community is found on sandbars, 

islands, and shorelines of stream channels and braided 

rivers. The vegetation is characterized by the dominance 

of Salix exigua in a moderately dense tall-shrub canopy 

with a dense herbaceous layer dominated by graminoids. 

Other common shrubs include saplings of Populus 

deltoides or Salix amygdaloides, Salix eriocephala, 

Salix lutea, and Amorpha fruticosa. Tall perennial 

grasses can appear to codominate the stand when 

Spartina pectinata, Panicum virgatum or other tall 

grasses are present. Other mesic graminoids, such as 

Carex spp., Eleocharis spp., Juncus spp., Pascopyrum 

smithii, Schoenoplectus pungens (=Scirpus pungens), 

and Sphenopholis obtusata, may be present. Common 

forb species include Bidens spp., Lobelia siphilitica, 

Lycopus americanus, Lythrum alatum, Polygonum

spp., and Xanthium strumarium. Diagnostic features 

of this association include the nearly pure stands of 

Salix exigua shrubs, with a dense herbaceous layer of 

at least 30% cover of mesic graminoids.

Uplands

e.9 Bouteloua gracilis–Buchloe dactyloides herbaceous 

vegetation (blue grama–buffalograss)/purple three-awn, 

sideoats grama, sixweeks fescue 

This blue grama–buffalograss, short-grass prairie type 

is common across much of the central and southern 

Great Plains of the United States. Stands occur on 

fl at to rolling uplands. The surface soil may be sandy 
Appendix K — Rainwater Basin Vegetation Classifi cation 169

loam, loam, silt loam, or loamy clay. The subsoil is often

fi ner than the surface soil. This community is 

characterized by a moderate to dense sod of short 

grasses with scattered mid-grasses and forbs. The 

dominant species are Bouteloua gracilis and Buchloe 

dactyloides. The foliage of these species is 2.8–7.6 inches 

(7–19 cm) tall, while the fl owering stalks of Bouteloua

gracilis may reach 18 inches (45 cm). The mid-grasses 

are usually stunted by the arid conditions and often do 

not exceed 28 inches (0.7 m). Other short graminoids 

found in this community are Bouteloua hirsuta, Carex 

duriuscula, Carex inops ssp. heliophila, and Carex 

fi lifolia (in Nebraska). Several mid-grasses occur 

regularly, such as Aristida purpurea, Bouteloua 

curtipendula, Pascopyrum smithii, Schizachyrium 

scoparium, Elymus elymoides, Sporobolus 

cryptandrus, Hesperostipa comata (=Stipa comata), 

and Vulpia octofl ora. Forbs such as Astragalus spp., 

Gaura coccinea, Machaeranthera pinnatifi da var. 

pinnatifi da, Opuntia polyacantha, Plantago 

patagonica, Psoralidium tenuifl orum, Ratibida 

columnifera, and Sphaeralcea coccinea are common 

throughout this community. Shrubs are very rare 

except in the southern part of this community’s range 

where scattered individuals may occur. In Oklahoma, 

other characteristic species include Ambrosia 

artemisiifolia, Aristida oligantha, Machaeranthera 

tanacetifolia, Melampodium leucanthum, 

Muhlenbegria torreyi, Sporobolus compositus, 

Sporobolus cryptandrus, and Zinnia grandifl ora. In 

Texas, associated species include Prosopis glandulosa, 

Bouteloua curtipendula, and Sporobolus cryptandrus.

a.2 Andropogon gerardii–Sorghastrum nutans–Hesperostipa 

spartea loess hills herbaceous vegetation (big bluestem–

yellow Indiangrass)

Stands occur on moderately steep mid- to upper slopes 

of loess hills and along ridges. It is most common on 

southern and western aspects. The soil is well-drained, 

acidic to neutral, and shallow to deep loess (16–40 inches 

[40–100 cm]). The parent material is a deep loess or 

glacial till and other deeply weathered substrates. This 

community is virtually lacking in shrubs and trees. 

Woody vegetation that is present, such as Amorpha 

canescens, is usually less than 20 inches (0.5 m) tall. 

The dominant vegetation is tall grasses. Of the 

dominant species, Andropogon gerardii, Sorghastrum 

nutans, and Hesperostipa spartea (=Stipa spartea) 

typically exceed 40 inches (1 m). Schizachyrium 

scoparium, also very common, is shorter. In Missouri, 

some other species that are usually found in this 

community are Echinacea pallida, Potentilla arguta, 

Silphium laciniatum, and Sporobolus compositus var.

compositus.

c.20 Schizachyrium scoparium–Bouteloua curtipendula–

Bouteloua hirsuta–(Yucca glauca) herbaceous vegetation 

(little bluestem–sideoats grama)–hairy grama–(soapweed 

yucca) herbaceous vegetation 

This bluestem-grama grass, dry-prairie type is found 

on the loess bluffs along the east side of Missouri 

River in the central midwestern United States. The 

soil is somewhat rapidly drained and very shallow 

(0–16 inches [0–40 cm]). The vegetative structure 

comprises a single layer of dominant grasses intermixed 

with forbs. Shrubs, especially Yucca glauca, are 

sometimes present. This community is a short- to 

midgrass prairie dominated by the bunchgrasses 

Andropogon gerardii, Bouteloua curtipendula, and 

Schizachyrium scoparium. Bouteloua hirsuta can be 

common. Sporobolus cryptandrus, Dalea leporina, 

Dalea candida, Dalea enneandra, Astragalus 

lotifl orus, and Astragalus missouriensis can also be 

common. Other herbaceous species include Pulsatilla 

patens ssp. multifi da (=Anemone patens), 

Symphyotrichum sericeum (Aster sericeus), Buchloe 

dactyloides, Bouteloua gracilis, Delphinium 

carolinianum, Gaura coccinea, and Pediomelum 

argophyllum, and the lichens Dermatocarpon 

lachneum and Psora decipiens.

VEGETATION TRANSECT NOMENCLATURE

The fi nal method of delineating plant communities was 

to use common name plant associations found within 

the basin. These communities were grouped into 11 

categories. These categories then have representative 

plant communities commonly found in the basin. 

Field codes that provide land managers with common 

names that they are familiar with were added to this 

hierarchy, allowing easy data recording during transect 

data collection. Table I-2 shows all of the local plant 

associations in the basin.
170 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Table I-2. Rainwater Basin vegetation mapping polygon descriptions.

Field Code Examples or Includes

annual weed sunfl ower, foxtail

building McMurtrey, Cottonwood

Canada thistle dominated by Canada thistle

cattail native and hybrid

planted and volunteer cedars with multiple trees averaging cedar tree 6 feet or taller and <32.5 feet (10 m) basal proximity

cropland farmed, row crops

introduced forb perennial forbs, alfalfa, sweetclover, vetch

invasive cool-season downy brome, Japanese brome, Kentucky bluegrass, smooth 

plant brome, intermediate

leafy spurge mapped all patches regardless of size

moist-soil plant annual early successional plants

musk thistle dense patches that can be mapped

untilled remnant prairie with mostly native, warm- or cool- native grassland season species

newly seeded <2 years old with annual weeds or wild rye vegetation

parking lot ——

reed (Phragmites spp.) all mapped patches of reed (Phragmites spp.)

planted, high-diversity, seeded native grass with 70+ native species included in mix seeded vegetation

planted, native, cool- dike mix, other small patches season vegetation

planted, native, warm- fi ve species, old plantings with low diversity season vegetation

prairie dog town active dog towns

reed canarygrass —— 

road McMurtrey, well roads

NVCS Code

weeds

infrastructure

noxious weed

l.9

introduced

crop

introduced

introduced

noxious weed

j.12

noxious weed

a.2, c.20, e.9

a.2, c.20, e.10

infrastructure

noxious weed

a.2, c.20, e.9

a.2, c.20, e.9

a.2, c.20, e.9

e.9

k.20

infrastructure
Appendix K — Rainwater Basin Vegetation Classifi cation 171

Table I-2. Rainwater Basin vegetation mapping polygon descriptions.

Field Code Examples or Includes

bulrush (Scirpus spp.) Schoenoplectus fl uviatilis (three square)

shrub American plum, chokecherry, dogwood, sumac

tree cottonwood, green ash, willow

dirt, water, mud, void of vegetation (submergent plant water or mud fl at communities)

wet meadow rushes, sedges, or western wheatgrass 

NVCS Code

k.33

d.6, d.27

b.4

a.14, or other 

dominant plants

k.53, k.61, i.1

Appendix L

Fire Management Program

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has management 

and administrative responsibility, including fi re 

management, for approximately 24,000 acres of 

waterfowl production areas in the Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District.

FIRE—A CRITICAL NATURAL PROCESS

In prairie ecosystems of the Great Plains, vegetation 

has evolved under periodic disturbance and defoliation 

from herbivores and fi re, with minor weather events 

such as drought. This periodic disturbance is what kept 

the ecosystem diverse and healthy while maintaining 

signifi cant biodiversity for thousands of years. 

Historically natural fi re, which includes Native 

American ignitions, has played an important 

disturbance role in many ecosystems: (1) removal of 

fuel accumulations; (2) decrease in undesirable plant 

communities; and (3) reduction in encroachment 

potential including trees, stimulating regeneration, 

cycling critical nutrients, and providing a diversity of 

habitats for wildlife. Higgins (1984) pointed out that 

73% of historical lightning fi res were started between 

July and August; the remaining 27% were started 

between April and June. Native American–set fi res 

occurred mostly from February to June (most in April) 

and from July to November (most in October) 

(Higgins 1986). 

When fi re is excluded on a broad scale (over several 

decades) as it has been in many areas, the unnatural 

accumulation of living and dead fuel can contribute to 

degraded plant communities and wildlife habitats. 

These fuel accumulations often change the fi re regime 

characteristics. Fuel accumulations have created the 

potential for uncharacteristically severe wildland fi res 

in many areas across the country. These catastrophic 

wildland fi res often pose risks to the safety of the public 

and fi refi ghters. In addition, wildland fi res threaten 

property and resource values such as wildlife habitat, 

grazing opportunities, timber, soils, water quality, and 

cultural resources.

Return of fi re is essential for healthy vegetation and 

wildlife habitat in grassland and wetland ecosystems. 

When integrated back into an ecosystem, fi re can help 

restore and maintain healthy systems. To facilitate fi re’s 

natural role in the environment, fi re must be integrated 

into land and resource management plans on a broad 

scale. 

Fire can do the following:

Q improve waterfowl habitat through reduction of 

plant density, removal of organic material, and 

maintenance of early successional vegetation

Q promote sediment removal in wetlands by wind 

scouring

Q sustain biological diversity

Q improve soil fertility

Q improve the quality and amount of livestock 

forage

Q reduce invasive plant communities including 

nonnative trees

Q reduce the susceptibility of plants (caused by 

moisture and nutrient stress) to insects and 

disease

Q improve water yield from off-site areas

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY 

AND GUIDANCE

In 2001, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture 

completed and approved an update of the 1995 Federal 

Fire Policy. The 2001 Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy directs federal agencies to achieve 

a balance between (1) fi re suppression to protect life, 

property, and resources and (2) fi re use to regulate 

fuels and maintain healthy ecosystems. In addition, it 

directs agencies to use the appropriate management 

response for all wildland fi res regardless of the ignition 

source. This policy provides eight guiding principles 

that are fundamental to the success of the fi re 

management program:

Q Firefi ghter and public safety is the fi rst priority 

in every fi re management activity.

Q The role of wildland fi res as an essential ecological 

process and natural change agent will be 

incorporated into the planning process.

Q Fire management plans (FMPs), programs, and 

activities support land and resource management 

plans and their implementation.

Q Sound risk management is a foundation for all 

fi re management activities.

Q Fire management programs and activities are 

economically viable, based on values to be 

protected, costs, and land and resource 

management objectives.
174 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Q FMPs and activities are based on the best 

available science.

Q FMPs and activities incorporate consideration 

of public health and environmental quality. 

Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and 

international coordination and cooperation are 

essential.

Q Standardization of policies and procedures among 

federal agencies is an ongoing objective.

Fire management considerations, guidance, and 

direction should be addressed in land use, resource 

management plans (such as a CCP). FMPs are stepdown processes from the land use plans and habitat 

plans, with more detail on fi re suppression, fi re use, 

and fi re management activities.

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

The Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District 

will protect life, property, and other resources from 

wildland fi re by safely suppressing all wildland fi res. 

Fire is an important management tool that can be used 

to accomplish habitat management objectives. If not 

used properly, fi re can also quickly damage or destroy 

natural resources, equipment, buildings, and property 

and hurt or kill those that work with it. Prescribed 

fi re and manual or mechanical fuels treatments will be 

used to reduce hazardous fuels and on district lands 

to reduce the intensity and severity of wildland fi res. 

Special attention will be given to wildland–urban 

interface areas, both on Service-owned and adjacent 

lands, to reduce the risk of wildland fi res to communities 

and improvements.

Prescribed fi re and manual or mechanical fuel 

treatments will be used in an ecosystem management 

context for habitat management and to protect federal 

and private property. Fuel reduction activities will be 

applied where needed, especially in areas with a higher 

proportion of residences that may be considered 

“wildland–urban interface” areas. The prescribed fi re 

program is outlined in the Rainwater Basin Fire 

Monitoring Plan.

All aspects of the fi re management program will be 

conducted in a manner consistent with applicable laws, 

policies, and regulations. The district will maintain an 

FMP and carry out the plan to accomplish resource 

management objectives. Prescribed fi re and fuel 

treatments will be applied in a scientifi c way under 

selected weather and environmental conditions to 

restore and maintain desired habitat conditions and 

control nonnative vegetation and the spread of woody 

vegetation. Up to approximately 6,500 acres of 

grasslands and wetlands will be treated annually to 

help accomplish habitat management objectives. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT GOAL

Use fi re as an ecosystem process within wetland and 

grassland habitats and reach the needed level of 

prescribed fi re management at the WPAs to control 

invasive plants, encourage desirable native plants, and 

maintain productive wetlands that can benefi t 

migratory birds.

Fire Management Objective A

Through the duration of this CCP, increase the use of 

prescribed fi re to 5,000–7,000 acres. Its use will shift 

from being a management tool to control woody 

and other undesirable invasive plants to being a 

management tool to maintain healthy grassland and 

wetland habitats. 

Fire Management Objective B

Through the duration of this CCP, increase the public’s 

awareness and support of fi re as a management tool.

Fire Management Objective C

Through the duration of this CCP, increase the number 

of fi re-qualifi ed partners and interagency prescribed 

burning. 

Fire Management Strategies

Q Use strategies and tactics that consider public 

and fi refi ghter safety as well as resource values 

at risk. 

Q Apply fi re at a rate and intensity that takes the 

district from a restoration need (every 1–3 years) 

to a historical level of fi re frequency (every 5–7 

years).

Q Apply fi re in a mosaic pattern that leaves portions 

of treated WPAs unburned.

Q Allow fi re to travel through select shelterbelts 

to reduce cool-season grasses and litter.

Q Work with district partners to provide 

demonstrations, written information, and other 

methods of communication to inform the public 

of the benefi ts of prescribed fi re.

Q Work with professional instructors and local 

colleges and universities to conduct classes in 

basic fi refi ghter training.

Q Work with the appropriate agencies to develop 

interagency agreements that will allow mutual 

assistance on prescribed burns. 

Q Develop detailed prescribed burn plans that 

describe the following:

— burn units and their predominant vegetation;

— the primary objectives for the units and specifi c 

objectives of the fi re

— acceptable range of results

— site preparation requirements

— weather requirements

— safety considerations and measures to protect 

sensitive features

— burn-day activities

— communications and coordination for burns

— ignition techniques
Appendix L — Fire Management Program 175

— smoke management procedure

— postburn monitoring

Methods (manual or mechanical means, timing, and 

monitoring) for wildland fi re suppression, wildland fi re 

use, and prescribed fi re can be found in a more detailed 

list in the district’s step-down FMP.

Fire Management Rationale

Fire frequency in south-central Nebraska has been 

estimated to have occurred once every 5–7 years. 

Madden et al. (1999) assessed the effects of fi re on 

grassland. They found that maximal grassland bird 

diversity is best attained by creating a mesic, mixedgrass prairie with areas of varying fi re return intervals. 

Grassland birds such as Baird’s sparrow, bobolink, 

grasshopper sparrow, and western meadowlark 

responded to burned areas. Other species such as 

common yellowthroat and clay-colored sparrow 

preferred prairie unburned for 8–10 years. The 

settlement of the Rainwater Basin has suppressed 

fi re across the landscape.

Current fi re at the WPAs is not frequent enough to 

control invading trees and shrubs. Past burns at the 

WPAs have shown that it takes three to four 

consecutive spring burns to remove woody plant 

invasion. This level of application is needed at 

approximately 20 WPAs, covering over 3,000 acres. 

One of the problems that keep the district from 

reaching a greater fi re frequency is the limited 

personnel available. A burn that is close to heavy fuel 

such as a shelterbelt requires a large fi re crew to 

conduct the burn. Removal of shelterbelts will not 

only benefi t grassland wildlife but will (1) eliminate 

the need to establish fi re lines, (2) reduce the needed 

size of a fi re crew, and (3) reduce hazardous fuels. 

Prescribed fi re temporarily reduces air quality by 

reducing visibility and releasing several components 

through combustion. The four major components are 

carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, and 

particulates. Varying amounts of particulate content 

are generated in different types of fuels, for example, 

wildlife habitat improvement burns versus fuel 

reduction burns. The district will meet the Clean Air 

Act emission standards by adhering to the 

requirements of the Nebraska State Implementation 

Plan during all prescribed fi re activities.

FIRE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION, 

CONTACTS, AND COOPERATION

Region 6 has established qualifi ed, technical oversight 

and support for fi re management using the “fi re 

management district” approach. Under this approach, 

an established modeling system (based on the fi re 

management workload of a group of refuges and 

possibly even that of interagency partners) has 

determined an appropriate fi re management staffi ng 

organization. The fi re management workload consists 

of (1) historical wildland-fi re suppression activities and 

(2) historical and planned fuels treatment workload. 

Depending on funds, fi re management staff and 

support equipment may be located at the district or at 

other units in the district and shared between all units. 

Wherever possible, fi re management activities will be 

conducted in a coordinated and collaborative manner 

with federal and nonfederal partners.

Appendix M

Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Private Lands Program:

Best Management Practices Eligibility Criteria and Cost Share

Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Private Lands Program 

Best Management Practices Eligibility Criteria and Cost Share

Compiled by the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture 

Private Lands Workgroup 

Approved by the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Management Board 

March 14, 2006 
178 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

2

The Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Private Lands Workgroup developed the following 

programs and criteria to assist in the delivery and evaluation of Joint Venture (JV) programs 

on private lands. The proposed programs and criteria were developed with the JV objectives 

in mind, and will help ensure consistent and effective wetland habitat benefits through JV 

offerings. The Private Lands Work Group also recognizes that many wetland projects will not 

fit all of the criteria for a certain program, and will evaluate those projects with unique 

situations and information on a case-by-case basis to determine the program eligibility, 

applicable practices, and landowner benefits. 

(1) Wetland Stewardship Program 

This program targets non-cropped wetland areas only and provides incentives to landowner’s that 

maintain and manage these habitats. 

Wetland Criteria: 

1) Wetland is functioning properly. No hydrologic restoration is needed. 

2) Vegetative community is mostly native species with less than 5% of the wetland dominated 

by invasives (e.g. trees, reed canary grass, noxious weeds). 

3) Wetland has not been cropped since 1985. 

4) Eligible wetland area will be determined by state and federal biologists using tools such as, 

but not limited to, historic photos, hydric soil maps, topography information, presence of 

hydric vegetation, etc. 

5) Areas determined to be cropland are not eligible for stewardship payment. 

Practices: 

9 Landowner will maintain wetland hydrology, no hydrologic alteration is allowed. 

9 Landowner will continue to manage and maintain the native plant community. 

9 Landowner will manage and control invasive species. 

Benefits: 

1) A $25/acre/year stewardship payment for the hydric footprint (wetland area) over the 10-year 

agreement period with a $500 minimum/year. 

2) Landowner continues to manage the land. 

3) Landowner controls hunting access. 

4) This program includes technical assistance from JV partners during the agreement period. 

5) No minimum wetland size. 

(2) Restoration and Management Program 

This is a 10-year program that focuses on restoring and managing quality wetland habitat. 

Wetland Criteria: 

1) Landowner must be willing to restore hydrology to the maximum extent feasible within the 

basin and the vegetative community on non-cropped areas via pit filling, ditch plugs, water 
Appendix M — Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Private Lands Program 179

3

control structures, fill or sediment removal, tree removal, installation of a variable flow tail 

water recovery system, etc. 

2) Landowner enters a 10-year agreement that allows the Joint Venture Partners to manage the 

wetland for the duration of the agreement. 

Practices: 

9 Landowner is given the first opportunity to perform actual management on the property. 

9 Reimbursement Rates: 

 Haying/Shredding: $10/acre 

 Grazing Incentives: $10/acre/year 

Grazing must be concentrated in the wetland with preferred grazing during the growing 

season. Grazing payments only made when JV asks cooperator to graze wetland with 

specific timing/rate/goals. 

 These grazing cost-share incentives may be possible: 

i. Fencing 

1. Standard electric 

2. High tensile electric 

3. Permanent barbed wire 

ii. Water source for cattle 

iii. Mineral blocks/tubs 

 Prescribed Fire: $15/acre or donation to local fire department. 

 Disking: $15/acre/pass with minimum of 2 passes using a standard farm disk. 

 Heavy Disking: $35/acre/pass with a minimum of 2 passes using a >30” heavy 

construction disk. 

 Chemical Applications: Negotiated based on chemical cost. Labor and equipment 

rates determined by NRCS docket. 

9 Landowner has the right to defer management actions to a private contractor. The JV will help 

facilitate hiring the contractor to accomplish the objectives. 

Benefits: 

1) Landowner receives a “land use payment” for wetland restoration and vegetation 

management according to the following table: 

Current Fm, Sc, Sd Ma, M, Buffer Landuse Fo 

Cropped $60/A $50/A $50/A $60/A 

Non-cropped $50/A $50/A $50/A $50/A 

Payment is in exchange for the right of JV partners to restore the wetland and direct 

management on the project area for the 10-year agreement period. Land use payments are 

made annually and are not contingent on the amount of management during that year. They 

are contingent on the landowner’s willingness to participate. Wetland area may be over 25 

acres in size; however land use payment will be capped at $1,250/year (based on available 

funding). Management cost share will be available for the entire wetland area. 
180 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

4

2) Landowner is allowed to continue farming if the area has previously been cropped. 

Exception: grasslands, pasture, or native prairie may not be brought into production. 

3) Landowner may perform management on the project area without requesting permission 

from the JV. Grazing wetlands is encouraged as a way to supplement farm income. 

4) Landowner controls hunting access. Access payments may be available from other partners. 

5) Includes technical assistance from JV partners during the agreement period. 

6) Center pivots are permitted as long as wheel crossing(s) do not interfere with wetland 

hydrology. 

(3) Hydrology Restoration Program (HRP-Pilot)

The purpose of this program is to restore wetland hydrology to the fullest extent possible targeting 

temporary and seasonal wetlands. To participate, the landowner would agree to restore wetland 

hydrology and sign a 10-year agreement in exchange for an annual land use payment. Due to 

funding limitations, two focus areas have been identified for this pilot program. Maps of the focus 

areas have been made available to staff working directly with private landowners in these areas. 

Wetland Criteria: 

1) Only high priority wetlands (as determined by the RWB-JV Wetland Prioritization Model) 

are eligible. If all landowners owning the highest priority wetlands (red) are enrolled and 

funding still remains, landowners owning wetlands in the second highest priority level 

(salmon) will be contacted. 

2) During the pilot period, basins that are 20 acres or smaller will be targeted. 

3) Wetlands with severely altered hydrology (e.g. drains, pits) will be targeted first. These 

wetlands should have either no, or a low functionality. 

4) Hydrology within the basin must be restored. 

Practices: 

9 JV partners will provide economic and technical assistance necessary to restore the wetland. 

Benefits: 

1) Annual payments begin once restoration is complete. Payment rates follow the HRP table 

below. 

2) JV partners provide restoration cost share. 

3) No use restrictions for the project area. 

4) Landowner controls hunting access. 

 HRP-Pilot Payment Rates 

Current Land Use Fm, Fo Sc, Sd Ma, M, Buffer 

Irrigated cropped $128/A $96/A $64/A $128/A

Dryland cropped $60/A $50/A $50/A $60/A 

Pasture managed $15/A $15/A $15/A $15/A 
Appendix M — Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Private Lands Program 181

5

(4) Seasonal Habitat Improvement Program (SHIP) 

This program targets cropped wetland and allows the landowner to maintain cropping during the 

growing season. SHIP takes advantage of an opportunity to provide wetland habitat during times 

that the producer is not growing a crop. Ponding water on hydric soils during the winter months has 

little effect on the crop production of these sites. On hydric soils most crop loss occurs during May 

through July primarily due to saturation after rainfall events even if wetland drainage has occurred. 

This program provides a financial incentive to landowners who provide at least the opportunity to 

pond water on cropped areas during the off season. 

Wetland Criteria: 

1) Wetland or area to be flooded must be drained, but be capable of holding water utilizing a 

control structure. 

2) On cropland, the landowner must allow natural runoff to pond in the area immediately 

following harvest. Water on the cropped area may be released after March 31 of each year. 

On pastureland, the landowner must allow natural runoff to pond on the area beginning 

November 1. Water may then be released after April 30 of each year. Instances where a 

SHIP occurs on both cropland and pasture, the water control structure can be adjusted on 

March 31 so that water is not held on the cropland acres. 

3) The landowner understands that during the duration of this 10-year agreement, there is an 

inherent risk associated with late rains after March 31 that may prevent him from planting 

during some years. 

Practices: 

9 Water control structure installation and associated dirt work. 

9 Cropland areas should have boards placed in control structure after harvest and remain in place 

at least until March 31. 

9 Pastureland should have boards placed in control structure on November 1 and remain in place 

at least until April 30. 

Benefits: 

1) The landowner, in consultation with the JV Partners, will determine an acceptable pool 

elevation based on a topographic survey. 

2) Annual payment of $50/acre/year for cropland area determined by landowner. This 

establishes an agreed upon pool elevation. Annual payment of $25/acre/year for grassland 

and pastureland. 

3) Includes technical assistance and restoration cost share provided by JV partners during the 

agreement period. 

4) Center pivots are permitted. 

5) Landowner controls hunting access. 

(5) CRP 23A Incentive Bonus Program - Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program

 
182 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

6

This is a one-time signing bonus to promote enrollment and full restoration of wetlands under CP23A. This program differs from the Hydrology Restoration Program in that landowners loose the 

right to crop the property for the duration of the CREP agreement. 

Wetland Criteria: 

1) Must sign up for CRP 23A (CREP would be included). 

2) Cropland areas are eligible for incentive if the hydrology is restored (full hydrology 

restoration on applicant’s property). 

3) No prioritization needed in order to get as many wetlands restored as possible utilizing 

USDA funding. 

4) Bonus payment paid on March 31 following completion of restoration. 

5) Existing wetlands in the RWB that are currently in CRP are eligible for a bonus payment if 

the wetland hydrology is restored. Payment is based on # years remaining/# years in contract 

x $500/acre (e.g. 8 yrs remain on a 10 yr contract = 0.8 x $500 = $400/acre). 

Practices: 

9 JV partners, in conjunction with the USDA, will provide economic and technical assistance 

necessary to restore the wetland. 

9 Eligible practices can be found in the CRP contract. 

Benefits: 

1) One-time payment of up to $500/acre. All acres enrolled in the CRP CP23a contract are 

eligible for the payment. This includes uplands and wetlands. Bonus payment will not be 

made until restoration is complete. The bonus payment will be made on March 31 following 

restoration. 

2) Cost share is available to assist with restoration costs not payable by the USDA. 

3) Pivot can cross the CRP unless otherwise indicated by the USDA. 

4) Landowner controls hunting access. 

(6) Short Term Vegetation Management Program 

This program differs from the Restoration Management Program in that it does not require wetland 

restoration. The Short Term Vegetation Management Program does not provide an annual land use 

payment, or any type of land access fee. The length of the agreement is negotiable. 

Wetland Criteria: 

1) Trees, cattail, reed canary grass, or river bulrush must be a component of the plant 

community. 

2) Landowner allows access to the property for management treatment. 

3) Landowner signs a negotiated-length agreement that allows the Joint Venture Partners access 

for treatment. 

4) Financial assistance is limited to reimbursement for treatments only (no incentive payments). 

5) Grazing must be concentrated in the wetland with preferred grazing during the growing 

season. 

Practices: 
Appendix M — Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Private Lands Program 183

7

9 Landowner agrees to allow any or all of the following: disking, chemical application, 

haying/shredding, prescribed burning, grazing, silt removal, pit filling, and tree removal 

activities. 

Reimbursement Rates: 

 Haying/Shredding: $10/acre 

 Intensive Wetland Grazing: $10/acre/year 

 Prescribed Burning: $15/acre 

 Disking: $15/acre/pass with minimum of 2 passes using a standard farm disk. 

 Heavy Disking: $35/acre/pass with a minimum of 2 passes using >30” heavy 

construction disk. 

 Chemical Applications: Negotiated based on specific chemical cost; labor and 

equipment rates determined by NRCS docket. 

Benefits: 

1) Will add functional value to the wetland. 

2) Additional grazing incentives may be possible such as fencing, installation of a water source, 

or purchase of mineral block(s).

(7) General Joint Venture Cost Share Activities

The Joint Venture partners accept certain practices on their own, or in combination with the 

programs outlined above. Cost share is available for these activities if they provide benefits to 

wildlife habitat with emphasis on migratory birds, or improve watershed hydrology with direct 

benefits to a protected wetland. A 10-year agreement is required for cost share assistance. 

Wetland Improvements

1) Sediment Control Structures 

2) Fencing to encourage long term grazing in wetlands 

3) Grazing (includes deferments) 

4) Variable Flow Tail Water Recovery System 

5) Close and Remove Roads 

6) Vegetation Management 

7) Junk Pile Removal 

8) Water Development (wells, pivots, pipe, livestock) 

9) Re-size/add/replace culverts 

10) Water Control Structures 

11) Wetland Creation 

12) Wetland Seeding 

13) Earthwork 

9 Pit fills 

9 Drain fills 

9 Silt/sediment removal 

9 Filling road/drainage ditches 

9 Power line burial 

9 Pipeline burial 

9 Dikes/berms 
184 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

8

9 Tile drain removal 

Watershed Improvements

1) Pit fills 

2) Resize/add/replace culverts 

3) Buffers 

4) Grassland Restoration 

5) Sediment Control Structures 

6) Variable Flow Tail Water Recovery System 

7) Removing Flow Restrictions 

8) Terrace Removal 

9) Close and Remove Roads 

10) Tile Drain Removal 

(8) Easements

An easement program remains under development until enough properties are secured that an actual 

program can be evaluated and implemented. JV easements will be prioritized for functioning 

wetlands without hydrologic modification that are not eligible for NRCS’s Wetland Reserve 

Program. The goal of easement offerings, as with all other JV programs, is to meet wetland 

protection needs that cannot be met through existing programs. At this time we will follow this 

format: 

A. Hydrologic Restoration/Protection

Provide for on-site restoration of the wetland hydrology, prevent future hydrologic alterations 

and non-agricultural land use, and place no restrictions on agricultural land use. 

B. Pasture/Protection Easement

Provide for on-site restoration of the wetland hydrology, prevent development of any kind, 

prevent excavation or filling which impacts hydrology, limits land use to pasture, but does 

not dictate management. 

C. Protection/Restoration/Management

Provide for on-site restoration of the wetland hydrology, prevent any hydrologic alterations 

and non-agricultural land use, and place restrictions on land use and activities for the purpose 

of assuring maximum wetland habitat values. 

The value of the easement will be determined through an appraisal of the value of those rights to be 

purchased. The minimum length of the easement terms will be 25 years and will be agreed to by the 

landowner and the entity holding the easement. The USFWS has expressed an interest in holding 

perpetual restoration easements (example A above). The easement must not restrict the landowner’s 

agricultural rights to the land. In other words, if he is cropping it now he may still try to crop it once 

the wetland is restored. These easements would have to be perpetual in length. 
Appendix N

Wetland Management District

Ditch and Tile Maintenance Policy

This policy applies to existing constructed ditches or 

tiles that come onto waterfowl production areas (WPAs) 

where no reservation of a drainage easement exists in 

the WPA title or deed. If there is a drainage 

reservation in the deed, the Service will follow the 

terms of that reservation.

Q No new wetland or upland drainage facility will 

be allowed within a WPA.

Q Existing drainage cannot be improved beyond 

the original construction.

— Tile may not be replaced with a larger tile.

— Ditches may not be cleaned out beyond their 

original depth, width, or length.

— Ditches may not be replaced with tile lines 

except where the tile is installed at the same 

or higher elevation than the original ditch 

bottom or in other rare exceptions to solve 

severe erosion.

Q All materials cleaned out of a ditch will be 

removed from the WPA.

Q All construction sites at WPAs will be seeded 

down to a grass mix specifi ed by the Service.

Q Cleanout activities will not be allowed during the 

waterfowl-breeding season (April 1–August 1).

Q If silt deposition is a concern, the Service will 

request that a grassed waterway or silt basin be

installed upstream of Service property to help 

reduce future siltation.

Q Cleanout of natural (never ditched) drainage ways 

will not be allowed.

Q Ditch and tile maintenance work at WPAs will 

only be done after the wetland district manager 

has approved the project and issued a special use 

permit. (Note: Compatibility determinations are 

not necessary since the Service does not control 

maintenance of the system; the Service only 

controls the timing and scope of maintenance.)

Q Landowners may still be subject to the 

Swampbuster Provisions and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers’ rules on maintenance and 

abandonment of ditches.

Q Mowing or spraying of approved herbicide in a 

ditch after August 1 may be permitted in lieu of 

excavation.

Q If the ditch has not been cleaned or a tile has not 

functioned for more than 25 years, or the 

watershed above the ditch has been substantially 

altered since the Service bought the property 

(signifi cant increase in fl ows or degradation of 

water quality), a formal right-of-way request 

maybe required as determined by the wetland 

district manager.

Appendix 0

RONS and SAMMS Projects

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS)

Project First-year Need Recurring Base Personnel 

Number Project Description ($1000s) Need ($1000s) (FTEs)

97005 Control exotic species invasion. 132 30 0

Improve water management on new waterfowl 97007 341 30 0 production areas.

00001 Establish water rights on refuge lands. 109 5 0

Livestock confi nements and intensive 00004 162 10 0 agriculture’s effect on water quality.

97012 Increase public use of refuge lands. 140 75 1

Private lands coordinator for Nebraska 00008 169 104 1 Sandhills.

99002 Archaeological review of refuge lands. 70 0 0

99005 Livestock fencing. 78 23 0

97002 Wetland restoration on refuge lands. 158 66 1

97010 Endangered species restoration. 140 75 1

99001 Law enforcement and property protection. 140 75 1

Interpretive and recreational access to public 99004 99 10 0 lands.

Snow goose impact on migratory bird 00003 258 10 0 populations within Rainwater Basin (NE).

97001 Habitat and population surveys. 70.5 38 0.5

97009 Wetland restoration on private lands. 161.5 90 1

00006 Expand prescribed fi re program. 140 75 1

Water delivery to create wetland habitat in 06006 380 0 0 CO, NE, ND, MT, and KS.
188 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Service Asset Maintenance Management system (SAMMS)

 Project Cost 

Number Project Description ($1000s)

Deferred Maintenance

00105716 Repair worn pump engine and gear head at Smith unit, Harvard WPA. 32

02120249 Replace water-pumping station at Clark WPA. 51

02120162 Replace boundary fences at Clay County WPAs. 42

00105719 Replace worn pump engine and gear head on well at Hultine WPA. 30

02120273 Replace water-pumping station at Spring WPA, south. 51

02120166 Replace fences at six WPAs in Fillmore County. 28

02120254 Repair water-pumping station at Cottonwood WPA. 37

02120271 Replace water-pumping station at Heron WPA. 51

02120169 Replace fences at three WPAs in Phelps County. 73

00105713 Replace worn pump engine and gear head on well at Prairie Dog WPA. 35

00105710 Replace worn pump engine and gear head on well at Massie WPA. 28

00105714 Repair worn pump engine and gear head on east well at McMurtrey WPA. 32

02120170 Replace fences at three WPAs in Franklin County. 57

02120199 Replace water-pumping station at Mallard Haven WPA. 26

00105715 Repair worn pump engine and gear head on well at Harvard WPA, north. 30

00105717 Replace worn pump engine and gear head on Knudson well at Harvard WPA. 38

02120201 Repair worn pump and engine on south well at Krause WPA. 29

02120200 Repair worn-out pump and engine on north pumping station at Krause WPA. 26

02120198 Replace worn water-pumping station at Hanson WPA. 47

02120257 Replace water-pumping station at Johnson WPA, east. 39

00105712 Replace worn pump engine and gear head on well at Eckhardt WPA. 30

00105718 Replace worn pump engine and gear head on well at Mallard Haven WPA. 17

00105711 Replace worn pump engine and gear head on north well at Youngson WPA. 22

02120206 Replace water-pumping station at Lindau WPA. 49

98105704 Repair rutted gravel road. 43

02120195 Repair water-pumping station at north well at Hultine WPA. 33

02120158 Repair earthen dike at Springer WPA. 37

98109671 Repair dike. 278

Heavy Equipment

91105702 Replace worn front-end loader. 200

04133918 Replace Bobcat skid steer loader. 40

99105705 Replace worn 1981 dump truck. 51

01116415 Replace 1990 well maintenance truck. 51

01116225 Replace 1967 bulldozer. 195

01116255 Replace Clark 4x4 hinged tractor-dozer. 275
Appendix 0 — RONS and SAMMS Projects 189

Service Asset Maintenance Management system (SAMMS)

Project Cost 

Number Project Description ($1000s)

99105707 Replace worn equipment truck. 110

04133810 Replace 1966 Cuece 1/2 Kaiser jeep. 50

01116249 Replace WABCO earthmoving scraper. 264

01116227 Replace 1996 Caterpillar bulldozer. 195

01116250 Replace Westinghouse model earthmoving scraper. 264

01116411 Replace worn John Deere tractor. 90

05139000 Replace 2003 Freightliner semi-truck. 200

05139017 Replace 1979 fl atbed dump truck. 60

Small Equipment

01116271 Replace 1992 Dodge pickup. 30

01116409 Replace 1993 Chevrolet Blazer. 30

01116407 Replace worn Jeep. 31

01116273 Replace 1994 Ford 1/2-ton pickup. 29

01116219 Replace worn heavy-duty disc used for invasive plant control. 19

04133805 Replace 2001 F-150 Ford pickup. 31

04133817 Replace 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 1/2-ton pickup. 31

04133809 Replace 2001 F-450 Ford fi re truck. 40

04133820 Replace 2002 F-250 Ford pickup. 37

04133811 Replace 2002 Chevrolet Suburban. 37

04133829 Replace 2002 F-450 Ford fl atbed truck. 37

04133816 Replace 2002 Chevrolet Impala automobile. 22

04133830 Replace 2002 F-250 Ford pickup. 31

04133831 Replace 2004 F-350 Ford pickup. 37

99105693 Replace worn 12-foot farm disc. 22

99105696 Replace worn 4x4 ATV. 14

98105703 Replace worn backhoe utility tractor. 38

01116212 Replace 1991 Panther 16-foot airboat. 24

01116216 Replace crane on well repair truck. 14

01116241 Replace 16-inch Crisafulli pump. 15

01116244 Replace mobile 12-inch gator pump. 15

01116254 Replace John Deere tractor, model 6400. 58

01116256 Replace lowboy trailer. 18

01116259 Replace airboat trailer. 9

01116260 Replace airboat trailer. 8

01116262 Replace worn dump trailer. 31

01116266 Replace 1998 Ford 1-ton pickup. 31
190 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Service Asset Maintenance Management system (SAMMS)

Project Cost 

Number Project Description ($1000s)

01116267 Replace 1999 Ford 1-ton fi re engine. 37

01116406 Replace 1995 Ford pickup. 31

01116410 Replace 1998 Dodge 4x4 pickup. 31

01116412 Replace 2001 Dodge 4x4 pickup. 37

01116413 Replace 2000 Ford crew cab truck. 37

01116414 Replace John Deere tractor, model 5310. 42

04133800 Replace 1997 sport utility vehicle. 30

05138982 Replace 2001 Ford 4x4 fi re truck. 36

05138987 Replace 2001 Ford 4x4 2-ton truck. 40

05138989 Replace John Deere tractor, model 5410. 65

05138990 Replace Hyster forklift, model H60XL. 60

05138991 Replace incinerator. 25

05138995 Replace American Eagle forklift, model AE8122.00. 100

05138997 Replace 2002 Chevrolet 2-ton truck. 40

05138999 Replace Caterpillar road grader. 220

05139001 Replace semi-truck trailer, lowboy model. 45

05139004 Replace 2003 mule ATV. 8

05139005 Replace 2004 Ford crew cab truck. 40

05139007 Replace 2004 Ford super crew 4x4 truck. 45

05139010 Replace 2005 Ford Hybrid Escape automobile. 30

05139012 Replace 2005 Ford cab/chassis. 28

05139014 Replace 2005 Ford super cab 4x4 truck. 35

05139016 Replace 1979 fl atbed dump truck. 50

05139018 Replace 1998 Chevrolet 3/4-ton truck. 35

Roads and Parking Lots (TEA 21)

03126571 PE/CN* (parking lots 9001–3, 9009–16, 9033, 9121–23, 9071–74). 306

03126572 PE/CN (parking lots 9054–61, 9120, 9077–82, 9084–90). 380

03126573 PE/CN (parking lots 9062–69, 9091–9102, 9116–19). 470

03126574 PE/CN (route 100, 0.3 mile; parking lots 9004–08, 9017–32, 9034–42, 9044–53). 595

Small Construction

01116196 Replace aged storage shed damaged by storm. 90

04133864 Replace fence at Peterson WPA. 41

02120274 Replace water-pumping station at Rauscher WPA. 51

Large Construction

00109809 Construct new offi ce building [p/d/cc]. 2400

* PE/CN = preliminary engineering and construction.
Bibliography

[AOU] American Ornithological Union. 2004. American 

Ornithological Union’s Check-list of North 

American Birds. 7th ed. [Place of publication 

unknown]. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Anderson, J.T.; Smith, L.M. 1998. Protein and energy 

production in playas: implications for migratory 

bird management. Wetlands 18:437–46.

———. 1999. Carrying capacity and diel use of managed

playa wetlands by nonbreeding waterbirds. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 27:281–91.

Anderson, J.T.; Smith, L.M. 2000. Invertebrate response

to moist-soil management of playa wetlands. 

Ecological Applications 10(2):550–8.

Ankney, C.D.; Afton, A.D. 1988. Bioenergetics of 

breeding northern shovelers: diet, nutrient reserves,

clutch size, and incubation. Condor 90:459–72.

Ankney, C.D.; Alisauskas, R.T. 1991. Nutrient-reserve

dynamics and diet of breeding female gadwalls. 

Condor 93:799–810.

Ankney, C.D.; MacInnes, C.C. 1978. Nutrient reserves 

and reproductive performance of female lesser snow 

geese. Auk 95:459–71. 

Austin, J.E.; Richert, A.L. 2001. A comprehensive 

review of observational and site evaluation data of 

migrant whooping cranes in the United States, 

1943–99. U.S. Geological Survey Report. Jamestown,

ND: U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. 156 p.

Bakker, K.K. 2000. Avian occurrence in woodlands and 

grasslands on public areas throughout eastern 

South Dakota [PhD dissertation]. Brookings, SD: 

South Dakota State University. [Number of pages 

unknown].

———. 2003. The effect of woody vegetation on 

grassland nesting birds: an annotated bibliography. 

In: The Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy

of Sciences; [Place and date of conference unknown]. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher name 

unknown]. 82:119–41.

Baldassarre, G.A.; Bolen, E.G. 2006. Waterfowl ecology 

and management. 2nd ed. [City of publication 

unknown], FL: Krieger Publishing Company. 567 p.

Baldassarre, G.A.; Whyte, R.J.; Quinlan, E.E. [et al.] 

1983. Dynamics and quality of waste corn available

to postbreeding waterfowl in Texas. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 11:25–31.

Ballard, B.M.; Thompson, J.E.; Petrie, M.J. [et al.] 2004.

Diet and nutrition of northern pintails wintering 

along the southern coast of Texas. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 68(2):371–82.

Baxter, W.L.; Wolfe, C.W. 1973. Life history and 

ecology of the ring-necked pheasant in Nebraska. 

Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 

58 p. 

BBC Research & Consulting. 2006. Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District socioeconomic impact 

analysis: preliminary report. Unpublished report on 

fi le at Rainwater Basin Wetland Management 

District, NE. 9 p.

Benning, D.S. 1987. Coordinated mid-continent whitefronted goose survey. Washington DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annual report. 7 p.

Bergan, J.F.; Smith, L.M. 1993. Survival rates of 

female mallards wintering in the Playa Lakes 

Region. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:570–7.

Bishop, A.A. 2005. Rainwater Basin Joint Venture 

waterfowl habitat use model (Rainwater Basin 

Joint Venture GIS layer). Unpublished report on 

fi le at Rainwater Basin Wetland Management 

District, Grand Island, NE. 27 p.

Bishop, A.A.; Reker, R. 2006. Landcover within the 

RWB: a GIS layer created with 2004 data. 

Unpublished reports on fi le at Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District, Grand Island, NE.

Bowyer, M.W.; Stafford, J.D.; Yetter, A.P. [et al.] 2005. 

Moist-soil plant seed production for waterfowl at 

Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois. The 

American Midland Naturalist: 154(2):331–41.

Brennan, E.K. 2006. Local and landscape level variables 

infl uencing migratory bird abundance, diversity, 

behavior, and community structure in Rainwater 

Basin wetlands [PhD dissertation]. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Texas Technological 

University. 180 p.

Brown, S.; Hickey, C.; Harrington, B.; editors. 2000. 

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Manomet, MA: Manomet Center for Conservation 

Sciences. 60 p.

Burger, L.D.; Burger, L.W., Jr.; Faaborg, J. 1994. Effects 

of prairie fragmentation predation on artifi cial nests. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 58(2):249–54.

Butcher, Greg. [Date unknown]. Central mixed-grass 

prairie executive summary. Partners in Flight. 

<http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/pl_34sum.htm> 

[Date of access unknown].

Checkett, J.M.; Drobney, R.D.; Petrie, M.J. [et al.] 2002. 

True metabolizable energy of moist soil seeds. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(4):1113–19.
192 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Clark, R.J. 1975. A fi eld study of the short-eared owl, 

Asio fl ammeus (Pontoppidan), in North America. 

Wildlife Monographs 47:1–67.

Clayton, K.M.; Schmutz, J.K. 1999. Is the decline of 

burrowing owls Speotyto cunicularia in prairie 

Canada linked to changes in Great Plains 

ecosystems? Bird Conservation International 

9:163–85.

Connelly, J.W.; Gratson, M.W.; Reese, K.P. 1998. 

Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus). 

In: Poole, A.; Gill, F.; editors. The Birds of North 

America, No. 354 [doi:10.2173/bna.354]. Philadelphia: 

The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington DC: 

The American Ornithologists’ Union. [Pages 

unknown].

Cox, R.R., Jr. 1998. Spring-staging ecology of greater 

white-fronted geese, lesser snow geese, and 

northern pintails in the central Platte River valley 

and Rainwater Basin of Nebraska. Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center preliminary progress 

report. [Unpublished report]. 4 p.

———. 1999. Spring-staging ecology of waterfowl in 

Nebraska—then versus now. Waterfowl 2000 

12(2):18. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.

gov/resource/birds/ssecol/index.htm> (Version 

02DEC99) [Date of access unknown].

Cox, R.R., Jr.; Davis, B.E. 2002. Habitat use, 

movements, and survival of female northern pintails 

during spring migration in Nebraska and subsequent 

potential breeding-site selection in the Prairie 

Pothole Region [progress report]. Bismarck, ND: 

U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center. 150 p.

Cox, R.R., Jr.; Samuel, M.D.; Church, K.E. 1999. Body 

condition of adult lesser snow geese killed by avian 

cholera [progress report]. 20 p.

Dai, X.; Boutton, T.W.; Hailemichael, M. [et al.] 2006. 

Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in response to fi re 

in a temperate mixed-grass savanna. Journal of 

Environmental Quality 35:1620–8.

Davis, S.K. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland 

passerines: Effects of patch size, patch shape, and 

vegetation structure on bird abundance and 

occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. The Auk 

121(4):1130–45.

DeJong, J.R. 2001. Landscape fragmentation and 

grassland patch size effects on non-game grassland 

birds in xeric mixed-grass prairies of western South 

Dakota. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State 

University. [Pages unknown].

Delnicki, D.; Reinecke, K.J. 1986. Mid-winter food use 

and body weights of mallards and wood ducks in 

Mississippi. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:43–51.

Dewey S.L. 1986. Effects of the herbicide atrazine on 

aquatic insect community structure and emergence. 

Ecology 67:148–62.

Dodson, S.I.; Merritt, C.M.; Shannahan, J.P. [et al.] 

1999. Low exposure concentrations of atrazine 

increase male production in Daphnia pulicaria. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(7):

1568–73.

Drahota, J. 2000. Results of ground survey 2000 

[unpublished report]. On fi le at Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District. 7 p.

———. 2006. A case for managing Rainwater Basin 

wetlands [unpublished report]. On fi le at Rainwater 

Basin Wetland Management District. 11 p.

Drahota, J.; Bishop, A.; Walters, R. 2004. Rainwater 

Basin wetland complex south-central Nebraska 

2003–2004 vegetation mapping and monitoring 

project [unpublished report]. On fi le at Rainwater 

Basin Wetland Management District, Kearney, NE. 

53 p.

Dubovsky, J.A.; Kaminski, R.M. 1994. Potential 

reproductive consequences of winter-diet restriction 

in mallards. Journal of Wildlife Management 58(4):

780–6.

Duebbert, H.F.; Lokemoen, J.T. 1977. Upland nesting 

of American bitterns, marsh hawks, and short-eared 

owls. The Prairie Naturalist 9(3–4):33–40.

Dugger, B.D.; Dugger, K.M. 2002. Long-billed curlew 

(Numenius americanus). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F.; 

editors. The Birds of North America, No. 628 

[doi:10.2173/bna.628]. Philadelphia, PA: The 

Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington DC: 

The American Ornithologists’ Union. [Pages 

unknown].

Ekstein, J.D.; Hygnstrom, S.E. 1996. Fate of wetlands 

associated with the Central Nebraska Irrigation 

Canal System. Great Plains Research 6:41–60.

Ermacoff, N. 1968. Marsh and habitat management 

practices at the Mendota Wildlife Area. [Place of 

publication unknown]: California Department of 

Fish and Game. Game Management Leafl et No. 12. 

10 p.

Evans, R.D.; Wolfe, C.W., Jr. 1967. Waterfowl production 

in the Rainwater Basin area of Nebraska. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 33(4):788–94.

Farmer, A.H.; Parent, F. 1997. Effects of landscape on 

shorebird movements at spring migration stopovers. 

Condor 99: 698–707.

Farmer, A.H.; Wiens, J. 1999. Models and reality: timeenergy trade-offs in pectoral sandpiper migration. 

Ecology 80:2566–80.

Farrar, J. 1982. The Rainwater Basin, Nebraska’s 

vanishing wetlands. NEBRASKAland. March 

[updated and reprinted 1988 February]. Nebraska 

Game and Parks Commission. 15 p.

———. 1996a. Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin. 

NEBRASKAland. March. Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission. 18–35.

———. 1996b. The Troester tunnel: notes from the 

fi eld. NEBRASKAland. May. Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission. 6–7.
Bibliography 193

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1997. FGDC 

vegetation classifi cation and information standards.

Reston, VA: [Publisher name unknown]. [Pages 

unknown].

Fleskes, J.P.; Jarvis, R.L.; Gilmer, D.S. 2002. 

September–March survival of female northern 

pintails radiotagged in San Joaquin Valley, California.

Journal of Wildlife Management 31:212–9.

Frankforter, J.D. 1996. Nebraska wetland resources. 

In: Fretwell, J.D.; Williams, J.S.; Redman, P.J.; 

editors. National water summary of wetland 

resources. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 

U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2425. 

261–6.

Fredrickson, L.H.; Reid, F.A. 1988. Waterfowl use of 

wetland complexes. [Place of publication unknown]: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Leafl et 13.2.1.

[Pages unknown].

Fredrickson, L.H.; Taylor, T.S. 1982. Management of 

seasonally fl ooded impoundments for wildlife. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Resource Publication 148. 29 p.

Fritcher, S.C.; Rumble, M.A.; Flake, L.D. 2004. 

Grassland bird densities in several stages of mixedgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management 

57:351–7.

Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Engle, D.M. 2001. Restoring 

heterogeneity on rangelands: ecosystem management

based on evolutionary grazing patterns. Bioscience

51: 625–32.

———. 2004. Application of the fi re-grazing interaction 

to restore a shifting mosaic on tallgrass prairie. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 41:604–14.

Gabbert, A.E.; Leif, A.P.; Purvis, J.R. [et al.] 1999. 

Survival and habitat use by ring-necked pheasants

during two disparate winters in South Dakota. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 63:711–22.

Gaiser, E.E.; Lang, K.L. 1998. Distribution of 

cladoceran zooplankton among prairie pothole 

wetlands in northwest Iowa. Lake and Reservoir 

Management 14(1):37–51.

Gersib, R.A. 1991. Nebraska wetlands priority plan. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Nebraska Game 

and Parks Commission. [Pages unknown].

Gersib, R.A.; Cornely, J.; Trout, A. [et al.] 1990. Concept

plan for waterfowl habitat protection, Rainwater 

Basin area of Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska 

Game and Parks Commission. 71 p.

Gersib, R.A.; Dinan, K.F.; Kauffeld, J.D. [et al.] 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. [et al.] 1989a. 

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; Grand Island, NE: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 105 p.

Gersib, R.A.; Raines, R.R.; Rosier, W.S. [et al.] 1989b. 

A functional assessment of selected wetlands within 

the Rainwater Basin area of Nebraska. Lincoln, 

NE: Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 41 p.

Gilbert, M.C. 1989. Ordination and mapping of wetland 

communities in Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin region. 

CEMRO Environmental Report 89-1. Omaha, NE: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District. 

105 p.

Gleason, H.R.; Euliss, N.H., Jr.; Hubbard, D.E. [et al.] 

2003. Effects of sediment load on emergence of 

aquatic invertebrates and plants from wetland soil 

egg and seed banks. Wetlands 23:26–34.

Go, V.; Garey, J.; Wolff, M.S. [et al.] 1999. Estrogenic 

potential of certain pyrethroid compounds in the 

MCF-7 human breast carcinoma cell line. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 107(3):173–7.

Gordon, C.C. 1989. The relationship of wetland 

characteristics to avian cholera (Pasteurella 

multocida) outbreaks in the Rainwater Basin area 

of Nebraska [master’s thesis]. Brookings, SD: South 

Dakota State University. 126 p.

Gordon C.C.; Flake, L.D.; Higgins, K.F. 1997. Trace 

metals in water and sediments of wetlands in the 

Rainwater Basin area of Nebraska. In: The 

Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of 

Sciences; [Place and date of conference unknown]. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher name 

unknown]. 76:253–61.

Grant, R.A. 1965. The burrowing owl in Minnesota. 

The Loon (3):2–17.

Grossman, D.H.; Faber-Langendoen, D.; Weakley, A.W. 

[et al.] 1998. International classifi cation of ecological 

communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United 

States. Vol. 1 of The National Vegetation 

Classifi cation Standard. Arlington, VA: The Nature 

Conservancy. [Pages unknown].

Haug, E.A.; Millsap, B.A.; Martell, M.S. 1993. 

Burrowing owl (Speotyto cuniculari) In: Poole, A.; 

Gill, F.; editors. The Birds of North America, No. 61 

[doi:10.2173/bna.61]. Philadelphia: The Academy of 

Natural Sciences; Washington DC: The American 

Ornithologists’ Union. [Pages unknown].

Haukos, D.A.; Smith, L.M. 1993. Moist-soil management 

of playa lakes for migrating and wintering ducks. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:288–98.

Hayes T.B.; Haston, K.; Tsui, M. [et al.] 2002. Atrazine 

induced hermaphroditism at 0.1 ppb in American 

leopard frogs (Rana pipiens): laboratory and fi eld 

evidence. Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 

568–75.

Heitmeyer, M.E. 1988. Body composition of female 

mallards in winter in relation to annual cycle events. 

Condor 90:669–80.
194 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Heitmeyer, M.E.; Fredrickson, L.H. 1981. Do wetland 

conditions in the Mississippi delta hardwoods 

infl uence mallard recruitment? In: Transactions, 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference; [Date and location of conference 

unknown]. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher name unknown]. 46:44–57.

Helzer, C.J. 1996. The effects of wet meadow 

fragmentation on grassland birds [master’s thesis]. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska–Lincoln. 

[Pages unknown].

Helzer C.J.; Jelinski, D.E. 1999. The relative importance 

of patch area and perimeter-area ratio to grassland 

breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9(4):1448–58.

Herkert, J.R.; Reinking, D.L.; Wiedenfeld, D.A. [et al.] 

2003. Effects of prairie fragmentation on the nest 

success of breeding birds in the mid-continental 

United States. Conservation Biology 17(2):587–94.

Herkert, J.R.; Szafoni, R.E.; Kleen, V.M. [et al.] 1993. 

Habitat establishment, enhancement and 

management for forest and grassland birds in 

Illinois. Springfi eld, IL: Illinois Department of 

Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage. Natural 

Heritage Technical Publication 1. [Pages unknown]. 

Higgins, K.F. 1984. Lightning fi res in grasslands in 

North Dakota and in pine savanna lands in nearby 

South Dakota and Montana. Journal of Range 

Management 37:100–3.

———. 1986. Interpretation and compendium of historic 

fi re accounts in the northern Great Plains. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Resource Publication 161. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Hughes, J.P. 1996. The effect of vegetative structure 

and landscape composition on avian abundance and 

reproductive success in CRP fi elds in northeastern 

Kansas [master’s thesis]. Manhattan, KS: Kansas 

State University. [Pages unknown]. 

Jessen, R.L. 1970. Mallard population trends and 

hunting losses in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34:93–105.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1983. The grouse of the world [PhD 

dissertation]. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska–

Lincoln. [Pages unknown].

———. 1997. The birds of Nebraska and adjacent plains 

states. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission. Nebraska Ornithologist’s Union 

Occasional Papers, No. 6. [Pages unknown].

Johnson, R.G.; Temple, S.A. 1990. Nest predation and 

brood parasitism of tallgrass prairie birds. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 54:106–11.

Jorde, D.G. 1981. Winter and spring staging ecology 

of mallards in south central Nebraska [master’s 

thesis]. [City of publication unknown], ND: 

University of North Dakota. 116 p.

Jorde, D.G.; Krapu, G.L.; Crawford, R.D. 1983. Feeding 

ecology of mallards wintering in Nebraska. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 47:1044–53.

Jorde, D.G.; Krapu, G.L.; Crawford, D.C. [et al.] 1984. 

Effects of weather on habitat selection and behavior 

of mallards wintering in Nebraska. The Condor 

86:258–65.

Jorgensen, J.G. 2004. An overview of shorebird 

migration in the eastern Rainwater Basin, Nebraska. 

Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 

Nebraska Ornithologist’s Union Occasional Papers, 

No. 8. [Pages unknown].

Kaminski, R.M.; Gluesing, E.A. 1987. Density and 

habitat-related recruitment in mallards. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 51:141–8.

Kantrud, H.A. 2006. Cattail management symposium—

history of cattails on the prairies: wildlife impacts. 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/cattail

/kantrud.htm> [Access date unknown].

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.

Kendeigh, S.C.; Dol’nik, V.R.; Gavrilov, V.M. 1977. 

Avian energetics. In: Pinowski, J.; Kendeigh, S.C.; 

editors. Granivorous birds in ecosystems. New York: 

Cambridge University Press. 127–204.

Kennedy, T.A.; Naeem, S.; Howe, K.M. [et al.] 2002. 

Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. 

Nature 417:636–8.

Kim, I.Y.; Shin, J.H.; Kim, H.S. [et al.] 2004. Assessing 

estrogenic activity of pyrethroid insecticides using 

in vitro combination assays. The Journal of 

Reproduction and Development 50(2):245–55.

Koerner, J.W.; Bookout, T.A.; Denarik, K.E. 1974. 

Movements of Canada geese color-marked near 

southwestern Lake Erie. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 38:275–89.

Krapu, G.L. 1981. The role of nutrient reserves in 

mallard reproduction. Auk 98:29–38.

Krapu, G.L.; Brandt, D.A.; Cox, R.R., Jr. 2004. Less 

waste corn, more land in soybeans, and the switch 

to genetically modifi ed crops: trends with important 

implications for wildlife management. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 32:127–36.

Krapu, G.L.; Reinecke, K.J.; Jorde, D.G. [et al.] 1995. 

Spring staging ecology of midcontinent greater 

white-fronted geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 

59:736–46.

Kuzila, M.S. 1984. Genesis and morphology of soils in 

and around large depressions in Clay County, 

Nebraska [PhD dissertation]. Lincoln, NE: 

University of Nebraska–Lincoln. [Pages unknown]. 

———. 1994. Inherited morphologies of two large basins 

in Clay County, Nebraska. Great Plains Research 

4:51–63.

Kuzila, M.S.; Lewis, D.T. 1993. Soils in rain basins of 

south central Nebraska—properties, genesis and 

classifi cation. Soil Science American Journal 

37:155–61.
Bibliography 195

LaGrange, T.G. 1985. Habitat use and nutrient reserves 

dynamics of spring migratory mallards in central 

Iowa [master’s thesis]. [City of publication unknown], 

IA: Iowa State University. 81 p. 

———. 2005. A guide to Nebraska’s wetlands and their 

conservation needs. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Game 

and Parks Commission. 59 p. 

LaGrange, T.G.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1988. Nutrient reserve 

dynamics of female mallards during spring migration 

through central Iowa. In: Waterfowl in Winter. 

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 287–97.

Larson, D.L.; McDonald, S.; Fivizzani, A.J. [et al.] 1998. 

Effects of the herbicide atrazine on Ambystoma 

tigrinum metamorphosis: duration, larval growth, 

and hormonal response. Physiological Zoology 71(6):

671–9.

Laubhan, M.L.; Fredrickson, L.H. 1992. Estimating 

seed production of common plants in seasonally 

fl ooded wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 

56(2):329–37.

Laubhan, M.L.; Gleason, R.A.; Knutsen, G.A. [et al.] 

2006. A preliminary biological assessment of Long 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, North 

Dakota. Washington DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological 

Technical Publication, BTP R6006-2006. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Laubhan, Murray K.; Koerner, T.M.; Sprenger, M.D. 

[et al.] 2005. A preliminary biological assessment of 

Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge, Martin, South 

Dakota, USA. Jamestown, ND: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. [Pages 

unknown].

Lavergne, S.; Molofsky, J. 2004. Reed canarygrass 

(Phalaris arundinacea L.) as a biological model in 

the study of plant invasions. Critical Reviews in 

Plant Sciences 23:415–29.

Loesch, C.R.; Kaminski, R.M. 1989. Winter body-weight 

patterns of female mallards fed agricultural seeds. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53:1081–7.

Madden, E.M. 1996. Passerine communities and birdhabitat relationships on prescribe-burned, mixedgrass prairie in North Dakota [master’s thesis]. 

Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. [Pages 

unknown]. 

Madden, E.M.; Hansen, A.J.; Murphy, R.K. 1999. 

Infl uence of prescribed fi re history on habitat and 

abundance of passerine birds in northern mixedgrass prairie. Canadian Field-Naturalist 113(4):

627–40.

McCarthy, C.; Pella, T.; Link, G. [et al.] 1997. Greater 

prairie chicken nesting habitat, Sheyenne National 

Grassland, North Dakota. [Place of publication 

unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. General Technical Report RM-GTR-298. 

[Pages unknown].

McKee, G.M.; Ryan, R.; Mechlin, L.M. 1998. Predicting 

greater prairie-chicken nest success from vegetation 

and landscape characteristics. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 62:314–21.

McMurtrey, M.D.; Craig, R.; Schildman, G. 1972. 

Nebraska wetland survey. [City of publication 

unknown], NE: Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission. Habitat Work Plan K-71. 78 p. 

Messmer, T.A. 1990. Infl uence of grazing treatments 

on non-game birds and vegetation structure in 

south central North Dakota [PhD dissertation]. 

Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. [Pages 

unknown].

Merrill, M.D.; Chapman, K.A.; Poiani, K.A. [et al.] 1999. 

Land-use patterns surrounding greater prairiechicken leks in northwestern Minnesota. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 63:189–98.

Miller, M.R.; Reinecke, K.J. 1984. Proper expression 

of metabolizable energy in avian energetics. Condor 

86(4):396–400.

Mollhoff, W.J. 2001. The Nebraska breeding bird atlas, 

1984–89. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission. Nebraska Ornithologist’s Union 

Occasional Papers, No. 7. 233 p.

Moon, J.A.; Haukos, D.A. 2006. Survival of female 

northern pintails wintering in the Playa Lakes 

region of northwestern Texas. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 70:777–83.

Moravec, J. 1993. Syntaxonomic and nomenclatural 

treatment of Scandinavian-type associations and 

sociations. Journal of Vegetation Science 4:833–8.

[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. 

Agricultural chemical usage 2003 fi eld crops 

summary. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_

by_Subject/Environmental/index.asp> [Access 

date unknown].

[NDEQ] Nebraska Department of Environmental 

Quality. 2006. Title 117, Nebraska surface water 

quality standards. In: Water quality standard for 

wetlands. [Place of publication unknown]. [Pages 

unknown]. Chapter 4. 

[NGPC] Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 

1977–99 unpublished reports. Lincoln, NE. [Pages 

unknown].

———. 1997–99 unpublished reports. Lincoln, NE. 

[Pages unknown].

———. 2000–03 unpublished reports. Lincoln, NE. 

[Pages unknown].

Nelson K.J.; Esmoil, B.J. 1999. Background 

contaminants evaluation of Fort Niobrara and 

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge. Grand Island, 

NE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contaminant Report. [Pages unknown]. 

Olson, R.A.; Flake, L.D. 1975. Nesting of ring-necked 

pheasants in eastern South Dakota. In: The 

Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of 

Science; [Place and date of conference unknown]. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher name 

unknown]. 54:126–36.
196 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

Pampush, G.J.; Anthony, R.G. 1993. Nest success, 

habitat utilization and nest-site selection of longbilled 

curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor 

95:957–67.

Pederson, R.L.; Jorde, D.G.; Simpson, S.G. 1989. 

Northern Great Plains. In: Smith, L.M.; Pederson, 

R.L.; Kaminski, R.M.; editors. Habitat management 

for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North 

America. Lubbock, TX: Texas Technological 

University Press. 281–310.

Petrie, S.A.; Rogers, K.H. 2004. Nutrient-reserve 

dynamics of white-faced whistling-ducks breeding 

in a semiarid South Africa. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 82:1082–90.

Price, J.I.; Brand, C.J. 1984. Persistence of Pasteurella 

multocida in Nebraska wetlands under epizootic 

conditions. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 20(2):90–4.

Prince, H.H. 1979. Bioenergetics of postbreeding 

dabbling ducks. In: Bookhout, T.A.; editor. Waterfowl 

and wetlands—an integrated review. Proceedings 

of a symposium of the North Central Section of The 

Wildlife Society; [Date and location of symposium 

unknown]. La Crosse, WI: La Crosse Printing. 

103–17.

Prose, B.L. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: 

plains sharp-tailed grouse. Washington DC: Natural 

Ecology Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Report 82. [Pages unknown]. 

Rabbe, M.; Drahota, J.; Bishop, A. 2004. Estimating 

duck use-days in the Rainwater Basin wetlands—a 

baseline model for management implications 

[unpublished report]. On fi le at Rainwater Basin 

Wetland Management District, Kearney, NE. [Pages 

unknown].

Raines, R.R.; Gilbert, M.C.; Gersib, R.A. [et al.] 1990. 

Regulatory planning for Nebraska’s Rainwater 

Basin wetlands (advanced identifi cation of disposal 

areas). Prepared for the Rainwater Basin advanced 

identifi cation study. Kansas City, KS: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, region 7; 

Omaha, NE: U.S. Army Engineer District. 46 p.

[RWBJV] Rainwater Basin Joint Venture. 1993. Water 

management options for wetland development in the 

Rainwater Basin. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher name unknown]. 16 p.

———. 1994. Best management practices for Rainwater 

Basin wetlands. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Publisher name unknown]. Public Lands Work 

Group. 41 p.

Raveling, D.G. 1978. Dynamics of distribution of 

Canada geese in winter. In: Transactions, North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference; [Date and place of conference unknown]. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher name 

unknown]. 42:206–25. 

Raveling, D.G.; Crews, W.E.; Klimstra, W.D. 1972. 

Activity patterns of Canada geese during winter. 

Wilson Bulletin 84:278–95.

Raveling, D.G.; Heitmeyer, M.E. 1989. Relationships 

of population size and recruitment of pintails to 

habitat conditions and harvest. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 53:1088–103.

Redmond, R.L.; Bicak, T.K.; Jenni, D.A. 1981. An 

evaluation of breeding season census techniques 

for long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus). 

Studies in Avian Biology 6:197–201.

Reid, F.R.; Kelley, J.R., Jr.; Taylor, T.S. [et al.] 1989. 

Upper Mississippi Valley wetlands: refuges and 

moist-soil impoundments. In: Smith, L.M.; Pederson, 

R.L.; Kaminski, R.M.; editors. Habitat management 

for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North 

America. Lubbock, TX: Texas Technological 

University Press. 181–202.

Reinecke, K.J.; Kaminski, R.M.; Moorehead, D.J. [et al.] 

1989. Mississippi alluvial valley. In: Smith, L.M.; 

Pederson, R.L.; Kaminski, R.M.; editors. Habitat 

management for migrating and wintering waterfowl 

in North America. Lubbock, TX: Texas Technological 

University Press. 203–47.

Renken, R.B.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1987. Nongame bird 

communities on managed grasslands in North 

Dakota. Canadian Field-Naturalist 101(4):551–57.

Richert, A. 1999. Multiple scale analyses of whooping 

crane habitat in Nebraska [master’s thesis]. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska–Lincoln. 

[Pages unknown]. 

Rohwer, F.C. 1984. Patterns of egg laying in prairie 

ducks. Auk 101:603–5.

Samuel, M.D. 1995. Physical and biological factors 

associated with avian cholera in wetland ecosystems 

[program report]. Madison, WI: National Wildlife 

Health Center. [Pages unknown].

Samuel, M.D.; Shadduck, D.J.; Goldberg, D.R. [et al.] 

2005. Avian cholera in waterfowl: the role of lesser 

snow and Ross’s geese as disease carriers in the 

Playa Lakes region. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 

41(1):48–57.

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. [et al.] 2005. 

The Nebraska Natural Legacy Project: A 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. 

Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 

245 p.

Schwarz, M.S.; Echols, K.R.; Wolcott, M.J. [et al.] 2004. 

Environmental contaminants associated with swine 

concentrated animal feeding operation and 

implications for McMurtrey National Wildlife Refuge. 

Grand Island, NE: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Contaminant Report. [Pages unknown]. 

Sharpe, R.S.; Silcock, W.R.; Jorgensen, J.G. 2001. 

Birds of Nebraska: their distribution and temporal 

occurrence. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska 

Press. 520 p.
Bibliography 197

Sharpley, A.N.; Daniel, T.; Sims, T. [et al.] 1999. 

Agricultural phosphorus and eutrophication. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service. ARS-149. [Pages 

unknown].

Sherfy, M.H.; Kirkpatrick, R.L. 1998. Nutritional value

and management of waterfowl and shorebird foods 

in Atlantic coastal moist-soil impoundments [master’s 

thesis]. <http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/

etd-033199-130907/unrestricted/chapter1.pdf> 

[Access date unknown]. [Pages unknown].

Singleton, J.R. 1951. Production and utilization of 

waterfowl food plants on the east Texas Gulf Coast. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 15(1):46–56.

Smith, B.J.; Higgins, K.F. 1990. Avian cholera and 

temporal changes in wetland numbers and densities 

in Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin area. Wetlands 10:1–5.

Smith, B.J.; Higgins, K.F.; Gritzner, C.F. 1989. Land 

use relationships to avian cholera outbreaks in the 

Nebraska Rainwater Basin area. Prairie Naturalist 

21(3):125–36.

Smith, B.J.; Higgins, K.F.; Tucker, W.L. 1990. 

Precipitation, waterfowl densities and mycotoxins: 

their potential effect on avian cholera epizootics in 

the Nebraska Rainwater Basin area. In: Transactions

of North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference; [Date and place of conference unknown]. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher name 

unknown]. 55:269–82.

Smith, L.M. 1989. Effects of grazing and burning on 

nutritive quality of cattail in playas. Journal of 

Aquatic Plant Management 27:51–3.

———. 1990. Waterfowl habitat management and 

research in North America. In: Transactions of the 

19th International Union of Game Biologist Congress;

[Date of congress unknown]; Trondheim, Norway. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher name 

unknown]. 2:468–76.

———. 1998. Research needs for the Rainwater Basin

of Nebraska: a hierarchical approach. Lincoln, NE: 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 22 p.

Snyder, W.D. 1984. Ring-necked pheasant nesting 

ecology and wheat farming on the high plains. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48:878–88.

Solberg, J.W. 1992. Coordinated mid-continent whitefronted goose survey. [Place of publication unknown]:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annual 

report. 6 p.

Sporrong, J.M. 2001. Response of nongame birds and 

terrestrial invertebrates to restoration of upland 

grasslands in the Rainwater Basin region, Nebraska 

[master’s thesis]. Eau Claire, WI: University of 

Wisconsin–Eau Claire. 108 p.

Starks, P.J. 1984. Analysis of rainbasin depressions of 

Clay County, Nebraska [master’s thesis]. Omaha, 

NE: University of Nebraska. 90 p.

Steinauer, G.; Rolfsmeier, S. 2003. Terrestrial natural 

communities of Nebraska. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 

143 p.

Stutheit, R.G.; Gilbert, M.C.; Whited, P.M. [et al.]; 

editors. 2004. A regional guidebook for applying 

the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland 

functions of Rainwater Basin depressional wetlands 

in Nebraska. ERDC/EL TR-04-4. Vicksburg, MS: 

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development 

Center. 118 p.

Taylor, J.P.; Smith, L.M. 2005. Migratory bird use of 

belowground foods in moist-soil managed wetlands 

in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(2):574–82.

Taylor, M.W.; Wolfe, C.W.; Baxter, W.L. 1978. Land 

use change and ring-necked pheasants in Nebraska. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 6:226–30.

Trautman, C.G.; Dahlgren, R.B.; Seubert, J.L. 1959. 

Pheasant nesting. South Dakota Conservation 

Digest 26:18–21.

Traylor, Susan S. 2000. Waterfowl migration in south 

central Nebraska, February–March 2000 

[unpublished report]. Lincoln, NE: University of 

Nebraska; Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 

[Pages unknown].

[UNL] University of Nebraska–Lincoln. 2004. Biology 

and treatment recommendations for fi eld crop pests. 

Lincoln, NE: Department of Entomology. <http://

entomology.unl.edu/fl dcrops/pestipm.htm#Item2> 

[Access date unknown].

———. 2006a. Groundwater map—drought 2000–2006.

Lincoln, NE: Institute of Agriculture and Natural 

Resources, School of Natural Resources, 

Conservation and Survey Division. <http://csd.unl.

edu/csd-esic/GWMapArchives/2006GWMaps/drought

2000to2006-300dpi.tif> accessed 25 June 2007.

———. 2006b. Groundwater map—predevelopment to 

spring 2006. Lincoln, NE: Institute of Agriculture and 

Natural Resources, School of Natural Resources, 

Conservation and Survey Division. <http://csd.unl

.edu/csd-esic/GWMapArchives/2006GWMaps/

predev06-300dpi.tif> accessed 25 June 2007. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000–2007. State and county 

quickfacts: Nebraska. <http://quickfacts.census.gov

/qfd/states/31000.html> [Access date unknown].

(USDOE) U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon 

sequestration research and development. Report 

No. DOE/SC/FE-1. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Offi ce of Science, Offi ce of Fossil Energy. <www.

osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/810722-9s7bTP/native

/810722.pdf>. 289 p.

[USFWS] U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service. 1954. Wetlands inventory of 

Nebraska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Billings, 

MT. 31 p.

———. 1977–99 unpublished reports. Grand Island, 

NE. [Pages unknown].
198 CCP, Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, NE

———. 1981. The Platte River ecology study special 

research report. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Online. <http://www.

npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/plriveco/index.htm> 

(Version16JUL97) [Access date unknown].

———. 1983–93. Unpublished annual reports. 

Rainwater Basin Wetland Management District, 

Kearney, NE. [Pages unknown].

———. 1995. updated 2005. Migratory nongame birds 

of management concern in the United States: the 

1995 list. Washington DC: Offi ce of Migratory Bird 

Management. 22 p.

———. 2000. [No title]. <http://mountain-prairie.fws

.gov/reference/briefi ng_book_nd_ 2000.pdf> [Access 

date unknown].

———. 2001. The biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health policy. <http://policy.fws.gov/

library01fr3809.pdf> [Access date unknown].

———. 2006. Livestock confi nement [Rainwater Basin 

GIS layer]. Data on fi le at Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District.

[USFWS et al.] U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service; Canadian Wildlife Service; 

Mexican Ministry of Environment, Natural 

Resources, and Fisheries. 1998. North American 

waterfowl management plan, 1998 update—

expanding the vision. Washington DC: [Publisher 

name unknown]. 32 p. 

[USFWS and NGPC] U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service; Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission. 1986. Rainwater Basin of Nebraska 

migratory bird habitat acquisition plan [unpublished 

plan]. On fi le at Rainwater Basin Wetland 

Management District. 30 p. 

[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. 

National pollutant discharge elimination system 

permit regulation and effl uent limitation guidelines 

and standards for concentrated animal feeding 

operations (CAFOs). Federal Register 68(29):7177–

269. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofi nalrule.

cfm> [Access date unknown].

van der Burg, Max Post. 2005. Factors affecting 

songbird nest survival and brood parasitism in the 

Rainwater Basin region of Nebraska [master’s 

thesis]. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska–

Lincoln. 71 p. 

Volkert, W.K. 1992. Response of grassland birds to a 

large-scale prairie planting project. The Passenger 

Pigeon 54(3):191–6.

Warner, K.D.; Nieman, D.J. 1999. [Unpublished 

preliminary report]. Saskatoon, SK: Canadian 

Wildlife Service. 4 p.

White, D.H.; James, D. 1978. Differential use of fresh 

water environments by wintering waterfowl of 

coastal Texas. Wilson Bulletin 90:99–111. 

Wiens, J.A. 1973. Pattern and process in grassland bird 

communities. Ecological Monographs 43:236–70.

Windingstad, R.M.; Hurt, J.J.; Trout, A.K. [et al.] 1984. 

Avian cholera in Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin. In: 

Transactions of North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference; [Date and location 

of conference unknown]. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher name unknown]. 49:577–83.

Wood, W.W. 2000. Ground-water recharge in the 

southern high plains of Texas and New Mexico. 

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher name 

unknown]. U.S. Geological Survey Publication FS127-99. 4 p.

Zinkl, J.G.; Dey, N.; Hyland, J.M. [et al.] 1997. An 

epornitic of avian cholera in waterfowl and common 

crows in Phelps County, Nebraska, in the spring, 

1975. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 13:194–8.