DeSoto and

Boyer Chute

National Wildlife Refuges

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 3 (Midwest Region)

Division of Conservation Planning; Bloomington, MN 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Cover Photograph: White-faced Ibis; Sharon Bailey

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to 

conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people.

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 fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions; set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to 

accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's best 

estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are 

sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are 

primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. 

The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational 

and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

(This page intentionally left blank)
DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

DeSoto and Boyer Chute

National Wildlife Refuges

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 1

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

Background............................................................................................................................................. 1

Planning Process.................................................................................................................................... 2

Refuge Goals.......................................................................................................................................... 3

Goal 1: Habitat ................................................................................................................................. 3

Goal 2: Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 3

Goal 3: People ................................................................................................................................. 3

Planning Issues ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Overview of Future Management ........................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

The Process and the Plan................................................................................................................ 1

The Refuges..................................................................................................................................... 1

Document Chapters ......................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context...................................................................................... 2

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Refuge System Planning Guidance........................................................................................................ 2

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................................................. 2

FWS Mission.............................................................................................................................. 2

The National Wildlife Refuge System .............................................................................................. 3

NWRS Mission........................................................................................................................... 3

NWRS Goals ............................................................................................................................. 3

NWRS Guiding Principles.......................................................................................................... 4

Legal and Policy Compliance........................................................................................................... 5

Wilderness Review .................................................................................................................... 5

Refuge Management Guidance.............................................................................................................. 6

Brief History of Refuge Establishment and Land Acquisition...........................................................6

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................................... 6

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................... 7

Refuge Purposes ...........................................................................................................................12

Refuge Vision Statement ...............................................................................................................13

Relationship to Other Conservation Initiatives .....................................................................................13

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ..........................................................................................14

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (1986).............................................................14

North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Partners in Flight 2004) ..................................17

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (2001)...............................................................................19

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (2002).............................................................20

Strategic Habitat Conservation ......................................................................................................20

Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers Landscape Conservation Cooperative..........................22

Climate Change Planning ..............................................................................................................23

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................................................23

Iowa .........................................................................................................................................24
DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Nebraska .................................................................................................................................25

State Wildlife Action Plans .............................................................................................................25

Iowa .........................................................................................................................................25

Nebraska .................................................................................................................................26

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities........................................................................27

Conservation Lands in the Vicinity of the Refuges ........................................................................28

The Refuge Planning Process..............................................................................................................31

Purpose of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan..........................................................................31

The 2001 DeSoto CCP ..................................................................................................................31

Overview of the Planning Process .................................................................................................32

Preplanning..............................................................................................................................33

Scoping of Planning Issues .....................................................................................................33

Alternatives Development........................................................................................................34

Preparation and Review of Environmental Assessment and Draft Plan .................................34

Preparation and Review of the Final Plan ...............................................................................35

Implementation ........................................................................................................................35

Step-Down Management Plans .....................................................................................................35

Plan Review, Amendment, and Revision.......................................................................................35

Planning Issues..............................................................................................................................36

Habitat Management ...............................................................................................................36

DeSoto Lake............................................................................................................................37

Land Conservation ..................................................................................................................39

Wildlife .....................................................................................................................................40

Refuge Administration .............................................................................................................41

Visitor Services and Public Use...............................................................................................42

Infrastructure............................................................................................................................43

Outreach, Support, and Partnerships......................................................................................44

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management.................................................45

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................45

Geographic Setting...............................................................................................................................45

Refuge Sketch and Local Context .................................................................................................45

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................................45

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge .....................................................................................49

Other Units Administered: Conservation Easements..............................................................49

Ecosystem Setting .........................................................................................................................51

Ecoregional Context (Omernik/EPA).......................................................................................51

Missouri River Basin................................................................................................................53

Land Cover: Past and Present.......................................................................................................58

Physical Environment ...........................................................................................................................66

Topography and Geology ..............................................................................................................66

Climate ...........................................................................................................................................68

Predicted Climate Change.......................................................................................................71

Soils................................................................................................................................................74

Water Resources ...........................................................................................................................78

Refuge Hydrology....................................................................................................................78

Water Rights ............................................................................................................................81

Water Contamination...............................................................................................................82

Missouri River System.............................................................................................................82

Current Management...............................................................................................................84

Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................84

Criteria Air Pollutants...............................................................................................................85

Hazardous Air Pollutants .........................................................................................................85

Current Management...............................................................................................................85

Habitat ..................................................................................................................................................86

Missouri River Channel..................................................................................................................90

Current Management...............................................................................................................91
DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

Wetlands and Open Water.............................................................................................................91

The National Wetlands Inventory ............................................................................................92

Current Management...............................................................................................................96

DeSoto Lake ..................................................................................................................................99

Current Management.............................................................................................................101

Grasslands ...................................................................................................................................101

Current Management.............................................................................................................102

Forests .........................................................................................................................................103

Current Management.............................................................................................................104

Sandbar Habitat ...........................................................................................................................105

Current Management.............................................................................................................105

Agriculture and Cooperative Farming ..........................................................................................105

Current Management.............................................................................................................106

Special Management Areas.........................................................................................................106

Invasive Plant Species .................................................................................................................107

Current Management.............................................................................................................108

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................108

Birds .............................................................................................................................................110

Current Management.............................................................................................................111

Mammals......................................................................................................................................113

Current Management.............................................................................................................113

Fish and Other Aquatic Species ..................................................................................................113

Current Management.............................................................................................................114

Reptiles and Amphibians .............................................................................................................115

Current Management.............................................................................................................115

Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................116

Current Management.............................................................................................................117

Invasive Animal Species ..............................................................................................................119

Current Management.............................................................................................................119

People.................................................................................................................................................119

Socioeconomic Setting.................................................................................................................119

Demographics and Housing ..................................................................................................120

Employment and Income.......................................................................................................121

Education...............................................................................................................................121

Economic Value of the Refuge to the Local and Regional Economy....................................121

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................123

Public Access and Facilities ..................................................................................................124

Public Use..............................................................................................................................129

Refuge Administration..................................................................................................................135

Law Enforcement...................................................................................................................136

Refuge Support ............................................................................................................................137

Friends Group........................................................................................................................137

Volunteer Program ................................................................................................................137

Partnerships...........................................................................................................................138

Private Lands Program (Partners for Fish and Wildlife)........................................................139

Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................139

Native American History and Early Settlement .....................................................................139

Steamboat Bertrand History ..................................................................................................141

Cultural Resource Management............................................................................................142

Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation.....................................................143

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................143

Habitat (1)...........................................................................................................................................143

Habitat Goal .................................................................................................................................143

Objective 1.1: DeSoto Lake...................................................................................................143

Objective 1.2: Seasonal Wetlands ........................................................................................147

Objective 1.3: Grasslands .....................................................................................................149
DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

Objective 1.4: Wooded Habitats (Bottomland Forest, Cottonwood Parkland, and Shrub/Scrub)

...............................................................................................................................................150

Objective 1.5: Agriculture ......................................................................................................150

Objective 1.6: Land Acquisition .............................................................................................151

Objective 1.7: Invasive Plant Species ...................................................................................152

Wildlife (2)...........................................................................................................................................152

Wildlife Goal .................................................................................................................................152

Objective 2.1: Waterfowl........................................................................................................153

Objective 2.2: Shorebirds ......................................................................................................153

Objective 2.3: Secretive Marshbirds......................................................................................154

Objective 2.4: Grassland Birds..............................................................................................155

Objective 2.5: Fish and Aquatic Species...............................................................................156

Objective 2.6: Game Species ................................................................................................157

Objective 2.7: Federally Threatened and Endangered Species............................................157

People (3) ...........................................................................................................................................158

People Goal .................................................................................................................................158

Objective 3.1: Hunting ...........................................................................................................161

Objective 3.2: Fishing ............................................................................................................161

Objective 3.3: Wildlife Observation and Photography...........................................................162

Objective 3.4: Environmental Education ...............................................................................163

Objective 3.5: Interpretation ..................................................................................................164

Objective 3.6: Welcoming and Orientation ............................................................................165

Objective 3.7: Outreach.........................................................................................................166

Objective 3.8: Gathering........................................................................................................168

Objective 3.9: Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection and Discovery Site ........................168

Objective 3.10: Refuge Support ............................................................................................169

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)......................................................171

Appendix B: Species Lists ...................................................................................................172

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................172

Species Lists Legend .........................................................................................................................173

Birds....................................................................................................................................................174

Mammals ............................................................................................................................................180

Reptiles and Amphibians....................................................................................................................182

Fishes .................................................................................................................................................184

Butterflies............................................................................................................................................187

Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary...........................................................................189

Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................189

Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance.............................................................................201

Appendix E: Literature Cited................................................................................................214

Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations........................................................................224

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................224

Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations.........................................................................230

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................230

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................232

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................255

Appendix H: List of Preparers and Contributors ................................................................280

Preparers ............................................................................................................................................280

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges Staff ...........................................................280

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Regional Office, Division of Conservation Planning ....280

Contributors ........................................................................................................................................280

Appendix I: Communications List .......................................................................................282

Appendix J: Research Conducted on the Refuges.............................................................288

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................288

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................290

Appendix K: Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP.......................................292
DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

v

Biological Management................................................................................................................292

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................................296

Planning Process .........................................................................................................................299

Planning Document Structure and Content .................................................................................300

List of Figures

Figure ES-1: Location of DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges........................................................................ 1

Figure 2-1: The Refuges and Adjacent Conservation Lands........................................................................ 9

Figure 2-2: 1997 Land Acquisition Priorities, Boyer Chute NWR ...............................................................10

Figure 2-3: Bird Conservation Regions (1) .................................................................................................16

Figure 2-4: Bird Conservation Regions (2) .................................................................................................18

Figure 2-5: The Strategic Habitat Conservation Framework ......................................................................21

Figure 2-6: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ...................................................................................23

Figure 2-7: Conservation Lands in the Area of the Refuges.......................................................................30

Figure 3-1: Regional Location of the Refuges ............................................................................................46

Figure 3-2: Refuge Management Units.......................................................................................................47

Figure 3-3: Farm Service Agency Easements Administered by DeSoto NWR ..........................................50

Figure 3-4: Ecological Context, EPA Levels I, II, and III .............................................................................52

Figure 3-5: Ecological Context, EPA Level IV.............................................................................................53

Figure 3-6: Lower Missouri River Floodplain ..............................................................................................55

Figure 3-7: The Missouri River Basin..........................................................................................................56

Figure 3-8: Historic Land Cover (1894).......................................................................................................61

Figure 3-9: Potential Vegetation Based on Soils ........................................................................................63

Figure 3-10: National Land Cover Data in the Area of the Refuges ...........................................................65

Figure 3-11: Extrapolated Flood Frequencies*...........................................................................................67

Figure 3-12: Annual Precipitation in the Area of the Refuges (1925-2009)................................................69

Figure 3-13: Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) for the Refuges.........................................................70

Figure 3-14: Soil Types, DeSoto NWR .......................................................................................................75

Figure 3-15: Soil Types, Boyer Chute NWR ...............................................................................................76

Figure 3-16: Soil Survey Drainage Classes ................................................................................................77

Figure 3-17: Watershed and Hydrology of the Refuges .............................................................................79

Figure 3-18: Groundwater Trends in the Area of the Refuges....................................................................81

Figure 3-19: Missouri River Mean Daily Streamflow at Omaha, Nebraska (1928-2012)*..........................83

Figure 3-20: Current Land Cover Quantities on DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges..................................86

Figure 3-21: Current Land Cover, DeSoto NWR ........................................................................................88

Figure 3-22: Current Land Cover, Boyer Chute NWR ................................................................................89

Figure 3-23: Water Resources, DeSoto NWR ............................................................................................93

Figure 3-24: Water Resources, Boyer Chute NWR ....................................................................................94

Figure 3-25: National Wetland Inventory ....................................................................................................95

Figure 3-26: DeSoto Lake Bathymetry (2006) ..........................................................................................100

Figure 3-27: Migratory Goose and Duck Trends at DeSoto NWR, 1967-2013 ........................................112

Figure 3-28: Current Visitor Services, DeSoto NWR ................................................................................126

Figure 3-29: Current Visitor Services, Boyer Chute NWR ........................................................................128

Figure 3-30: Hunting Program, DeSoto NWR...........................................................................................130

Figure 3-31: Hunting Program, Boyer Chute NWR...................................................................................131

Figure 4-1: Projected Future Land Cover Quantities ................................................................................144

Figure 4-2: Future Land Cover, DeSoto NWR..........................................................................................145

Figure 4-3: Future Land Cover (Assuming Full Acquisition), Boyer Chute NWR .....................................146

Figure 4-4: Future Visitor Services, DeSoto NWR....................................................................................159

Figure 4-5: Future Visitor Services, Boyer Chute NWR............................................................................160
DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vi

List of Tables

Table ES-1: Land Cover Change on the Refuges ........................................................................................ 4

Table 2-1: Land Acquisition Summary by Fiscal Year, DeSoto NWR ..........................................................7

Table 2-2: Land Acquisition Summary by Fiscal Year, Boyer Chute NWR ................................................11

Table 2-3: Iowa’s Species of Greatest Conservation Concern (Zohrer 2006)............................................26

Table 2-4: Future Land Cover Projected by the DeSoto 2001 CCP...........................................................32

Table 3-1: Refuge Contributions to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation ........................................73

Table 3-2: Refuge Hydrologic Unit Codes ..................................................................................................78

Table 3-3: Aquatic Habitat at Boyer Chute NWR........................................................................................96

Table 3-4: Habitat Condition-based Fire Management Guidelines...........................................................103

Table 3-5: Potential Focal Species for Refuge Management ...................................................................109

Table 3-6: Refuges’ Potential Species of Concern, including Conservation Status .................................116

Table 3-7: Population Change over Time in the Cities and Towns near the Refuges..............................120

Table 3-8: Visitation at DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges.......................................................................124

Table 3-9: Staffing on the Refuges ...........................................................................................................136

Table 3-10: Refuge Operations and Maintenance Budgets......................................................................136

Table 3-11: Volunteerism at the Refuges .................................................................................................137
Executive Summary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ES-1

Executive Summary

Introduction

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this comprehensive conservation 

plan (CCP) to guide the long-term management of DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife 

Refuges (NWRs, refuges) located on the border of Nebraska and Iowa 15 miles north of the 

Omaha–Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area. For Boyer Chute NWR, this is the first 

comprehensive planning effort undertaken to guide future management. For DeSoto NWR, this 

effort revises the CCP finalized in January of 2001—allowing management to consider changing 

public values, incorporate new scientific information, and reevaluate the management direction. 

For both refuges this planning process serves to redirect management in the aftermath of 

catastrophic flooding that occurred in 2010 and 2011. This plan addresses management 

challenges and opportunities that have emerged because of these flood events.

An environmental assessment (EA) including

four potential management alternatives 

accompanied the draft version of this plan, and 

was submitted for public review in the fall of 

2013. This CCP is based on the preferred 

alternative of the EA, and is designed to ensure 

that the refuges fulfill their established purposes 

and play a role in fulfilling the mission of the 

Service and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Refuge System).

Background

The Missouri River ecosystem is a resource of 

national importance with a long history of human 

interaction and ecological change. The lands

and waters of the basin host abundant and 

diverse resident wildlife and provide important 

stopover sites for migratory birds in the central 

flyway. Only three national wildlife refuges

straddle the channelized third of the river that 

flows the 735 miles between Sioux City, Iowa 

and St. Louis, Missouri. Two of these refuges, 

DeSoto NWR and Boyer Chute NWRs are 

located side-by-side, 15 miles north of the 

Omaha–Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area (figure

ES-1). The third is Big Muddy NWR with units between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri. 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges share management, headquartered out of DeSoto NWR,

because of their close proximity and the commonality of their habitats, wildlife management, and 

ecological resources. When fully acquired, these refuges will conserve over 18,000 acres of 

unique riverine habitats, seasonal wetlands, bottomland forests, and native floodplain 

grasslands. The refuges are also popular destinations for people due to the important cultural 

resources and abundant opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation they offer to nearby 

communities and the Greater Omaha–Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area.

Figure ES-1: Location of DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges
Executive Summary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ES-2

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1958 and encompasses 8,365 acres of 

floodplain habitat on a former oxbow of the Missouri River. In addition to a stretch of the 

Missouri River channel and a large oxbow lake, the refuge contains riparian forests, grasslands, 

wetlands, and riverine habitats that host over 250 bird species, 35 mammal species, 30 reptile 

and amphibian species, and 60 fish species. DeSoto NWR is also the home of the Steamboat 

Bertrand Museum Collection, one of the premier assemblages of Civil War era artifacts in the 

United States. In addition to this wildlife observation, hunting, fishing, and a variety of other 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities available to the public attract enough visitors to 

make DeSoto NWR one of the more heavily visited refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System.

Boyer Chute NWR was authorized in 1992 in an ongoing effort to recover, restore, and 

safeguard fish and wildlife habitat along the Missouri River corridor. Approximately 4,040 acres 

of 10,010 acres authorized for acquisition are currently owned and managed by the Service; the 

rest remains in private ownership. Similar to DeSoto NWR, the refuge conserves landscape 

features found only along major rivers systems including backwaters, side channels, and islands 

as well as a diversity of associated floodplain habitats ranging from wetlands and prairies to 

riparian shrublands and woodlands. 

Planning Process

A year’s worth of CCP planning activities occurred for Boyer Chute NWR starting in 2010. 

However, two successive years of catastrophic flooding on the Missouri River (2010–2011) 

resulted in the decision to start planning over, and combine the management of DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges. This represents the first CCP effort for management of Boyer Chute 

NWR, and is the second CCP undertaken for DeSoto NWR. 

During the refuge planning process, all factors of management―including habitats, wildlife, 

visitor services, facilities, operations, cultural resources, and other relevant issues―are 

discussed and evaluated by Service employees, partners, stakeholders, and the public. A 

range of alternative management options are then clearly defined and presented to partners, 

stakeholders, and the public to identify and refine the most suitable or “preferred” management 

plan for the refuge. This CCP describes the results of the planning process and the details of 

the preferred alternative. In this document, the broad goals of the preferred alternative are 

defined and measureable objectives are identified to support each goal. Potential

implementation strategies are then offered as available methods to meet these goals and 

objectives within the 15-year timeframe.

Goals Objectives Strategies
Executive Summary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ES-3

Refuge Goals

Three shared goals were identified by DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges:

Goal 1: Habitat

Provide quality native grasslands, floodplain forests, wetlands, sandbar, and riverine habitats 

through land conservation, restoration, and management.

Goal 2: Wildlife

Protect, maintain, and enhance a diversity of resident, migratory, and endangered species 

native to the Missouri River floodplain.

Goal 3: People

Refuge visitors will understand and appreciate management of the refuges and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System through participation in diverse wildlife-dependent recreation, 

environmental education, and outreach opportunities, and will understand the progression of 

change in the Missouri River Valley as reflected through the Steamboat Bertrand Museum 

Collection and its history. 

Planning Issues

Scoping identified eight broad issue categories that were addressed when developing 

management alternatives for the refuges:

• Habitat Management: What is the best way to manage habitats on the refuges to 

maximize benefits to wildlife and support conservation in the greater Missouri River 

ecosystem?

• DeSoto Lake: What is the best way to manage DeSoto Lake to maximize benefits to 

wildlife and people?

• Land Conservation: What Service footprint will best accomplish the refuges’ land and 

water conservation goals and best supplement Missouri River ecosystem conservation?

• Wildlife: How can the refuges have the greatest beneficial impact on wildlife in the 

Missouri River ecosystem?

• Refuge Administration: In what ways can the administration of the refuges be 

improved?

• Visitor Services & Public Use: How can the refuges direct resources to provide the 

best visitor services possible while adhering to capability standards for such uses (given 

wildlife as the Service’s first and highest priority)?

• Infrastructure: What is the best configuration of refuge infrastructure for both 

administration and visitor use?

• Outreach, Support, & Partnerships: How can the refuges bolster their relationships 

with partners, visitors, and other constituents?
Executive Summary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ES-4

Overview of Future Management

Over the next 15 years the refuges will take a very active approach to habitat and wildlife 

management and monitoring, focusing on expanding seasonal wetland habitat to emulate 

preregulation flood cycles of the Missouri River, and will increase visitor services available to the 

public. The inlet and outlet structures on DeSoto Lake will be improved to increase 

management capabilities—allowing the maintenance of the closed system lake or the creation 

of a limited open system with riverine characteristics and enhanced fish passage. Seasonal 

wetland acres will increase during the spring and fall migrations through a robust pumping 

program while offering mudflats, annual vegetation, and perennial vegetation throughout 

nonmigratory periods. This wetland regimen will be designed to emulate two-year and five-year 

Missouri River flood cycles.

The cooperative farming program at DeSoto NWR will be phased out and agriculture will only be 

used in a limited capacity by refuge staff as a management tool to address invasive species, set 

back succession, and prepare seed beds. The grassland component of the refuges will 

decrease as new areas transition to wetland and wooded habitats. Grassland and wetland 

acres will vary seasonally due to natural and managed cycles of wetland expansion and 

contraction. The past emphasis on mesic tallgrass prairie will shift to a mix of mesic and hydric 

grasslands. The proportions and distribution of bottomland forest, cottonwood parkland, and 

shrub/scrub habitat will remain similar to current conditions on DeSoto NWR and will increase 

moderately on Boyer Chute NWR as Boyer Island and additional riparian areas are transitioned 

to forested habitats. The table below shows the approximate percent of land cover types 

associated with the refuges.

Table ES-1: Land Cover Change on the Refuges

DeSoto NWR Boyer Chute NWR

Land Cover Type 2001 Current

(2013) Future Current(2013) Future Future AssumingFull Acquisition

Bottomland Forest 37% 35% 35% 4% 19% 27%

Shrub/Scrub 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1%

Grassland 20% 36% 28% 29% 15% 58%

Seasonal Wetland 1% 2% 17% 5% 5% 6%

Missouri River 3% 3% 3% 7% 7% 7%

Sandbar 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Developed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Agriculture 24% 7% 0% -- -- --

DeSoto Lake 10% 11% 11% -- -- -- [

Private Inholding -- -- -- 53% 53% 0%

DeSoto NWR is fully acquired, and staff will only consider expansion of the authorized boundary 

under conditions that are opportunistic, collaborative, and do not exceed a 10 percent increase 

over the current acreage. Funds have not been allocated for acquisition of the privately-owned

53 percent (calculation excludes the Missouri River surface area) of Boyer Chute NWR since 

2005, but management will continue to seek opportunities to acquire inholdings and promote 

land acquisition as a regional priority. Newly acquired lands on Boyer Chute NWR will be 

converted from agriculture to prairie habitat, and the development of bottomland forest habitat 

will be encouraged along riparian corridors. 
Executive Summary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ES-5

Wildlife monitoring will increase for a number of aggregated conservation targets, including 

invasive species, migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, secretive marshbirds, grassland birds, forest 

birds, fish and aquatic species (in DeSoto Lake), and game species. Additional details of the 

monitoring program will be fleshed out immediately following the CCP in an inventory and 

monitoring step-down management plan.

The visitor services program will expand in a number of ways with careful consideration of 

wildlife disturbance during bird migrations. Overall, public access and visitor opportunities 

increase while visitor services infrastructure remains fairly constant compared to current 

conditions. Use of DeSoto Lake will also remain the same as current conditions—closed only 

during the migratory period. The heavy-duty bridge to the Boyer Island Unit of Boyer Chute 

NWR will eventually be removed for maintenance, safety, and chute habitat reasons, and 

replacement options will be considered. Additional changes include new hunting opportunities 

on both refuges, permitting fishing on all lakes and ponds on units open to the public, opening 

additional areas of both refuges to the public for wildlife observation and photography, creating 

new trails and wildlife observation areas, allowing leashed dogs on the refuges, increasing 

collaborative environmental education within Omaha schools; updating and improving 

interpretive information, infrastructure, and services; and working to increase volunteerism.
Executive Summary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ES-6

(This page intentionally left blank)
Chapter 1: Introduction

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Process and the Plan

This document represents a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) that guides the

management of DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs, refuges) in 

Nebraska and Iowa. The CCP is the result of a collaborative, multiple-year planning process 

that includes preplanning, scoping, alternatives development, environmental assessment (EA)

and Draft CCP document preparation, public review and comment, and the adoption of this final 

plan to guide management of the refuges over the next 15 years. The planning process for 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges is described in further detail in chapter 2.

The Refuges

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges straddle the Missouri River in Nebraska and Iowa 15 miles 

north of the Omaha–Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area. DeSoto NWR, established in 1958 as a 

migratory bird refuge, contains 8,365 acres of floodplain wetlands, grasslands, and forests 

surrounding DeSoto Lake, an oxbow lake cut off from the main channel of the Missouri River in 

1960. DeSoto NWR is home to a diversity of resident and migratory species, hosting over 250 

bird species, 35 mammal species, 30 reptile and amphibian species, and 60 fish species. 

DeSoto NWR Visitor Center also hosts the Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection, one of the 

premier assemblages of Civil War era artifacts in the United States. The refuge attracts over 

250,000 visitors annually—making DeSoto NWR one of the more heavily visited refuges in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Boyer Chute NWR, authorized in 1992 and established in 1997, is located immediately south of 

DeSoto NWR. The Service has acquired 4,040 acres of the refuge, or 40 percent, of its 10,010-

acre authorized boundary. When full acquisition from willing sellers is complete, the refuge will 

connect with DeSoto NWR through Wilson Island State Recreation Area to the north and with 

the Neale Woods Nature Center to the south. Boyer Chute NWR contains wildlife and habitats 

similar to those found at DeSoto NWR, and together the refuges provide a broad range of 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities and experiences to the public.

Document Chapters

This first chapter provides a brief introduction to the comprehensive conservation plan. The 

remaining chapters provide more detailed information on the refuge planning and policy context 

(chapter 2), the refuge environment and current management (chapter 3), and the objectives, 

rationales, and potential implementation strategies that will guide management of the refuges 

over the next 15 years (chapter 4). Appendices include the Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), species lists, abbreviations and glossary, legal and policy guidance, literature cited, 

appropriate use designations, compatibility determinations, the list of preparers and 

contributors, the communications list, and the response to comments on the EA and Draft CCP.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

In this chapter:

Introduction

Refuge System Planning Guidance

Refuge Management Guidance

Relationship to Other Conservation Initiatives

The Refuge Planning Process

Introduction

This chapter provides a background for the comprehensive conservation planning process 

undertaken for each unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System). The 

first tier of planning guidance comes from the overarching policy and legislation that governs all 

federal agencies as well as guidance that applies to the Refuge System as a whole. The 

second tier of planning guidance derives from refuge-specific factors and the local social and 

ecological context. A third tier of guidance is informed by the refuges’ role as articulated by 

broader conservation initiatives and planning efforts―both internal and external to the Service. 

The fourth and final section of this chapter describes the details of the planning process as it 

has unfolded for these two refuges. 

Refuge System Planning Guidance

This first section outlines the broad, overarching guidance that applies to all Refuge System 

units. It is created at the highest levels of the federal government and provides guidance for the 

refuge planning process. Included are the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 

Service); the mission, goals, and guiding principles of the Refuge System; and a compendium of 

other relevant federal legislation. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges are administered by the Service, the primary federal agency 

responsible for conserving, protecting, an enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations 

and their habitats. The Service oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management 

and protection of migratory bird populations, restoration of fisheries, administration of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands, collaboration 

with international conservation efforts, and the distribution of conservation funding to states, 

territories, and tribes. Through its conservation work, the Service also provides a healthy 

environment in which Americans can engage in outdoor activities. Additionally, as one of three 

land managing agencies in the Department of the Interior, the Service is responsible for the 

Nation’s Refuge System.

FWS Mission

The mission of the Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, 

and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

The National Wildlife Refuge System

The Refuge System was founded in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt designated a 

three-acre island off the Florida coast, Pelican Island, as a sanctuary for colonial nesting birds. 

Today, the Refuge System has grown to a network of over 560 national wildlife refuges (NWR, 

refuge), 38 wetland management districts, and 49 coordination areas covering over 150 million 

acres of public lands and waters. Over 50 percent of these lands (over 76 million acres) are 

contained within Alaska’s 16 refuges, with the remainder distributed throughout the other 49 

states and U.S. territories. Since 2006, Marine National Monuments have been added to the 

Refuge System, bringing over 50 million additional acres in the Pacific Ocean under federal 

protection and conservation management.

The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters specifically designated 

and managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat for more than 700 birds species, 

220 mammal species, 250 reptile and amphibian species, 200 fish species, and more than 280 

threatened or endangered plants and animals. As a result of international treaties for migratory 

bird conservation and related legislation such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 

many refuges have been established to protect migratory waterfowl and their migration flyways 

that extend from nesting grounds in the north to wintering areas in the south. Refuges also play 

a vital role in preserving threatened and endangered species.

Refuges provide important recreation and education opportunities for visitors as well. When 

public uses are deemed appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation, 

refuges are places where people can enjoy hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, environmental education and interpretation, and other recreational activities. 

Many refuges offer visitor services such as visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and 

environmental education programs. Nationwide, over 41 million people visit national wildlife 

refuges annually.

NWRS Mission

The mission of the Refuge System is “. . . to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 – Public 

Law 105-57).

NWRS Goals

Revised goals for the Refuge System were adopted on July 26, 2006 and were incorporated 

into Part 601 of Chapter 1 of the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.” The goals are:

• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered;

• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed 

and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their 

ranges;
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts;

• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation); and

• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

NWRS Guiding Principles

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, states that each 

refuge shall be managed to fulfill both the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes for 

which the individual refuge was established. It also requires that any use of a refuge be a

compatible use—a use that will not materially interfere with nor detract from, in the sound 

professional judgment of the refuge manager, fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or 

the purposes of the refuge. The 1997 amendments to the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966 identified a number of principles to guide management of the Refuge 

System. Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation (2011), which 

presents the Service’s new vision, revised and renewed the Service’s commitment to the 

guiding principles, drawing on Aldo Leopold’s land ethic and introducing a new principle for our 

commitment to scientific excellence. The revised guiding principles include the following:

• We are land stewards, guided by Aldo Leopold's teachings that land is a community of 

life and that love and respect for the land is an extension of ethics. We seek to reflect 

that land ethic in our stewardship and to instill it in others.

• Wild lands and the perpetuation of diverse and abundant wildlife are essential to the 

quality of the American life.

• We are public servants. We owe our employers, the American people, hard work, 

integrity, fairness, and a voice in the protection of their trust resources.

• Management, ranging from preservation to active manipulation of habitats and 

populations, is necessary to achieve Refuge System and Service missions.

• Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

interpretation and education, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses of 

the Refuge System.

• Partnerships with those who want to help us meet our mission are welcome and indeed 

essential.

• Employees are our most valuable resource. They are respected and deserve an 

empowering, mentoring, and caring work environment.

• We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of our neighbors.

• We are a science-based organization. We subscribe to the highest standards of 

scientific integrity and reflect this commitment in the design, delivery and evaluation of all 

of our work.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

To maintain the health of individual refuges and the Refuge System as a whole, managers must 

anticipate future conditions. Managers must endeavor to avoid adverse impacts and take 

positive actions to conserve and protect refuge resources. Effective management also depends 

on acknowledging resource relationships and acknowledging that refuges are important parts of 

larger ecosystems. Refuge managers work together with partners—including other refuges,

federal and state agencies, tribal and other governments, non-governmental organizations and

groups, academic institutions, the public, and others—to protect, conserve, enhance, or restore 

all native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats.

Legal and Policy Compliance

Although the National Wildlife Refuge System came into existence over 100 years ago, it was 

not until the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) that 

several important mandates were established making the administration and management of 

refuges more cohesive and unified. The Improvement Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

ensure that the mission of the Refuge System and purposes of the individual refuges are carried 

out. Fundamental to this effort is the preparation of a 15-year comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) covering each unit in the Refuge System. In addition, the Improvement Act mandates 

that consideration be given to the maintenance of biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health; regulated determination of compatible public uses; facilitation of wildlifedependent recreation; protection of archaeological and cultural values, coordination and 

cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies; and the development of plans in a process that 

ensures active public involvement.

In addition to the Improvement Act and a refuge’s establishing and authorizing legislation, 

several federal laws, executive orders, and regulations govern the administration of each 

refuge. Key legislative policies that direct refuge management include the Endangered Species 

Act (1973), Clean Water Act (1977), Land and Water Conservation Fund (1965), and Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (1918). Appendix D contains a partial list of the legal mandates that guided the 

preparation of this plan and those that pertain to refuge management activities.

Wilderness Review

Refuge planning policy mandates that wilderness reviews be conducted through the 

comprehensive conservation planning process (FWS 2000b). The wilderness review process 

consists of three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. In the inventory phase 

Service-owned lands and waters within the refuge that are not currently designated 

wilderness are reviewed, and areas that meet the criteria for wilderness established by 

Congress are identified. The criteria are size, naturalness, opportunity for solitude or primitive 

recreation, and supplemental values. Areas that meet the criteria are called Wilderness Study 

Areas (WSAs). In the study phase a range of management alternatives for the WSAs are 

developed and evaluated to determine if they are suitable for recommendation for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. In the recommendation phase the 

suitable refuge lands are described in a Wilderness Study Report that moves from the director

of the Service through the secretary of the Department of the Interior and the president to 

Congress.

No lands within DeSoto or Boyer Chute NWRs satisfy the criteria for wilderness established by 

Congress and described in Service policy (FWS 2008b). These refuges do not contain 5,000 

contiguous acres of roadless, natural lands, nor do the refuges possess any units of sufficient 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

size to make their preservation practicable as wilderness. Refuge lands and waters have been 

substantially altered by humans, particularly through altered seasonal flow regimes and 

engineering of the Missouri River channel, highly modified floodplain hydrology and drainage, 

agricultural and residential development of the floodplain, and the construction of diffuse 

transportation infrastructure networks.

Refuge Management Guidance

In addition to the guidance that applies to all Refuge System units, refuge planning is also 

affected by policy and guidance specific to the individual management units under review. This 

section outlines the planning guidance pertaining to the refuges’ establishment authorities,

purposes, land acquisition history, and self-prescribed vision statement.

Brief History of Refuge Establishment and Land Acquisition

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

The refuge acquired its name from a historic bend on the Missouri River. The bend was 

originally named after the river town of DeSoto (incorporated in 1855), which provided a 

steamboat landing and ferry crossing, promoted a railroad west, and was once the county seat 

of Washington County, Nebraska. The town of DeSoto prospered in the late 1850s and early 

1860s, then declined as residents moved on to the Colorado gold fields. The town was 

ultimately abandoned in the late 19th century when the Missouri River channel shifted leaving 

the townsite several miles west of the river, and a railroad crossing was established three miles 

north in Blair, Nebraska.

Plans were developed and proposed for a DeSoto-Bertrand Bend cutoff by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE, Corps) early in the Missouri River channelization and dam-building era. 

The project was designed to improve navigation on the Missouri River but was stalled by local 

resistance until 1956 when the Service made a preliminary investigation and determined that 

the area had substantial potential benefits for wildlife. Coupled with a primary purpose of 

wildlife conservation the refuge

proposal offered extensive recreational 

benefits, engendering additional local 

support, and appeared in the 1958 

Congressional Record as the “DeSoto–

Bertrand Bend National Wildlife Refuge 

and Recreation Area.”

DeSoto NWR was established in 

March of 1958 with the approval of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission with the dual intention of 

providing for the needs of migratory 

birds and providing public recreation to 

local communities. According to realty 

records, the authorized land base 

owned in fee title by the Service is fully acquired at 7,823 acres in size, with 3,499 in Iowa and 

4,324 in Nebraska. Over 7,000 of these acres were acquired through federal Duck Stamp 

funding. A portion of the refuge’s land acquisition took place before the DeSoto–Bertrand Bend 

Migrating birds on DeSoto NWR; Randy Mays
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

was cut off from the main channel, and today the physical footprint of the refuge actually spans 

8,365 acres. The additional 542-acre area discrepancy from the realty records is accounted for 

by the changes that took place in 1960 when the DeSoto–Bertrand Bend of the Missouri River 

was cut off and a new, shorter channel was dug by the Corps. The additional acreage includes 

the area from the top bank on the west side of the new channel to the foot of the levee on the 

east side of the channel. Nearly half of this area (286 acres) is the Missouri River channel itself, 

and the remainder is the levee and lands riverward of the levee. The new channel construction 

ultimately had the effect of decreasing the Missouri River channel acreage and increasing the 

acreage of land and water under the purview of the refuge. Land acquisition for the refuge

occurred quickly between 1959 and 1962, with only a few small land transactions occurring 

subsequent to that period. A timeline of refuge land acquisition is included in table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Land Acquisition Summary by Fiscal Year, DeSoto NWR

Fiscal 

Year*

No. of Transactions Yearly Acres Acquired Leased Acres Total Acres

Iowa Nebraska Iowa Nebraska

1959 2 2 1,815.43 2,588.92 - 4,404.35

1960 - 1 - 1,640.97 3.61 6,048.93

1961 8 1 948.49 -16.38 - 6,981.04

1962 4 1 696.07 110.69 - 7,787.80

1963 2 - 3.02 - - 7,790.82

1970 1 - 13.15 - - 7,803.97

1972 1 - 21.00 - - 7,824.97

1980 1 - 2.00 - - 7,826.97

 *The fiscal year pre-1976 ran from July 1–June 30. Beginning in 1976 the fiscal year has run from October 1–

September 30.

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

The Boyer Bend area, where the refuge is now located, originally formed through the deposition 

and accumulation of sand and sediment from Iowa’s Boyer River, named after an early settler 

who hunted and trapped in the area. Over time, the erosive forces of the Missouri River cut 

channels and chutes through these deposits.

Interest in the Boyer Chute, the feature that gives the refuge its name, began during the Flood 

Control Acts and the Missouri River channelization erawell before the refuge was established. 

In 1937 a revetment and shale dikes were constructed across the upstream end of Boyer Chute. 

This engineering forced water to remain within the main river channel. Subsequent sediment 

accumulated behind the upstream cutoff and the construction of an earth-fill road crossing the 

middle of the old chute channel prevented water from flowing into the chute in all but spring high 

water periods or during floods (USACE 1995).

The impetus for a national wildlife refuge at the Boyer Chute arose in the late 1980s during the 

Missouri River Corridor Study, a multiple-partner collaborative project that identified Boyer Bend 

and its chute as the highest priority conservation restoration site on the 137-mile stretch of river 

between Sioux City, Iowa, and Plattsmouth, Nebraska. The refuge was authorized in August of 

1992, and in the same year the restoration of Boyer Chute was undertaken by the Corps. The 

restoration was completed in 1994—the same year the majority of the visitor services 

infrastructure was developed on the lands that would become the refuge. The initial refuge 

design was a part of the Papio–Missouri River Natural Resources District’s (NRD) Missouri 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

River Corridor Project, and the land base included only the island formed by the restored Boyer 

Chute and a narrow strip of land immediately west of the chute (approximately 2,000 total acres) 

(FWS 1992). In August of 1995, the Service began managing the refuge under a Memorandum 

of Understanding with the Papio–Missouri River NRD who owned the land at the time. The 

refuge officially opened to the public over Labor Day weekend the following year (1996). In 

September of 1997, the NRD handed over fee title ownership of the original refuge land base, a 

1,954-acre property, to the Service. This land transaction officially established the refuge. That 

same year a refuge boundary expansion began due to congressional appropriations under the 

Back to the River initiative, which enlarged the authorized acquisition boundary to 10,010 acres 

(FWS 1997). This initiative sought to increase fish and wildlife habitat and public recreation on 

the 65-mile stretch of the Missouri River between Herman and Bellevue, Nebraska.

Approximately 4,040 acres (40 percent, 

all in Nebraska) of the proposed refuge

boundary are currently owned and 

managed by the Service. The 

remaining 5,309 acres (53 percent, 

which excludes the 661 acres of 

Missouri River surface area) are 

privately owned with two exceptions: 

Boyer Bend Wildlife Management Area 

(WMA) held by the Iowa State 

Conservation Commission (81 acres) 

and a 444-acre agricultural tract owned 

by the Nebraska Board of Educational 

Lands and Funds (figure 2-1). The 

vast majority of non-refuge land in the 

authorized boundary is in agricultural 

production. When full acquisition from 

willing sellers is complete, the refuge

will connect with DeSoto NWR through

Wilson Island State Recreation Area to 

the north and with the Neale Woods to 

the south.

The current acquisition priorities for Boyer Chute NWR are depicted in figure 2-2. Phase One is 

west of the Missouri River and includes Boyer Island and the lands immediately southwest (52

percent acquired). Phase Two is also west of the Missouri River and includes the northwest 

areas of the acquisition boundary (13 percent acquired). Phase Three is all authorized lands on 

the east side of the Missouri River (0 percent acquired).

Welcome to Boyer Chute NWR; USFWS
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

Figure 2-1: The Refuges and Adjacent Conservation Lands
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

Figure 2-2: 1997 Land Acquisition Priorities, Boyer Chute NWR
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

Despite the 1992 refuge authorization and Service management which began in 1995, official 

Service land acquisition for (and formal establishment of) the refuge did not begin until 1997 

when the NRD donated the 1,954-acre Boyer Island property. That same year Congress made 

an appropriation of two million dollars from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to expand 

the refuge, which funded a number of acquisitions in the years that followed. Priority was given 

to areas with potential for wetland restorations, including Nathan’s Lake, Mud Lake, Horseshoe 

Lake, and the Mallard Wetlands. Much of the Nathan’s Lake Complex (655 acres) was acquired 

and restored in collaboration with the NRD, and then transferred to the Service. The acquisition 

and restoration of Horseshoe Lake and Mallard Wetland properties (over 800 acres) were the 

result of the collaboration between the refuge, the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s 

Wetland Reserve Program, and Ducks Unlimited. The total refuge acreage has remained stable 

since the end of 2005, with approximately 40 percent of the authorized refuge boundary 

acquired and managed by the Service. A timeline of refuge land acquisition is included in table

2-2.

Table 2-2: Land Acquisition Summary by Fiscal Year, Boyer Chute NWR

Fiscal Year* No. of Transactions Made Total Yearly Acres Cumulative Refuge Acres

1997 1 1,953.85 1,953.85

1998 5 324.99 2,278.84

1999 3 505.31 2,784.15

2000 3 305.00 3,089.15

2001 6 170.12 3,259.27

2002 3 41.00 3,300.27

2003 2 28.94 3,329.21

2004 - - -

2005 5 710.56 4,039.77

2006 1 0.04 4,039.81

2007 - - -

2008 - - -

2009 1 (easement) 0.06 4,039.87

2010 - - -

2011 - - -

*The fiscal year has run from October 1–September 30 since 1976.

Boyer Chute NWR straddles two geographic regions of the Service, and management 

responsibilities have alternated over time from one region to the other. The refuge was first 

authorized in 1992 as a unit in the Rocky Mountain Region. When the Service finally began 

management of the refuge in 1995 under a Memorandum of Understanding with the land owner 

(Papio-Missouri River NRD), refuge operations and maintenance were delegated to DeSoto

NWR in the Midwest Region of the Service. This arrangement lasted until July of 2001, during 

which time the refuge was “officially” established when, in 1997, the land was transferred to the 

Service. In July of 2001, Boyer Chute NWR switched hands and became an independent 

refuge fully supported and managed by the Rocky Mountain Region. Five years later in October 

2006, full management and oversight of the refuge transferred back to DeSoto NWR because of 

the close proximity of the refuges, the added efficiencies of shared management, and because 

of their common ecology, habitats, wildlife management, and publics.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

Refuge Purposes

National wildlife refuges are established under a variety of legislative acts and administrative 

orders and authorities. These orders and authorities include one or more specific purposes for 

which refuge lands are acquired. The purposes are of key importance in refuge planning and 

are the foundation for management decisions. The purposes of a refuge are specified in, or 

derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation 

document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, 

refuge unit, or refuge subunit.

By law refuges are to be managed to achieve their purposes, and unless otherwise indicated by

the establishing document the following rules apply:

• Purposes dealing with the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, 

and plants and their habitats take precedence over other management and 

administration purposes.

• When in conflict, the purpose of an individual refuge may supersede the Refuge System

mission.

• Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, 

the more specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict.

• When an additional unit is acquired under a different authority than that used to establish 

the original unit, the addition takes on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original 

unit does not take on the purpose(s) of the addition. 

DeSoto NWR’s establishing authorities and related purposes include:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962*

“. . . suitable for—(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . .” 16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4

*This purpose was applied post facto to DeSoto NWR, which was established in 1958.

Boyer Chute NWR's establishing authorities and related purposes** include: 

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956

“. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) 

“. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its 

activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

**The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 also appears in a number of important 

refuge documents. This act promotes, “. . . the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in 

order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations 

contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions . . .” (16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 

3583). Wetland habitats are a key component of the refuge’s floodplain ecosystem, and a 

primary collaborative focus for the refuge and its partners. This legislation, however, is neither 

included in the authorities cited in the environmental assessments, nor the official documents 

that transferred land from the NRD to the Service. In addition, all land purchases by the Service 

have occurred under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 using monies from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Refuge Vision Statement

The vision provides a simple statement of the desired future condition for a refuge. It provides a 

sense of direction and an ideal for what the refuge will become through effective management. 

The purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System provide the foundation for the 

vision and are enhanced by the unique characteristics of the refuge and local environment. The 

shared vision statement for DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges is:

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges are located in the migratory bird 

corridor of the Missouri River floodplain and provide essential habitat for resident, 

migratory, and endangered species. The Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection, large 

concentrations of wetland-dependent birds, and inventive environmental education 

partnerships make these refuges special within the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

High quality floodplain forest, grassland, wetland, sandbar, and riverine habitats support 

diverse and productive populations of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and neotropical 

birds as well as rare threatened and endangered species including the pallid sturgeon, 

Piping Plover, and Least Tern. The refuges offer high quality interpretive and 

environmental education programs for the public that increase an appreciation for the 

impact of settlement along the Missouri River and the refuges’ role in conserving and 

managing Missouri River floodplain habitat and wildlife. The refuges also provide 

abundant opportunities to participate in environmental interpretation, wildlife observation, 

hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-dependent recreation while at the refuges. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service staff and partners work collaboratively to understand, restore, and 

conserve biological communities on the refuges in a dynamic and changing 

environment, and work to promote an enduring appreciation for the refuges, the Refuge 

System, and Service trust resources.

Relationship to Other Conservation Initiatives

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges constitute a total potential contribution of 18,375 acres (of a 

total 2.3 billion acres of U.S. land) to the conservation landscape. By themselves, the two 

refuges will have little impact on the retention of open space, the persistence of wildlife species, 

and the maintenance of ecosystem services. However, refuge efforts combined with activities 

and partnerships across the larger conservation network have great potential to provide a 

measure of sustainability to the Nation’s natural resources and provide the mechanism for the 

Service to meet its critical mission. The following sections identify a number of important 

conservation initiatives that overlap and complement the vision and goals outlined in this plan. 

Where possible, the refuges collaborate with these efforts and incorporate shared objectives.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

North American bird conservation efforts have evolved over the past few decades from 

predominantly localized efforts to landscape-scale initiatives with separate planning emphases 

on guilds of birds and a greater emphasis on collaborative management. There are over 700 

species of birds in the United States, and DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges host over 250 of 

these species including a diversity of waterfowl, water birds, shorebirds, and landbirds. The 

refuges’ position straddling the Central and Mississippi flyways (figure 2-3) makes them an 

important stopover as birds travel from their breeding grounds in the north to their wintering 

areas in the south.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (1986)

Waterfowl (family Anatidae—including ducks, geese, and swans) are economically important for 

both hunting and wildlife observation activities, can be used as indicators of environmental 

health, and are an important part of wetland ecosystems. Habitat loss resulting from agriculture, 

urbanization, and industrial activities has caused their numbers to decline in recent decades.

The 15-year North American Waterfowl Management Plan was originally drafted in 1986 but has 

had a number of subsequent updates. The plan sets up a framework for cooperative planning 

and coordinated management between the United States and Canada to increase waterfowl 

populations to acceptable and desired levels. Mexico also became a signatory in 1994. The 

plan describes appropriate waterfowl population goals, and also provides recommended actions 

for reaching the population levels. One major result of the plan was the establishment of joint 

ventures (JVs) between private and government organizations within geographic regions to 

coordinate waterfowl research and management activities. These joint ventures assist in

integrating continental migratory bird 

priorities into regional, state, and local 

level conservation programs. 

Constituents include individuals, 

businesses, non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs), and local, state,

and federal government representatives

(FWS et al. 1986).

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges lie 

within the Upper Mississippi River and 

Great Lakes Joint Venture (UMGL JV) 

region, yet they are also close to the 

Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PP JV) to 

the north, and the Rainwater Basin Joint 

Venture (RWB JV) to the west (figure 2-

3). Because the Missouri River Corridor is a distinct and well-travelled migratory pathway, 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges have some unique characteristics and roles that distinguish 

them from other sections of these JVs. This midcontinental location is an important feeding and 

resting area for migratory waterfowl in the fall, and to a lesser degree in the spring. Because 

many of the region’s wetlands have been drained for agriculture, remaining wetlands and 

riparian areas like those provided by the refuges are essential to the seasonal migration of 

many migratory bird species.

Wood Duck pair; USFWS (Dave Menke)
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

The UMGL JV was formed in 1993, and at 240 million acres it is one of the largest and most 

diverse JVs. It has protected, restored, and enhanced over 522,000 acres of habitat. Habitat 

conservation strategy handbooks for each bird group—shorebirds, landbirds, water birds, and 

waterfowl —along with a comprehensive implementation plan, were released in 2007 to provide 

guidelines for the habitat types and quantities required to sustain target bird populations. These 

new plans use the latest geospatial analysis tools along with the most current scientific 

knowledge in their biological planning, regional landscape design, and strategies for projects, 

monitoring, research, communication, and outreach.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

Figure 2-3: Bird Conservation Regions (1)
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

Established in 1987, the PP JV includes one-third of North America’s Prairie Pothole Region. 

The portion contained within the United States is approximately 100,000 square miles. This 

landscape of depressional wetlands and grasslands combined with the Prairie Pothole Region 

in Canada constitute one of the largest and most productive concentrations of wetland habitat in 

the world. Birds native to the prairie pothole region include 18 species of waterfowl, 96 species 

of songbirds, 36 species of water birds, 17 species of raptors, and 5 species of upland game 

birds. Due to productive soils and abundant water, much of the Prairie Pothole region has been 

drained and used for agriculture or grazing. The JV works to counter this trend by saving or 

restoring high priority wetland areas and adjacent native prairie and grassland habitat 

throughout the region. Their 2005 Implementation Plan calls for the protection of 1.4 million 

additional wetland acres and 10.4 million acres of grassland (Ringelman 2005).

The RWB JV was formed in 1992 and spans 17 counties in south-central Nebraska. The basin 

is the narrowest point (approximately 150 miles wide) in the central flyway migration route 

between the Gulf Coast of Texas and Mexico and breeding grounds in the north. Each 

February and March millions of waterfowl rest, feed, and form pairs in this area. In addition, the 

wetlands are used in the spring by hundreds of thousands of migratory shorebirds. As an area 

with rich and productive land, many of the wetlands in this region have been converted to 

agricultural uses over the past century leaving less than 10 percent of the original wetland 

habitat—much of which is modified, degraded, and fragmented. Current wetland estimates in 

the basin tally 21,000 acres. The goal of the JV is to permanently protect 37,000 acres of 

wetlands with 25,000 acres of associated upland habitat to meet the needs of waterfowl and 

other migratory birds (RWB JV 2011).

North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Partners in Flight 2004)

In contrast to the other three bird plans discussed here, the target species of the North 

American Landbird Plan focuses on birds that inhabit predominantly terrestrial habitats. 

Approximately 448 landbirds breed in the United States and Canada.

Landbirds contribute to the economy in a number of ways. First and foremost they provide 

ecosystem services such as pollination, seed dispersal, and the consumption of insect pests. 

They also provide recreation opportunities such as wildlife observation and photography. The 

loss, modification, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat constitutes the primary threat for 

landbirds, including neotropical migrants, short-distance migrants, and largely resident species. 

The North American Landbird Conservation Plan identifies 192 species of continental 

importance. Approximately half (100) of these species are on a “watch list” because of a 

threatened/endangered population status. The remaining 92, as well as 66 species from the 

watch list, are considered “stewardship species” because they characterize and typify 

biogeographic regions or avifaunal biomes of North America (figure 2-4). These regions are 

based on Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) devised by the North American Bird Conservation 

Initiative, but have been merged into larger units (figure 2-3) (Rich et al. 2004).
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

Figure 2-4: Bird Conservation Regions (2)
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges lie at the center of the Prairie Avifaunal Biome, in the heart of 

North America’s native grasslands. Unfortunately, over 99 percent of the original tallgrass prairie 

has been lost to agriculture and urban development, many of the wetlands have been drained, 

and fire—the primary disturbance mechanism for successional grassland habitat—has largely 

been eliminated from this ecosystem. Restored prairies and wetlands like those found on the 

refuges are important steps toward the recovery of declining species that once flourished 

throughout the central plains. This avifaunal biome still provides the wintering habitat for many 

Arctic species of landbirds, and breeding areas for nearly 40 percent of the species on the 

watch list. The watch list was created to identify landbird species with multiple reasons for 

conservation concern across their entire range.

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (2001)

The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan was drafted by a partnership of national, state, private, 

and academic organizations committed to shorebird conservation across the United States. The 

designation “shorebird” is applied to those birds commonly known as sandpipers, plovers, 

oystercatchers, avocets, and stilts. Of the 214 shorebird species worldwide, 50 regularly breed 

or occur in the United States. The challenges of shorebird conservation stem from their great 

migration distances (crossing multiple jurisdictions), low reproduction rates, concentrated use of 

dispersed migration stopovers, a general loss of habitat across the landscape, and a lack of 

shorebird population data. This plan groups the BCRs to create 11 shorebird planning regions. 

Within each, a regional working group sets conservation goals, identifies critical habitats, 

assesses research needs, and recommends strategies for outreach and education. Founded on 

collaboration and cooperation between partners, the goal of the plan is to stabilize populations 

of shorebird species by protecting adequate quantities of wetland, shoreline, and grassland 

habitat to meet their breeding, wintering, and migrating needs (Brown et al. 2001).

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges lie within the Upper Mississippi Valley and Great Lakes 

(UMVGL) shorebird planning region but are very close to the boundary with the Central Plains

and Playa Lakes (CPPL) region to the west and the Northern Plains and Prairie Potholes region 

(NPPPR) to the north (figure 2-4). The latter two shorebird planning regions together 

encompass the entire central flyway migratory corridor. Shorebird habitat is an important 

component of floodplain habitat management on the refuges, with special consideration for 

federally listed Piping Plovers and Least Terns as potential visitors to the refuges.

The UMVGL region contains five BCRs and 32 shorebird species, nine of which are of high 

conservation priority: Greater Yellowlegs, Whimbrel, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Short-billed 

Dowitcher, Marbled Godwit, Wilson’s Phalarope, Upland Sandpiper, American Woodcock, and 

the Piping Plover. This region is noted for its climatic variability, and its primary habitat threats 

result from agriculture, river manipulation, and urban development. Objectives for meeting 

shorebird needs in this region include the protection of 9.6 million acres of ephemeral and 

permanent wetlands with associated upland habitats.

The CPPL region contains 5 BCRs, and hosts 40 species of migrating shorebirds—13 of which 

breed in the region, including the federally endangered Piping Plover. Shorebirds of primary 

conservation concern in the region include the Piping Plover, Mountain Plover, Snowy Plover, 

American Golden-Plover, Long-billed Curlew, Upland Sandpiper, and Buff-breasted Sandpiper. 

The overwhelming majority (>85 percent) of land in the region is in private ownership. 

Conservation challenges include a lack of adequate shorebird monitoring, the availability of 

water and water rights issues, and habitat loss as a result of expanding agriculture and 

urbanization.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

The NPPPR region encompasses two BCRs, contains 13 breeding species of shorebird, and is 

characterized by widespread prairie grasslands and millions of depressional wetlands.

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (2002)

The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan was created through the voluntary, 

collaborative efforts of many individuals and organizations interested in the future of seabirds 

and other colonial nesting birds (i.e., herons, loons, pelicans, gulls, albatrosses, petrels, auks, 

and rails). In response to threats like habitat loss, invasive and exotic species introductions, 

pollution, industrial activity, and site disturbance, the activities proposed by the plan range from 

continent-wide monitoring to local conservation actions that promote the distribution, diversity, 

and abundance of water birds. The plan covers 210 species, including seabirds, coastal water 

birds, wading birds, and marshbirds. Of the freshwater habitat requirements noted in the plan, 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges provide those associated with stream corridors and wetlands. 

These habitats provide for the nesting, feeding, roosting, and resting needs of water bird

species. Through inventory and monitoring this plan is able to help identify the most threatened 

birds and the most critical habitats (Kushlan et al. 2002).

The refuges are positioned at the intersection of three water bird planning regions. They fall 

within the UMVGL water bird planning region but are close to the Central Prairies (CP) region to 

the west and the Northern Prairie and Parkland (NPP) region to the north (figure 2-4).

The UMVGL water bird region contains approximately 40 species of water birds, among them 

are priority species of terns, herons, bitterns, rails, and loons. Also, superabundant species are 

present such as Double-crested Cormorants and Ring-billed Gulls. The large river systems of 

this region, which include the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, provide much of the important 

water bird habitat. Freshwater habitats at DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges that are used by 

water birds include wetlands, shorelines, rivers, and small islands. Development, river dredging 

and diking, and agricultural drainage are listed among the top threats to water bird habitat in this 

region.

The CP water bird region also prioritizes habitats found at DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges, 

namely native grasslands punctuated by depressional or river-associated wetlands. These 

areas host large breeding populations of Interior Least Terns, Black Terns, Eared Grebes, 

Black-crowned Night -Herons, American Bitterns, and Virginia Rails. They also provide 

important stopover areas for midcontinental Sandhill and Whooping Cranes.

The NPP region’s mixed grass prairies and numerous small wetlands provide some of the most 

important waterfowl production areas in North America. Twenty-four colonial, and fifteen noncolonial water bird species breed here. Efforts are being made to prevent the loss or 

deterioration of the pothole wetlands, and the impacts of climate change on these sensitive 

habitats are being closely monitored.

Strategic Habitat Conservation

Recognizing numerous advancements made in the fields of conservation, ecology, adaptive 

management, and technology, a panel of policy and technology experts from the Service, U. S. 

Geologic Survey, and the National Conservation Training Center formed the National Ecological 

Assessment Team (NEAT) in June of 2004. The goals of this team were to discuss and make 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

recommendations to the Service on its approach to conservation of ‘trust resources’ with 

efficiency, prioritization, and transparency as key drivers. The outcome of these meetings was 

the Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) framework, which is an iterative cycle of: (1) biological 

planning, (2) conservation design, (3) conservation delivery, and (4) monitoring (figure 2-5).

Figure 2-5: The Strategic Habitat Conservation Framework

The principles of SHC are not new to Service programs and projects, but the NEAT report 

formally establishes SHC as the new business model and operating platform for the Service in 

light of the 21st century’s changing conservation landscape. Trends in the new millennium 

addressed by SHC include a focus on conservation science that is increasingly collaborative 

and interdisciplinary, spans multiple jurisdictions, uses a range of scales, and intertwines 

ecology with socioeconomic considerations. In addition, the face of the conservation workforce 

is changing, expectations from the public are increasing, and the complexity of environmental 

issues is intensifying. Whereas the previous era sought balance in the conservation and 

utilization of natural resources, the upcoming era has forced a recognition of limits to our 

environmental systems and the challenge of sustaining resources despite increasing pressures 

from threats such as urban development, energy production, water use, and climate change 

(FWS 2008c).

SHC emphasizes a landscape-scale consideration of resources and the importance of 

understanding and integrating the goals of collaborative partners as key ways to effectively 

achieve conservation objectives. This will require management support for work that not only 

spans program areas within the Service but support that extends beyond the Service to the 

interests and programs of the Service’s conservation partners. The Service has taken steps to

implement the SHC framework, including setting measurable, outcome-based objectives to 

guide visible progress towards conservation goals, using spatially-explicit models to provide the 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

means for systematic identification of conservation targets, and increasing the integration of 

science into planning and management decisions (FWS 2006 and 2008d).

The work outlined in this CCP for DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges adheres to the SHC 

framework by conducting a thorough review of science relevant to management of the refuges, 

feeding the information and issues identified during scoping directly into near- and long-term 

goals and objectives, and defining strategies to guide conservation delivery through the 15-year 

life of the CCP and beyond.

Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative

In 2009, with SHC as the guiding philosophy, the Service established a national geographic 

framework, or a continental platform on which to establish landscape-level conservation 

partnerships and implement conservation actions in the 21st century (FWS 2009b). The 

framework establishes boundaries for 22 geographic areas, each to serve as a base for the 

establishment of a Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC). LCCs will provide a spatial 

context and an organizational structure for facilitating conservation planning, shared science, 

information exchange, and decision support in response to broad-scale, complex, and dynamic

issues such as climate change.

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges are

located within the Eastern Tallgrass 

Prairie and Big Rivers (ETPBR) LCC 

(figure 2-6). The ETPBR LCC stretches 

across the agricultural belt of America 

from Ohio to Kansas, and the vast 

majority of the land is held in private 

ownership. Agriculture drives the 

regional economy, habitat conditions 

are driven by agricultural practices, and 

both will be impacted by climate 

change. In particular, changes in the 

frequency and magnitude of flood 

events and drought cycles have the 

great potential to affect the wildlife and 

habitat at the refuges. Along with 

human uses such as navigation and irrigation, the big rivers (Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, 

Wisconsin, Ohio, and Wabash) of this LCC provide commercial and recreational fisheries and 

important migratory bird habitat.

Eastern Tallgrass Prairie LCC; USFWS
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

Figure 2-6: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

Climate Change Planning

Climate change is an important part of the conservation dialogue and has been formally 

recognized by the Service as one of the leading conservation challenges of the 21st century.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

In its strategic plan, “Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to 

Accelerating Climate Change,” the Service calls for bold and strategic action to address climate 

change through three broad, overarching strategies: adaptation, mitigation, and engagement 

(FWS 2010b). Despite considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude, extent, and timing of 

changes, the Service vision includes measures to “. . . sustain diverse, distributed, and 

abundant populations of fish and wildlife through conservation of healthy habitats in a network of 

interconnected, ecologically functioning landscapes” (pg. 5). The plan also describes six 

principles deemed essential to achieving this vision: priority setting, partnership, best science, 

landscape conservation, technical capacity, and global approach. Climate change is a key 

consideration in the discussions and decision making for the future management proposed at

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges. Climate change is likely to have major impacts on larger 

river systems like the Missouri River through altered flow cycles, groundwater recharge within 

the watershed, water availability, land cover change, habitat availability, effects to infrastructure, 

and so forth.

“Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation” (FWS 2011c) is the 

encapsulation of the Refuge System’s bold, new vision. This vision acknowledges the broad 

social, political, and economic changes that have taken place since the agency last set 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

comprehensive goals in 1999. The document articulates 24 recommendations to guide the 

future of the Refuge System; recommendation number two directly addresses climate change:

“Develop a climate change implementation plan for the National Wildlife Refuge System 

that dovetails with other conservation partners’ climate change action plans and 

specifically provides guidance for conducting vulnerability assessments of climate 

change impacts to refuge habitats and species as well as direction for innovation in the 

reduction of emissions and improved energy efficiency on federal lands (FWS 2011c).”

Iowa

The report, Climate Change Impacts on Iowa, was released in January of 2011 by the Iowa 

Climate Change Impacts Committee (ICCIC). The report highlights the effects of climate 

change on Iowa’s economy, health, and natural and agricultural systems. Iowans are already 

experiencing higher temperatures, higher humidity levels, and increased precipitation frequency 

and intensity—particularly in eastern Iowa. The committee summarized their findings with six 

key recommendations to policymakers, of which number three addresses wildlife conservation:

“Increase investments in state programs that enhance wildlife habitat and management 

and restore public and private lands. Changes in climate will have a direct impact on 

both game and non-game species.” 

In addition, recommendation two encourages the protection of Iowa’s soil and water resources, 

on which the state’s economy depends.

The changes to wildlife and habitats in Iowa are described by the 2011 ICCIC report as 

including changes in interactions among species, timing of life cycles, northward shifts in 

species ranges, major shifts in the steady state of some natural systems, and unknown impacts 

to game species of fish, bird, and mammal. With specific regard to floodplain areas such as 

those found at DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges, the report states, “. . . the higher rainfall

portions of the pothole region in Iowa and eastern Minnesota may take on greater importance 

for protecting duck populations (Johnson et al. 2010)”; and 

“Given the potential for greater streamflows due to increased rainfall, it also 

makes sense to give rivers more room to flood. Game fish and other animals can

survive these floods if we give them room. Greater wetland capacity and wider 

stream corridors will also reduce downstream flooding and sedimentation, while

improving fish and wildlife habitat in normal years.”

Groups of species in Iowa most vulnerable to climate change include (ICCIC 2011):

• Species restricted to cold microclimates such as fens, cold air slopes, and cold-water 

streams.

• Rare, threatened, or endangered species.

• Specialists that rely on one species of pollinator or host for their survival.

• Declining species, including grassland nesting birds and neotropical migrant birds in 

general.

• Species that need large blocks of undisturbed forest or prairie.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

• Turtles that rely on incubation temperature to determine the sex of the offspring; the sex 

ratio of their offspring (and thus future reproductive potential) are disturbed by rising 

temperatures.

• Turtles and amphibians vulnerable to mid-summer flooding (e.g., wood turtle).

Greenhouse gas emissions are also a great concern for Iowans, as indicated in the Iowa 

Climate change Advisory Council’s 2008 “Final Report.” The report describes scenarios and 

sets goals for the reduction of greenhouse gasses through the year 2050. A number of policy 

options are provided to legislators to meet these goals (ICCAC 2008).

Nebraska

The State of Nebraska does not currently have a climate change action plan. A section of the 

Nebraska State Wildlife Action Plan (Schneider et al. 2005) calls for “species and ecosystem 

adaptation to climate change” and for at-risk species to be evaluated for vulnerability to climate 

change. Strategies for adapting to climate change include reducing non-climate stressors (i.e.,

invasive species, pests, pathogens, pollution, and habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation); 

maintaining ecological processes and functions (i.e., disturbance, hydrology); conserving a 

network of conservation areas; restoring habitat connectivity; increasing climate change 

knowledge (i.e., vulnerability assessments, monitoring, experiments, and modeling); and 

managing adaptively.

State Wildlife Action Plans

Congress charged each state in the Nation with producing a comprehensive wildlife 

conservation strategy to help conserve wildlife and natural areas and ensure their persistence 

for future generations. The resulting State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) assess the current 

condition of the state’s wildlife and habitats, identify and prioritize issues and challenges, and 

lay out actions for long-term conservation of wildlife resources. They include recommendations 

for the conservation of lands and waters, invasive species management, data gathering and 

monitoring, collaboration, environmental education, and other relevant natural resource 

considerations. States must have a SWAP to receive federal funding from the Wildlife 

Conservation and Restoration Program and the State Wildlife Grants Program. 

Iowa

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) developed the Iowa Wildlife Action Plan 

(IWAP) with a 25-year vision for addressing concerns regarding 999 of Iowa’s birds, mammals, 

fish, amphibians, reptiles, mussels, land snails, dragonflies, and damselflies. Of the species 

considered, 147 are game species, and 297 are considered species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN). Nearly one-third of all Iowa species are in need of conservation effort to prevent 

eventual candidacy for threatened or endangered status. Fish and birds have the greatest total 

number of species listed as SGCN, but aquatic and semi-aquatic wildlife have the highest 

percentages of their total number of species listed. Riverine habitats have the greatest number 

of SGCN among aquatic habitats, and woodlands have the most among the terrestrial habitats 

(table 2-3) (Zohrer 2006).
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

Table 2-3: Iowa’s Species of Greatest Conservation Concern (Zohrer 2006)

Wildlife Group Total Species Considered SGCN Percent of Total

Breeding Birds 206 67 33 

Migratory Birds 199 18 9 

Mammals 82 18 22 

Fish 153 67 44 

Amphibians and Reptiles 71 31 44 

Mussels 55 29 53 

Land Snails 8 8 100 

Butterflies 119 30 25 

Dragonflies and Damselflies 106 28 26 

TOTALS 999 296 30 

Iowa covers approximately 56,239 square miles (35,992,960 acres). Ninety-four percent of 

Iowa was converted to farmland by 1990, leaving less than 30,000 acres of native prairies (0.1

percent), 422,000 acres of wetlands (5 percent), and 2,800,000 acres of forests (43 percent). 

Surface water is only 1 percent of the Iowa land surface. Iowa also has one of the highest 

proportions of privately-owned land in the Nation. Only about 600,000 acres of wildlife habitat 

(1.7 percent of the land area of the state) is permanently protected by public ownership, and an 

additional 57,000 acres permanently protected by conservation easements. One goal of the 

IWAP is to double Iowa’s permanently protected wildlife habitat to 4 percent of the state land 

area (Zohrer 2006).

Iowa portions of DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges are located in the Missouri Alluvial Plain 

region of the state, an area buffering the lower two-thirds of the western boundary of the state 

and comprising 2 percent of the state’s total land. This area is among the landforms of the state 

with the smallest proportion of wildlife habitat. Currently, 84 percent of the Missouri Alluvial 

Plain region is either cropped or developed (Zohrer 2006). The priority habitat classes for this 

region are wet forest and river oxbow channels—both relevant to management on the refuges.

Nebraska

In 2005 Nebraska developed its comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy: “The Nebraska 

Natural Legacy Project.” This document describes the state’s wildlife and habitat and lays out a 

strategic plan for species protection.

Due to rich and productive soils, Nebraska lands have been developed predominantly for 

agricultural uses. Today less than 2 percent of the original tallgrass prairie habitat in the state 

remains and just over 1 million acres (35 percent) of the state’s wetlands persist. Nebraska 

once had nearly 24,000 miles of rivers and streams, most of which have now been modified 

through flow reductions and channelization. In addition, 97 percent of the state’s land is 

privately owned, with only 3 percent owned and managed by federal or state agencies. Land 

use changes have had widespread consequences on state wildlife and associated habitats. In 

the strategy document six key stressors to ecological systems are identified: (1) altered fire 

regime, (2) altered grazing regime, (3) altered hydrologic regime, (4) introduction of invasive 

species and pathogens, (5) fragmentation, and (6) pollution (Schneider et al. 2005).
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

It is estimated that 30,000 animal species are found in Nebraska. Species of conservation 

concern were identified and divided into two tiers. The 80 species in Tier I are globally or 

nationally at-risk, whereas the 532 species in Tier II are at-risk in Nebraska but are secure in 

other parts of their range. The plan sets a conservation goal of at least 10 populations of each 

Nebraska endemic, restricted-range, or state listed species (Tier I). Tier II species identified as 

having a limited range in a larger geographic region, being widespread, existing commonly 

elsewhere but only peripherally in Nebraska, or as having Nebraska population as disjunct from 

the primary geographic range had goals of seven, four, one, and one populations in Nebraska 

respectively (Schneider et al. 2005).

Next, state habitats were classified. Terrestrial communities are categorized into 69 types and 

aquatic systems into seven types. The report acknowledges that a more refined classification 

scheme for aquatic habitats is needed and that nearly half of the Tier I at-risk species are 

dependent on wetland or riverine habitats (Schneider et al. 2005).

Habitats for at-risk species were then reviewed by designating 40 “biologically unique 

landscapes” across the state. These landscapes were selected for their potential to protect the 

greatest biodiversity and occur across a mixture of public and private ownership. If protected, 

these 40 landscapes have the potential to meet or exceed the SWAP’s population goals for 44 

Tier I species (55 percent), partially meet the population goals for 24 additional Tier I species 

(35 percent), and will not meet the population goals for the remaining 17 species (24 percent). 

A second review was the conducted to see if the existing network of federal and state 

conservation lands sufficiently protects the Tier I at-risk species. The study found that these 

lands meet or exceed the plan’s population goals for 18 Tier I species (23 percent), partially 

meets the population goals for 22 of the Tier I species (27 percent), and does not meet the 

population goals for 40 species (50 percent) (Schneider et al. 2005).

Nebraska portions of DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges reside in the SWAP’s Tallgrass Prairie 

Ecoregion, which constitutes the eastern quarter of the state. The refuges are also located in 

one of the priority biologically unique landscapes identified in the report simply as the Missouri 

River Landscape. There are 11 state listed species in the Missouri River Corridor, six of which 

are federally listed. Nineteen Tier I at-risk species are documented in this landscape (see 

Threatened and Endangered Species section and Species Lists in appendix B) including five 

birds, five fish, one reptile, one mammal, six mollusks, and one plant (Schneider et al. 2005).

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities

Although every species and habitat are important, there is a subset that requires immediate 

attention for their conservation, protection, and/or recovery. At the federal level, conservation 

priorities are directed first toward migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish, and those species that 

are nationally threatened or endangered with extinction.

In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act the Service must direct ample 

resources towards its most important functions and responsibilities. In 1997 a group of 

employees and wildlife specialists in the Midwest Region (Region 3) of the Service met to create 

a Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities list. The report, published in January of 

2002, identifies 243 species in the region as resource conservation priorities, along with habitat 

indicators, obstacles, strategies, and desired outcomes (FWS 2002). The report emphasizes the 

use of species as conservation targets over habitats for three primary reasons:
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

• Species are the primary element of biological diversity; they are irreplaceable if 

extirpated.

• Identifying species implies maintaining specific habitats in a way that meets the life cycle 

needs of the target species.

• By assessing multiple species within a single landscape, locations can be identified 

where elements overlap and the most essential habitats occur.

The list of Region 3 species of conservation concern with ranges that overlap with DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges includes the massasauga rattlesnake, pallid sturgeon, shovelnose 

sturgeon, paddlefish, plains minnow, western silvery minnow, blue sucker, logperch, flathead 

chub, ottoe skipper, and western prairie fringed orchid. Regional conservation priorities for birds 

from the 2002 publication were updated in 2008 (FWS 2008a). Based on the updated list, the 

bird species of conservation concern whose ranges overlap with the refuges now includes the 

following 22 species: Swainson's Hawk, Bald Eagle, Least Bittern, Dickcissel, Black-billed 

Cuckoo, Henslow’s Sparrow, Nelson's Sparrow, Chestnut-collared Longspur, Smith's Longspur, 

Peregrine Falcon, Rusty Blackbird, Loggerhead Shrike, Black Tern, Cerulean Warbler, Redheaded Woodpecker, Pied-billed Grebe, Upland Sandpiper, Hudsonian Godwit, Solitary 

Sandpiper, Short-eared Owl, Wood Thrush, and Bell's Vireo.

Double-crested Cormorants, bighead carp, and grass carp are also listed but are considered 

nuisance species. 

Conservation Lands in the Vicinity of the Refuges

Much of the land conservation in the United States occurs on lands owned and managed by 

federal and state agencies in trust for the American public. Nationally, the states of the central 

plains have the lowest percentages of publicly-owned land. Nebraska ranks 41st of 50 states for 

federal ownership at 1.10 percent, and 44th for state ownership at 0.50 percent (National 

Wilderness Institute [NWI] 1995). Similarly in Iowa, 0.29 percent is federally owned (47th lowest 

of the 50 states), and 0.74 percent is state owned (41st of 50) (NWI 1995). A number of

conservation land-holdings in the region surrounding the refuges are owned and managed by 

county and city governments as well as private organizations (figure 2-7).

All of the authorized land within DeSoto NWR’s boundary has been acquired by the Service, 

and of the authorized 10,010-acre boundary for Boyer Chute NWR, 4,040 acres are owned and 

managed by the Service. As noted in figure 2-1, also within the authorized boundary for Boyer 

Chute NWR is a 440-acre tract owned by the Nebraska Board of Educational Lands and leased 

for agricultural use, as well as a 77-acre tract on the east side of the Missouri River held by the 

Iowa DNR as Boyer Bend Wildlife Management Area (WMA). Boyer Bend WMA is open to deer 

hunting and can only be publicly accessed by boat.

Two WMAs managed by the Iowa DNR share a common boundary with DeSoto NWR. To the 

east is Nobles Lake WMA, a 236-acre property that is half wetland and half upland with an 

access road and boat launch. To the west is Rand Bar WMA, 65 acres of bottomland forest 

only accessible by its frontage on the Missouri River.

Directly between DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges is the 423-acre Iowa DNR property, Wilson 

Island State Recreation Area. It is dominated by dense cottonwood forest, and camping, 

hunting, fishing, and mushroom gathering are all popular activities.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

As for conservation areas adjacent 

to Boyer Chute NWR, on the 

western edge of the refuge is the 

Fort Atkinson State Historical Park. 

This 157-acre park is the site of one 

of the first American forts built west 

of the Missouri River. Even before 

construction and use of the fort 

(1820–1827), this location was a 

common meeting place for Native 

American tribes, fur traders, and 

soldiers. Managed by the Nebraska 

Game and Parks Commission, the 

park showcases a historic military 

fort and the site known as “Council 

Bluff” where the Lewis and Clark 

Expedition first met with local Native 

Americans. On the southern border 

of Boyer Chute NWR's authorized 

boundary is the Neal Woods Nature Preserve. This 554-acre property is privately owned and 

managed by the Fontenelle Nature Association and offers 9 miles of hiking trails through forests 

and prairies, environmental education programming, and a nature center.

An examination of the broader region surrounding the refuges reveals a number of additional 

conservation lands owned and managed by a diversity of conservation entities (figure 2-7). As 

figure 2-7 indicates, several conservation areas are located directly along the banks of the 

Missouri River. The vast majority are state WMAs, but there are a few private conservation 

lands, as well as a number of city parks in Omaha, Nebraska; Council Bluffs, Iowa; and Blair, 

Nebraska. Farther from the Missouri River there are a handful of small county conservation 

lands in Iowa. The largest of these is the 1,003-acre Hitchcock Nature Preserve—considered 

one of the best places to observe fall raptor migrations in the region. Twenty-five miles north of 

the refuge in Iowa are the four units of the 11,266-acre Loess Hills State Forest. The state 

forest is administered by the Iowa DNR’s Bureau of Forestry. Activities include hiking, 

backpacking, picnicking, camping, and hunting. It features an observation platform with 

panoramic views of the Loess Hills landscape. Three larger military installations are located to 

the south and southwest of the refuge. Although natural resource conservation is not the 

primary purpose for these lands, they often have divisions and programs that address wildlife 

and habitat conservation.

Fort Atkinson adjacent to the refuge; USFWS
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

Figure 2-7: Conservation Lands in the Area of the Refuges
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

The Refuge Planning Process

This section provides an overview of the refuge planning process as it relates to DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges by defining the purpose of a CCP, describing the planning process 

undertaken for these refuges, identifying and clarifying the major management issues 

considered during the planning process, explaining how this CCP relates to subsequent sitespecific planning efforts, and presenting the options for revising plans. 

Purpose of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan

This CCP describes the management direction and desired future conditions for DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges over the next 15 years. The plan provides guidance and rationale for 

management actions and will be used by the refuge manager and staff as a reference document 

when developing work plans and making management decisions. Through the development of 

goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP describes how the refuges contribute to the overall

mission of the Refuge System, fulfill the purposes designated for each refuge, and use the best 

available science for adaptive management.

This plan enhances the management of DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges by:

• Providing a clear statement of desired conditions and management direction for the 

refuges.

• Maintaining continuity in management of the refuges over time.

• Integrating activities at the refuges with conservation activities that occur in the 

surrounding region.

• Ensuring that management of the refuges is consistent with all applicable laws, policies, 

and plans.

• Providing neighbors, visitors, and the general public with an understanding of the 

Service’s management actions on and around the refuges.

• Facilitating public involvement in management decisions for the refuges by providing a 

process for effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with affected parties, 

including federal agencies, state conservation organizations, adjacent landowners, and 

interested members of the public.

• Demonstrating support for management decisions and their rationales using the best 

available science, sound professional judgment, and public involvement.

• Ensuring that management and planning at the refuges considers the preservation of 

historic properties.

• Providing a sound basis for budget requests to meet operational, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs on the refuges.

The 2001 DeSoto CCP

Current management of DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge is guided by a comprehensive 

conservation plan that was begun in July 1999 and received final approval in January 2001

(FWS 2001). A revision of the 2001 CCP was prompted by the catastrophic flooding in 2011
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

and by a desire to more efficiently integrate management of DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges. 

The 2001 DeSoto NWR CCP contained 25 goals, 43 objectives, and 212 strategies and called 

for an addition of 7.75 full-time equivalent positions. Habitat was to shift slowly away from 

agriculture to a diversity of natural cover types that would better support wildlife (table 2-4).

Table 2-4: Future Land Cover Projected by the DeSoto 2001 CCP

Habitat Acres in 2001 Approximate acres 

projected for 2015

Woodlands 3,345 3,700

Grasslands 1,642 2,780

DeSoto Lake 788 788

Croplands 1,989 475

Wetlands 101 115

Sandbar/Beach 40 40

TOTAL 7,905 7,898

Highlights from the goals, objectives, and strategies of the 2001 CCP include the following:

• Increased and enhanced habitats friendly to migratory waterfowl to increase use days

• Reduction of the midcontinental Snow Goose population

• Increased cottonwood recruitment

• Studies of potential management options for DeSoto Lake

• Maintenance of the DeSoto Lake sport fishery

• Increased land conservation adjacent to the refuge

• Increased off-refuge wetland restoration

• Reduction of invasive species

• Control of the resident deer herd

• Upgraded facilities at the Steamboat Bertrand Discovery Site

• Encouragement of wildlife observation and photography

• A robust environmental education program in local schools

• Maintenance of the Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection

• Additional law enforcement and higher safety standards

• More visitation, volunteerism, partnerships, and collaborative research

• High quality interpretation of the FWS mission, the Lower Missouri River ecosystem, the 

Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection, and the Lewis and Clark history in the area

Overview of the Planning Process

Developing a CCP takes multiple years and involves a great deal of refuge staff effort and 

regional office support. For organizational simplicity, the planning process is divided into five 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

stages: (1) preplanning, (2) scoping, (3) alternative development, (4) draft preparation and 

review, and (5) final document preparation and approval.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife 

Refuges was also developed with contributions and assistance from many state and federal 

partners, NGOs, universities, and citizens (see appendices H and I). The active participation of 

stakeholders was vital to understanding the full range of perspectives and values associated the 

refuges, and the contributions of these entities was invaluable in determining the future direction 

of the refuges’ management.

Preplanning

Preplanning occurs before the formal planning period begins. During preplanning, policy is 

reviewed, the core planning team is established, a planning record is created, interest groups 

are identified, and an initial planning timeline is drafted. Studies, reports, surveys, research and 

monitoring activities, previous planning efforts, historical documents, and other background 

information and data resources are also gathered and reviewed during this period.

The planning process began independently for Boyer Chute NWR during the summer of 2010,

and planning progressed until the following summer at which time priorities shifted to the 2011 

Missouri River flood response. In September of 2011, it was decided to start the planning 

process over from the beginning—this time combining the planning effort for DeSoto and Boyer 

Chute Refuges. By default the initial Boyer Chute NWR CCP planning period became an

extended preplanning stage for the new combined EA and CCP.

This CCP planning effort for DeSoto NWR constitutes the first CCP revision effort undertaken by 

the Midwest Region of the Service. The 2001 DeSoto NWR CCP and any associated

monitoring or implementation tracking of the original CCP can therefore also be considered a 

form of preplanning for this revised CCP.

Scoping of Planning Issues

The official planning period begins with the scoping process—a thorough assessment of 

thoughts, ideas, concerns, challenges, opportunities, and other issues associated with the 

refuges. The scoping process begins by soliciting input from the refuges’ staff, then 

stakeholders and the public, and finally leadership within the Service.

The first step, a CCP kick-off meeting, was held at DeSoto NWR at the end of November 2011. 

Refuge and regional planning staff met to discuss the refuges’ vision statement and goals,

brainstorm issues, and review the planning process.

The next step is for the planning team to engage stakeholders including federal and state 

agencies, tribal governments, local communities, non-government organizations, academic 

institutions, neighbors, and others interested in the future of the refuges in identifying the issues 

and opportunities they see confronting the refuges. Although input, feedback, and comments

are encouraged throughout the entire planning process, the official public scoping period is the 

best time for stakeholders to engage in the planning process.

For DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges, the formal comment period began on January 23, 2012

and ended on February 24, 2012. As a part of this comment period two open houses were held

to provide the public a forum to discuss ideas with refuge staff and regional planners. The first 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

open house was held at DeSoto NWR’s Visitor Center on February 15 and the second at the 

Fort Calhoun City Hall Library on February 16. Nearly forty people signed in during the open 

houses, and a total of eleven written comments were submitted to refuge staff during the public 

scoping period.

The final stage of scoping took place at the Service’s Midwest regional office, where leaders 

from the Refuge System, Migratory Birds, Ecological Services, Fisheries, and other Midwest 

Region programs further discussed and refined the list of issues that would be addressed in the 

CCP. This internal scoping meeting was held on March 29, 2012.

The issues discussed during the scoping phase and described in the Planning Issues section 

below helped bring important topics to the attention of the plan’s authors and were used to 

inform the writing of the management alternatives in the environmental assessment (EA) 

document—including the preferred alternative that forms the basis of this CCP.

Alternatives Development

Developing management alternatives as a part of the refuge planning process is derived from 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This act requires federal agencies to 

consider the impacts of proposed actions and to develop a reasonable range of alternatives to 

those actions.

An initial set of management alternatives was developed during the Refuge Review Workshop 

held May 1–2, 2012. The resulting set of draft alternatives was further refined through a series 

of meetings, calls, and follow-up activities. An Alternatives Workshop was held the last week of 

November 2012, which served to define and clarify the details of management under each of 

the alternatives, review and revise draft objectives, and discuss the environmental effects 

associated with each alternative. At this point the proposed action (Alternative D) was selected

by refuges staff and was further developed as the basis for the Draft CCP.

Preparation and Review of Environmental Assessment and Draft Plan

The CCP is published in two phases: draft and final, in accordance with NEPA. The EA and 

Draft CCP document presents the full range of alternatives considered for future management

of the refuges, and the environmental effects associated with each alternative. The EA and 

Draft CCP document also identifies the preferred alternative selected by refuges staff as the 

desired basis for the Final CCP and further describes the goals, objectives, and strategies 

associated with the proposed management direction.

A complete preliminary version of the EA/Draft CCP was completed on May 28, 2013. It was 

then reviewed and revised by refuge and regional office staff in June and July, a time period that 

culminated with an internal review meeting at the Midwest Regional Office on August 1, 2013. 

The EA/Draft CCP was then released for review by the public for a period of 30 days. Public 

review and comment began on September 20, 2013 with the publication of a Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register, a news release made through local media outlets, a

postcard announcement sent to the CCP mailing list, the distribution of an e-mail 

announcement, the delivery of paper copies of the full document to local libraries, and by 

making an electronic copy available on the Service’s website. Due to a federal government 

shutdown from October 1–16, 2013, the public review period was extended an additional three 

weeks until November 8, 2013, and the open houses were rescheduled to November 5 (Fort 

Calhoun) and November 7 (DeSoto NWR). Thirteen people attended the open houses, and a 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

total of eleven comments were submitted to the refuges during public review. The comments 

included topics ranging across refuge habitats and wildlife, management tools (such as 

prescribed fire and chemical use), public access and uses, land conservation and floodplain 

protection, and the planning process. Additional information from the public review and 

comment period is provided in the Response to Comments (appendix K).

Preparation and Review of the Final Plan

A thorough review of the Draft CCP document and proposed management direction was

undertaken, and where appropriate comments received by the Service on the EA/Draft CCP

were incorporated into the final version of the CCP. As with the Draft CCP, the availability of the 

Final CCP was announced with a notice in the Federal Register and through local media outlets, 

a final postcard and/or e-mail announcement was sent to the project mailing list, full copies of 

the document were sent to local libraries, and an electronic copy was made available on the 

Service’s website.

The Final CCP document is the basis for management of the refuges for 15 years. It guides the 

development of more detailed, resource-specific step-down management plans, and underpins

the annual budgeting process through Service-wide allocation databases. Most importantly, it 

lays out the general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and visitor services at DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges, directing day-to-day actions and decision making.

Implementation

Implementation begins immediately following approval of the CCP and public notification of the 

decision. Funding and staff time will be allocated to implement of the CCP as appropriations, 

budgets, and other resources allow.

Step-Down Management Plans

The CCP provides general direction for refuge management over short- and long-term

timeframes. It also begins to describe specific objectives and strategies for the refuges. Stepdown management plans build on the framework provided by the CCP and develop

management concepts in greater detail. This process provides refuge managers and staff the

opportunity to identify specific implementation actions that will be carried out to meet the 

requirements of the CCP. It is common for refuges to revise or develop step-down 

management plans following the completion of the CCP. A number of step-down management 

plans may be undertaken depending on the resources of a refuge and management needs. 

Current Service direction recommends the development of at least three step-down 

management plans during the 15 years covered by a CCP, including the Habitat Management 

Plan, Inventory and Monitoring Plan, and Visitor Services Plan.

Plan Review, Amendment, and Revision

While CCPs are designed to provide guidance for refuge management over a 15-year period, 

planning policy also indicates that plans should be reviewed regularly. Service policy calls for 

an annual review of CCPs and modification when notable events or new information determine 

that change is necessary in order to achieve the refuge purposes, vision, and goals. 

Specifically, the policy calls for revision, “. . . when significant new information becomes 

available, ecological conditions change, major refuge expansion occurs, or when we identify the 
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

need to do so during plan review” (602 FW 3(8)b). This policy offers an opportunity for adaptive 

management and may result in CCP amendments or minor, major, or complete revisions.

CCP amendments consist of changes to the plan that do not alter the original intent of any part 

of the plan and do not typically require additional NEPA compliance. Examples of amendments 

include changes in the priority or timing of strategies, or the creation of step-down management 

plans that support the original CCP objectives. Minor plan revisions cover small content 

changes that meet the criteria for a categorical exclusion under NEPA in accordance with 550 

FW3.3C. Examples of minor revisions include changes to strategies or an objective’s numerical 

target value. Major or complete plan revisions include changes to content in the goals and 

objectives of the original CCP and require the same procedures and processes used to develop 

the original CCP including an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement 

with alternatives, environmental effects, and public review.

In the case of DeSoto NWR, catastrophic flooding in 2011 caused dramatic changes in refuge 

habitats and visitor services, as well as combining management with Boyer Chute NWR,

prompted a complete CCP revision after 10 years instead of the full 15-year planning cycle.

Planning Issues

A planning issue is any matter that requires a management decision such as an initiative,

opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, 

public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition. Issues arise from both 

within and outside of the Service. The scoping by refuge and regional Service staff, scoping 

among partner agencies, and public scoping identified a number of planning issues, which have 

been organized under the following headings: Habitat Management, DeSoto Lake, Land 

Acquisition, Wildlife, Refuge Administration, Visitor Services and Public Use, Infrastructure, and 

Outreach, Support, and Partnerships.

Habitat Management

Issue Question

What is the best way to manage habitats on the refuges to maximize benefits to wildlife and 

support conservation in the greater Missouri River ecosystem?

Background (Why is it an issue? What are the consequences of not addressing the 

issue?)

The Missouri River once flowed across an expansive floodplain landscape, experienced 

seasonal changes in flow punctuated by surge events and periods of drought, sustained largescale erosion and deposition, and was a constantly evolving mosaic of habitats and 

successional cover types. These processes and the resulting landforms were and remain

important to wildlife associated with the Missouri River system, such as migratory birds and 

riverine fishes. Managing refuge lands in the Missouri River floodplain for habitat conditions that 

reflect historic assemblages and maintain diverse native wildlife populations is challenging,

because the system and its driving landscape processes are dramatically different today than

they were in the past. Considerable changes have occurred to the system over the past century 

due to main stem dams, channelization, and development of the floodplain, including:
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

• Altered seasonal and annual flow regimes

• Decreased erosion, deposition, and sediment loads

• Highly altered surface and subsurface hydrology

• Reduced disturbance frequencies, such as floods and fire

• Diminished habitat succession cycles

• Decreased acres of terrestrial and aquatic habitat (loss of 354,000 acres of floodplain 

habitat and 72 miles of river channel)

• Greater habitat fragmentation

• Reduced habitat heterogeneity

• Reduced habitat quality

• Invasive species impacts on plant and animal communities

• Increased wildlife disturbance

• Changing climatic conditions

Today, the Missouri River floodplain ecosystem is highly engineered and controlled. The 

landscape is now fairly stable and predictable for multiple years with occasional, (typically

minor) flood events. The refuges must work within these constraints to provide habitats that 

continue to benefit diverse and abundant endemic and migratory wildlife populations. The 

consequences of not conserving and managing the refuges and other conservation lands in the 

Missouri River Valley to promote healthy floodplain habitats analogous to historic conditions are

the continued loss and degradation of these unique big river system habitats and a gradual 

reduction in the diversity of species that comprise them.

Associated Planning Priorities

• Maximize adaptive capacity of management and refuge compatibility with flood cycles

• Optimize the quantity and distribution of wetlands, grasslands, and forests for wildlife

• Support the conservation of rare and declining riverine, shallow water, and sandbar 

habitats

• Address the concerns associated with farming on refuges

• Identify and meet critical biotic and abiotic monitoring needs

• Reduce invasive plant species

• Contribute to biological goals within the broader Missouri River landscape

• Maximize anticipation of, and management response to, climate change stresses

DeSoto Lake

Issue Question 

What is the best way to manage DeSoto Lake to maximize benefits to wildlife and people?
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

Background (Why is it an issue? What are the consequences of not addressing the 

issue?)

DeSoto Lake is a prominent and important feature of DeSoto NWR, and its management carries 

implications for habitat, wildlife, recreation, and partnerships. The channelization and armoring 

of the lower third of the Missouri River during the middle of the twentieth century eliminated 72 

miles of the river habitat, including the oxbow cut off in 1960 to create DeSoto Lake. 

Subsequent drainage of Missouri River floodplain for agriculture and other developed uses has 

further reduced the acres of open water, wetland, and a range of aquatic habitats—negatively

impacting to a number of species.

The full range of possible management options for DeSoto Lake has not yet been thoroughly 

explored. For example, it may be possible to change management of the drainage ditches that 

enter the lake, or reestablish some form of connection between the lake and the Missouri River. 

Changes to lake management have the potential to increase and/or improve aquatic habitat for

wildlife. The fishery is also an important consideration of lake management. The degree of 

connectivity between the Missouri River and DeSoto Lake, and the manipulation of lakeassociated wetland habitats will have impacts on the recreational fishery. For example, 

management could maintain an isolated, stocked, open water sport fishery, or move toward a 

more connected, river-influenced fishery.

Future management of the lake must carefully weigh these factors, along with any resulting

management responsibilities. The potential consequences of not exploring the ways to improve 

the management of DeSoto Lake include the continued degradation of lake conditions, water 

quality, and aquatic habitat—providing sub-optimal benefits to wildlife, offering less to visitors in 

the form of fishing and other recreation activities, and requiring excessive management

resources.

Associated Planning Priorities

• Maximize the quality of habitat for fish and other aquatic species 

• Investigate and clarify the options for connectivity between DeSoto Lake and the 

Missouri River channel

• Investigate and clarify management options regarding the drainage ditches that enter the 

lake

• Improve water quality in DeSoto Lake

• Maintain a healthy fishery for anglers

• Minimize resources required for lake management 

• Strengthen partnerships associated with lake management

• Minimize impact to refuge neighbors
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

Land Conservation

Issue Question

What Service footprint will best accomplish the refuges’ land and water conservation goals and 

best supplement Missouri River ecosystem conservation?

Background (Why is it an issue? What are the consequences of not addressing the 

issue?)

As mentioned in the habitat management issue statement, the quantity and quality of habitat in 

the Missouri River ecosystem has been greatly reduced and degraded from that which existed 

in the past. National wildlife refuges on the Lower Missouri River (DeSoto, Boyer Chute, Squaw 

Creek, and Big Muddy NWRs) play an important role in providing the habitat required to sustain

wildlife populations in the Missouri River ecosystem. The refuges’ overarching goal is to

leverage their resources to make the greatest possible contribution to wildlife, habitat, and 

people. Identifying and safeguarding lands and waters that provide essential natural resource 

and conservation values is a key component of this goal. Two aspects of this goal relevant to 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges include: (1) fully acquiring the Refuge System priority lands

currently authorized by Congress at Boyer Chute NWR, and (2) identifying ways to increase 

conservation in the ecosystem through a diversity of public and private efforts.

First of all, the lands and waters encompassing the authorized boundary of Boyer Chute NWR 

have been considered a high conservation priority for over 20 years, but land acquisition has 

been stymied by a lack of funding and willing sellers. It remains a long-term priority to acquire 

and restore the 5,309 acres (53 percent) of Boyer Chute NWR’s authorized boundary that are

still privately-owned and used for agriculture (this total excludes the 661 acres of Missouri River 

surface area). The refuge’s existing collection of scattered, isolated parcels make habitat 

management less efficient, diminish benefits to wildlife, and make law enforcement more 

difficult.

Secondly, the Service is currently engaged with a number of partner agencies and organizations 

vested in Missouri River conservation. Opportunities exist for additional collaborative 

conservation between the Service and its partners in the broader Missouri River basin.

National wildlife refuges have an important role in the regional green infrastructure. They not 

only protect wildlife and habitat but help sustain essential ecosystem services for people. Within 

the larger regional context, the planning process can help the refuges review the best 

configuration of protected lands for wildlife, the conservation priority associated with existing 

habitats, the best way to consolidate fragmented landholdings, the most appropriate land 

protection strategies, and the strategic implementation of land conservation activities.

The consequences of inaction are fragmented landholdings that make it difficult to meet refuge

wildlife and habitat objectives as well as broader conservation goals in the Missouri River 

ecosystem.

Associated Planning Priorities

• Acquire priority inholdings at Boyer Chute NWR
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

• Evaluate ways to improve conservation capacity for units of the Refuge System

associated with the Missouri River ecosystem

• Support partners and the public in local and regional land and water conservation efforts

Wildlife

Issue Question 

How can the refuges have the greatest beneficial impact on wildlife in the Missouri River 

ecosystem?

Background (Why is it an issue? What are the consequences of not addressing the 

issue?)

The quantity and quality of wildlife habitats in the Missouri River ecosystem have decreased 

greatly in the past century, and as a result, a number of species populations associated with the 

ecosystem have declined. The overarching mission of biological conservation in the Refuge 

System is to maintain the diversity of species and habitats; however, the resources available to 

accomplish this mission are limited. It is a challenging responsibility for the refuges to set

priorities among species of conservation concern and respond with appropriate management 

applications. Invasive species also impact refuge wildlife management decisions. Local 

conservation efforts are enhanced by an understanding of fish and wildlife conservation 

priorities at a broader, ecosystem scale, which can then be stepped down to individual refuges.

Another important step in providing

direction for refuge wildlife 

management is having appropriate

biological inventories and monitoring 

activities, which help managers

understand and adapt management. 

Unfortunately, the resources required 

for these activities are not always 

available. In addition, the science that 

informs wildlife management decisions 

evolves over time, with new and 

improved insights discovered for 

achieving conservation successes. 

Keeping up with the changing state of 

science can be challenging, especially 

with the added uncertainty associated 

with climate change.

If wildlife objectives are not set to effectively meet wildlife needs in the ecosystem, the result will

be the continued decline and eventual loss of certain species as well as the loss of relevance 

and value for DeSoto NWR, Boyer Chute NWR, and other conservation lands in the Missouri 

River ecosystem.

Wildlife management; Randy Mays
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

Associated Planning Priorities

• Maximize support for species of conservation concern

• Maximize the refuges’ contribution to population objectives for target species

• Maximize benefits to migratory bird species (a refuge purpose for DeSoto NWR)

• Reduce invasive plant and animal species

• Maximize anticipation of, and management response to, climate change stresses on 

wildlife in the Missouri River ecosystem

Refuge Administration

Issue Question

In what ways can the administration of the refuges be improved?

Background (Why is it an issue? What are the consequences of not addressing the 

issue?)

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges were created independently, and their biological and visitor 

services management programs developed separately. Over time independent management 

led to a natural degree of redundancy or overlap as both refuges sought to meet infrastructure, 

equipment, staff, and program needs. In 2006 when full management of Boyer Chute NWR was 

passed to DeSoto NWR few immediate changes were made, but in response to the damage 

caused by severe flooding in 2011 efforts have been taken to integrate and streamline

resources shared by the two refuges.

In addition to management redundancies, the agency budget is also an important consideration 

for administration. Service budgets are in a constant state of flux due to an annual allocation

system and regular political turnover. The current decreasing trend in Service-wide allocations

has further reinforced the need to increase management efficiencies. Not reviewing and 

streamlining administration of the refuges would be wasteful of refuge and Service resources, 

reduce funds available to other refuge programs, place an unnecessarily burden on the 

workload of refuges staff, and make understanding of, and compliance with, refuge 

management more difficult for visitors and the public.

Associated Planning Priorities

• Increase management efficiencies

• Increase management consistency between the refuges

• Consider changes in visitor fees to balance management needs and visitor satisfaction

• Optimize hours of operation to balance management constraints with visitor satisfaction

• Address law enforcement needs
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

Visitor Services and Public Use

Issue Question

How can the refuges direct resources to provide the best visitor services possible while 

adhering to capability standards for such uses (given wildlife as the Service’s first and highest 

priority)?

Background (Why is it an issue? What are the consequences of not addressing the 

issue?)

Service staff, local and state governments, conservation partners, and the public have long 

recognized the need for additional recreation opportunities along the Missouri River. There is a 

great demand for outdoor recreation opportunities from local towns and cities along the Missouri 

River, including the nearly 850,000 people in the Greater Omaha–Council Bluffs Metropolitan 

Area. The degree to which the refuges can help meet this need is influenced by a number of 

constraints.

First and foremost, maintaining infrastructure in a floodplain setting is risky, challenging, and 

oftentimes expensive. Secondly, the refuges have limited funds, time, and staff to meet the 

public demand. And finally, the FWS mission clearly establishes a priority for the conservation, 

protection, and enhancement of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats on national wildlife 

refuges over all other uses.

Because the refuges are on the fringe of a major metropolitan area, open space in the 

surrounding landscape will likely decrease in the future. Public lands will likely experience

increased use, encounter demands for new and different types of uses, greet more diverse 

publics, and experience changes in the age structure and other demographics of visitors. 

Understanding and adapting to these trends are important for the refuges as management

seeks to balance natural resource conservation with future visitor use.

The NWRS Mission demands that recreation be carefully balanced with wildlife and habitat 

priorities. Flooding in 2011 forced a review and evaluation of the existing visitor services 

infrastructure at the refuges. A number of socioeconomic factors are being considered as 

refuge staff assess current and future public access, public use, visitor services, infrastructure, 

and environmental interpretation. The decision making will hinge on four key factors: (1) the 

management direction of the biological program, (2) the design for joint management of DeSoto

and Boyer Chute Refuges, (3) personnel resources available for programming, law 

enforcement, and maintenance, and (4) Service policies regarding the appropriateness and 

compatibility of public uses.

To offer appropriate visitor services opportunities on the refuges, staff must continually review, 

evaluate, and make improvements to the visitor services program. Effective adaptive 

management will allow the refuges to make the greatest contribution to public health and 

wellness, avoid unacceptable impacts to refuge habitats and wildlife, reduce safety concerns,

minimize the management burden on refuge staff, and ultimately retain relevancy, advocacy,

and public support.
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

Associated Planning Priorities

• Continue curatorship of the Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection and integrated

interpretation of the Discovery Site

• Maximize public access to refuge lands and waters within the constraints established for

wildlife conservation

• Optimize consumptive uses (hunting, fishing, and gathering) on the refuges to avoid 

overharvest

• Promote the highest quality environmental education and interpretation programs

• Maximize safety

• Support appropriate use of refuge management resources (time, money, personnel)

Infrastructure

Issue Question

What is the best configuration of refuge infrastructure for both administration and visitor use?

Background (Why is it an issue? What are the consequences of not addressing the 

issue?)

Four main factors have contributed to the need to review and evaluate refuge infrastructure in 

the planning process: (1) shared management of the refuges, (2) a history of high infrastructure 

development on the refuges, (3) flood constraints, and (4) budgetary constraints.

As described in the issue “Refuge Administration,” the two refuges came into being 

independently, and a large amount of public infrastructure was initially developed on each 

refuge to meet the anticipated recreation demands of local communities and the Omaha–

Council Bluffs Metro Area.

In addition to considerations born of the new shared management, flooding and budgets have 

also led refuge management to reevaluate infrastructure on the refuges. Broad-scale flooding in

2011 damaged (and in some cases completely destroyed) infrastructure, requiring immediate 

and long-term decisions about what to reconstruct, what to remove, and the general constraints

of building on a floodplain—even one as highly regulated as the Missouri River.

In addition, management continually seeks better ways to utilize the financial and staff 

resources at a field station. Changes are made when infrastructure is deemed inadequate, 

excessive, expensive, and/or maintenance-prone. The general consequence of not evaluating 

refuge infrastructure during planning is an unnecessary drain on refuge time, money, and 

personnel resources.

Associated Planning Priorities

• Ensure quality maintenance of infrastructure

• Maximize flood compatibility
Chapter 2: Refuge Planning Context

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

• Where appropriate, provide flood resistance instead of flood compatibility

• Where possible, reduce excess infrastructure to increase efficiencies and reduce 

overhead

Outreach, Support, and Partnerships

Issue Question

How can the refuges bolster their relationships with partners, visitors, and other constituents?

Background (Why is it an issue? What are the consequences of not addressing the 

issue?)

Refuges do not exist in a void. They are public lands that require: (1) public and private support 

to accomplish conservation goals, (2) interaction with constituents to remain relevant, and (3) 

advocacy to persist. First of all, healthy relationship networks create a multiplier effect by 

leveraging the resources and efforts of multiple sources toward achieving conservation 

successes. Because the Service cannot accomplish its conservation goals alone, conservation 

values must be shared by partners, local communities, refuge neighbors, visitors, and the 

public. Secondly, the general public understanding varies greatly regarding the mission and 

purposes of national wildlife refuges, how they differ from other public lands, and how refuges 

can benefit the natural, social, and economic health of local communities. The need for outreach 

and education about the Refuge System is ongoing and essential to the FWS mission. 

Similarly, refuges must remain engaged with the communities and public they serve to 

understand their expectations as demographics and cultural values change over time.

A similar lack of public understanding exists regarding the ecological functions of big river 

systems like the Missouri. Conservation values such as flood relief and water table 

replenishment are generally less understood than economic uses such as agricultural 

production and industrial use. There is a long-standing need to improve public understanding of 

the floodplain’s value to both natural and human systems.

The consequences of not building and maintaining strong relationships and support include a 

reduced capacity to achieve our mission; a reduced public appreciation of the unique wildlife, 

habitats, and ecosystems conserved by refuges; limited public advocacy or support; and 

ultimately the deterioration in the value of land conservation.

Associated Planning Priorities

• Increase public understanding of, and appreciation for, the refuges and the Refuge 

System

• Increase public appreciation and understanding of the Missouri River ecosystem

• Increase support for the refuges

• Increase interaction with Omaha–Council Bluffs and local communities

• Increase engagement in partnerships on the Missouri River

• Strengthen relationships with refuge neighbors
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current 

Management

In this chapter:

Introduction

Geographic Setting

Physical Environment

Habitat

Wildlife

People

Introduction

This chapter first describes the geographic setting for DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife 

Refuges (NWRs, refuges), and then introduces the diversity of resources associated with the 

refuges under four broad categories: physical environment, habitat, wildlife, and people. A

general description of the resource and the current refuge management of that resource are 

provided for each topic. The description of current management provides a reference for the 

management direction and values leading up to the development of the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP).

Geographic Setting

Refuge Sketch and Local Context

A description of each refuge is provided separately below as well as a section on easements 

administered by the refuges. 

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

DeSoto NWR was established in 1958 and is located approximately 15 miles north of Omaha, 

Nebraska in Washington County, Nebraska and Harrison and Pottawattamie Counties, Iowa 

(figure 3-1). It lies midway between the towns of Missouri Valley, Iowa and Blair, Nebraska and 

straddles just over three river miles (641.1 through 644.7) of the Missouri River. For ease of 

reference and discussion in this CCP, portions of the refuges have been divided into 

management units and a naming convention applied as depicted in figure 3-2.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

Figure 3-1: Regional Location of the Refuges
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

Figure 3-2: Refuge Management Units
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

Comprised of approximately 8,365 acres, DeSoto NWR is situated entirely within the historic 

floodplain of the Missouri River resulting in essentially flat topography and elevations ranging 

from 987 to 1,014 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Although the majority of the refuge is now 

protected from the river by a levee, DeSoto NWR’s landforms, soils, and oxbow lake are all a 

direct result of the natural fluvial processes of meandering, deposition, and scouring carried out 

by the Missouri River for countless millennia. The oxbow bend that created DeSoto Lake began 

as a slight curve in the river and grew steadily larger over time as the outside of the river 

channel was eroded and undercut by the stronger outer current, and deposition occurred on the 

inside of the curve where the current is weaker. DeSoto–Bertrand Bend was well on its way to 

cutting itself off from the main channel and forming an oxbow lake, when in 1959–1960 the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, Corps) excavated a cutoff channel and constructed levees 

from the dredge spoil to separate the new 7.5-mile DeSoto Lake from the primary channel of the 

Missouri River.

About half of the land comprising the refuge was cleared for agriculture in the 1940s and 1950s 

prior to refuge establishment. In 1958 when DeSoto NWR was established, its primary purpose 

was to provide for the needs of migratory birds (see Refuge Purposes in chapter 2). Early 

management emphasized providing sanctuary and food for migratory waterfowl by raising crops 

on refuge land through cooperative agreements with local farmers. In addition, 350 forested 

acres on the center island were cleared of trees, and shorelines were opened up to attract more 

geese. The refuge farming program has been slowly reduced since the 1970s in favor of native 

habitats such as wetlands, grasslands, and bottomland forests. DeSoto NWR remains an 

important stopover for migratory waterfowl during their spring and fall migration between the 

Arctic nesting grounds and the Gulf Coast wintering areas. A variety of ducks and geese 

migrate through the area; records show that in some years as many as 500,000 birds stop at 

the refuge to rest. Also, mature cottonwood gallery forest on the refuge is an important habitat 

for migratory raptors; records show that over 280 Bald Eagles have been seen on the refuge

during the winter months. The natural regeneration of these bottomland forests has declined 

substantially since the 1950s with the reduction of natural flood cycles.

DeSoto offers a number of wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities including hunting, fishing, 

and wildlife observation. The refuge also has an outstanding environmental education program

that emphasizes partnerships with local schools, is based on local curricula, and offers students 

successive opportunities to visit and learn. DeSoto NWR is nationally renowned for its 

archaeological museum collection and associated cultural history interpretation. The number of 

visitors has always been high at the refuge, averaging just under 200,000 in the 1960s, nearly 

350,000 in the 1970s, almost 400,000 in the 1980s, and just shy of 300,000 in the 1990s. In the 

2000s the number of visitors has averaged just under 250,000 annually. Changes in visitation 

over the decades have been attributed to changes in compatible public uses, the establishment 

of fees, occasional flood events, and fluctuations in wildlife populations.

Due to the historically dynamic nature of the Missouri floodplain, little early archeological 

evidence has been discovered on the refuges. The earliest known historical records are from 

the European colonization time period, including those of Native Americans, explorers, trappers, 

and frontier settlements in the area. Lewis and Clark are believed to have camped overnight on 

or near DeSoto NWR on August 3, 1804. Their stay in the area also includes the famous 

“Council Bluff” meeting with the Native Americans held only a few miles to the southwest of the 

refuge (just west of Boyer Chute NWR). A unique and popular facet of DeSoto NWR’s history is 

the story of the Steamboat Bertrand. In April of 1865 the Bertrand cargo vessel was heading up 

the Missouri River from St. Louis to the goldfields of the Montana Territory when it hit a partially 

submerged snag on the DeSoto Bend and sank. The ship remained lost and buried for 103 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

years until two Omaha salvors rediscovered the steamboat’s hull and cargo in 1968 under 28 

feet of earth. The time-capsuled cargo of over 200,000 items was carefully excavated and

preserved and has been housed since 1981 in the refuge’s Visitor Center as one of the Nation’s 

premier collections of Civil War-era artifacts.

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Boyer Chute NWR was authorized in 1992 in an ongoing effort to recover, restore, and 

safeguard fish and wildlife habitat along the Missouri River corridor. The refuge is located just

east of the farming community of Fort Calhoun, Nebraska and 15 miles north of Omaha, 

Nebraska. The authorized boundary resides along an eight-mile stretch of the Missouri River 

(river miles 631.8 to 640.2) in the wide, fertile floodplain of the Missouri River Valley on former 

river meanders in Pottawattamie County, Iowa and Washington County, Nebraska (figure 3-1).

By comparison to other national wildlife refuges, Boyer Chute NWR is a relatively new and a 

relatively small refuge, having existed for 20 years and incorporating just over 4,000 acres of 

managed land. Its combined acreage of separated units equates to approximately 40 percent of 

the total proposed acquisition boundary. The fragmented land status combined with a passive 

and gradual process of land acquisition poses challenges for management.

Boyer Chute NWR conserves a number of landscape features unique to large river systems 

including chutes, backwaters, side channels, islands, pools, sloughs, and sandbars as well as 

floodplain wetlands, prairies, shrublands, and forests. To every extent possible, management 

efforts on the refuge seek to restore or rehabilitate habitats and landforms that have been 

virtually erased by a century and a half of human-induced change in the Missouri River valley. 

Riverine, wetland, woodland, and grassland habitats are managed to provide habitat for a 

number of species, including three federally threatened or endangered species. Located on the 

edge of the central flyway, the refuge serves as a seasonal resting area for waterfowl and is a 

nesting area for a variety of migratory grassland, wet meadow, and wetland-dependent birds. It 

is also the year round home for many resident wildlife species. Refuge backwaters provide 

spawning, nursery, and food production areas; while the rivers, chutes, and side channels 

provide habitat for numerous aquatic species including the endangered pallid sturgeon. Boyer 

Chute NWR has documented over 200 bird species, 35 mammal species, 30 reptile species, 10 

amphibian species, and over 60 fish species. Appendix B contains these and other species 

lists.

The refuge also provides unique opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation along the 

Missouri River to approximately 25,000 visitors each year. The refuge offers activities such as 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, and fishing 

and hunting to the small communities near the refuge as well as to the Greater Omaha–Council 

Bluffs Metropolitan Area.

Other Units Administered: Conservation Easements

The 1985 Farm Bill’s “Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act” contained provisions for 

the protection of wetlands against conversion to agriculture. The Farmers Home Administration

(FmHA) was given authority for the Farm Debt Restructure and Conservation Set-Aside Act’s 

conservation easements—properties foreclosed on by the federal government, otherwise known 

as “inventory properties.” Lands appropriate for the conservation easement program had 

important natural resource interests such as wetlands, floodplains, riparian corridors, 

endangered species habitat, and the uplands necessary to protect bottomland habitats. An 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

agreement between the FmHA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service)

authorized the Service to be the easement manager and to protect these lands for conservation, 

recreational, and wildlife purposes. The “Service Easement Manual” (U.S. Department of the 

Interior 2005) states that, “The agreed upon purposes of this easement are the preservation and 

maintenance of the wetland and floodplain areas existing as of the date of this conveyance as 

well as protection and enhancement of plant and animal habitat and populations.” Farm Service 

Agency (FSA; previously known as FmHA) easements are administered by the Service as part 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) pursuant to the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et. seq.), and thus they are 

subject to compatibility regulations and other relevant Refuge System policy.

DeSoto NWR has jurisdiction over the FSA easements in 23 western Iowa counties (figure 3-3). 

Within these counties, the refuge is responsible for the oversight and management of seven

easement properties with a combined total of 177 acres.

Figure 3-3: Farm Service Agency Easements Administered by DeSoto NWR

The Service is authorized to protect and manage important natural resource interests on FSA 

easement properties. Ownership of the easement land is typically retained by private individuals 

but with deed restrictions related to conservation management. Because of the high degree of 

variability between individual FSA easements, review of the easement files is necessary in 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

evaluating Service-related management actions and enforcement activities. In general, service 

employees are responsible for habitat management and are granted access for maintenance, 

monitoring, enforcement, and other necessary management activities. The Service Easement 

Manual describes management rights as those that:

“. . . include, but are not limited to, inspection for compliance with the terms of this 

easement; research regarding water, wetlands, fish and wildlife and associated ecology; 

and any other activity consistent with the preservation and enhancement of wetland 

functional values (DOI 2005).”

There is no public access to these easement properties unless explicitly stated in an individual 

easement document. According to policy, FSA conservation easements are checked annually 

using aerial or ground surveys for compliance, including boundary signs, trespass, and various 

other infractions.

Ecosystem Setting

Ecoregional Context (Omernik/EPA)

North America has been classified into ecological units of varying scales using a number of 

different hierarchical systems. The different systems all use biotic and abiotic criteria to 

delineate areas of geographic similarity, with the intention of providing a framework for research 

and management of natural systems. Factors such as geology, vegetation, climate, soils, 

hydrology, land use, and wildlife are used in a system originally devised by James Omernik 

(Omernik 1987, 1995), and which was subsequently adopted, adapted, and further refined by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Western Ecology Division (EPA 2000). 

Understanding a refuge’s context within the broader physiographic region provides insights into 

opportunities, challenges, and other management implications.

At the highest of four levels in the Omernik/EPA hierarchy, the North American continent is 

divided into 15 Level I ecoregions that provide a broad continental perspective. Biophysical 

characteristics combined with human-related activities define the geographic dimensions for 

these ecoregions. The refuges are located within the Great Plains (Level I) Ecoregion, which 

paints a wide north-south swath down the center of the continent from north-central Canada to 

northeastern Mexico (figure 3-4). Covering over 1.3 million square miles, the region is 

characterized by minimal topographic relief, predominantly grassland vegetation, and sparse 

tree coverage. Well suited to agriculture, the soils of this region are threatened by reduced 

nutrient levels, increased salinity, and erosion. High winds and periodic severe droughts and 

frosts are also important climatic factors. Biologically, this region was once covered with 

specialized grassland plant and animal communities driven by fire, grazing, and climatic 

conditions. Rainfall increases from west to east across the region, defining the prairie types in 

the past, and defining predominantly agricultural zones today; what existed as short-, mid-, and 

tallgrass prairie zones now correspond with the rangeland, wheat belt, and corn/soy belts that 

now cover this landscape. Wetlands are concentrated in the post-glacial northern Great Plains, 

the Nebraska sandhills, and the seasonal playas of the southern United States. These wetlands 

provide important breeding, staging, and nesting habitat for migratory birds in the central flyway. 

This ecoregion was once able to support vast numbers of migrating mammals; now many of the 

species that once flourished in this ecoregion are vulnerable, rare, threatened, or endangered. 

Widespread conversion of prairies to agricultural production have made this region is one of the 

largest, and most productive farming and ranching areas on earth. In addition to farming, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

mining and oil/gas extraction are important economic activities (Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation 1997, 2011).

Level II of the Omernik/EPA hierarchy contains 52 regions based on 

physiography, wildlife, and land use. They are used to provide a 

national or sub-continental perspective nested within the Level I 

regions. The refuges lie in the Temperate Prairies (Level II) 

Ecoregion, (figure 3-4). This ecoregion is composed of irregular 

plains that were once tallgrass prairie and aspen parkland but are 

now used predominantly for agriculture. Past glaciations have left 

their mark on the terrain leaving moraines and numerous small 

lakes and wetlands. Most areas have calcareous soils; some 

southern areas have a loess substrate.

Level III of the Omernik/EPA hierarchy for North America has 194 

regions, 104 of which are in the continental United States. DeSoto 

and Boyer Chute Refuges are located within the Western Corn 

Belt Plains (Level III) Ecoregion, which extends from southern 

Minnesota through central and western Iowa, eastern Nebraska, 

and the northern corners of Missouri and Kansas (figure 3-4). Hot 

summers and cold winters typify this severe, mid-latitude, humid 

continental climate. The land surface is characterized by level or 

gently rolling glacial till and loess plains covering shales, 

sandstones, and limestones. Mollisols and Alfisols are the 

predominant soils. The growing season typically ranges from 140–

200 days, and precipitation ranges from 24–32 inches per year. 

Once dominated by tallgrass prairie and sparse oak-hickory 

woodlands, the overwhelming majority of the region has now been 

converted to highly productive soy and corn croplands, with some 

rangeland areas. Much of the original hydrology has been modified 

for agriculture, which has contributed to a number of environmental 

concerns, including surface and ground water contamination from 

soil erosion, fertilizer and pesticide applications, as well as livestock 

concentrations (Wiken et al. 2011).

The most site-specific scale in this hierarchy developed to-date is Level IV. The refuges are 

located in the Missouri River Alluvial Plain (Level IV) Ecoregion, which is comprised of the 

large, wide, alluvial valley of the Missouri River bordered by deep loess bluffs that straddles 

Nebraska and Iowa (figure 3-5). This region is distinguishable from adjacent Level IV regions 

because of the consistent, level river plain composed of deep, silty, clayey, and sandy alluvium. 

Extensive cropland has been developed in this region because of the rich soils but is 

constrained by flooding and high water tables. The Missouri River once meandered freely 

across this floodplain-centered region, but it has now been restricted by channelization efforts, 

levees, and dams (Chapman et al. 2001). The floodplain forest and tallgrass prairie native to 

this ecoregion have been extensively replaced by agricultural croplands.

Figure 3-4: Ecological 

Context, EPA Levels I, 

II, and III
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

Figure 3-5: Ecological Context, EPA Level IV

Missouri River Basin

Both refuges lie entirely within the floodplain of the Missouri River Valley on former river 

meanders. The lands that comprise Boyer Chute NWR’s authorized boundary are 

predominantly on the west bank of the current Missouri River channel, whereas the majority of 

DeSoto NWR’s lands are on what is now the east bank (figure 3-6). Both refuges hug the 

western edge of the floodplain, with the south and west boundaries of Boyer Chute NWR 

formed by the bluffs that delimit the edge of the floodplain. The floodplain valley is 

approximately 4 miles wide at the southernmost end of Boyer Chute NWR; it expands to about 7

miles in width between the refuges and grows to nearly 12 miles wide at the northern edge of 

DeSoto NWR. The Missouri River Valley continues to widen north of the refuges.

To understand why DeSoto NWR, Boyer Chute NWR, and other conservation lands in the 

Missouri River Valley merit protection, one must first understand the history of the larger 

Missouri River ecosystem. The Missouri River system is a national resource of substantial

ecological importance with a long history of human interaction and change. As the longest river 

in the United States, the Missouri River drains approximately one-sixth of the U.S. land surface. 

The Missouri River flows 2,341 miles from its headwaters in Montana to the Mississippi River 

confluence in St. Louis, Missouri (figure 3-7). It drops from an elevation of approximately 

14,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at its headwaters in Montana, to 405 feet MSL at its 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

mouth in St. Louis. DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges are at approximately 990 feet above 

MSL. The basin drains an area of 529,350 square miles, overlaps 10 states and one Canadian 

province, and is home to about 10 million people (MRNRC 1998). The lands and waters of the 

basin host abundant and diverse resident wildlife and serve as important stopover sites for great 

numbers of migratory birds in the central flyway.

Broadly speaking, the Missouri River is divided at Sioux City, Iowa—above which semi-natural 

stretches of the river are punctuated by large hydro-electric dams—and below which the 

channel has been engineered for navigation. Only three national wildlife refuges have been 

established on the banks of the channelized third of the river that flows 735 miles between 

Sioux City, Iowa and St. Louis, Missouri. Two of these, DeSoto NWR and Boyer Chute NWR, 

are located side-by-side 15 miles north of the Greater Omaha–Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area, 

or approximately 75 miles downriver from the last large dam. The third is Big Muddy National 

Fish and Wildlife Refuge, in the state of Missouri. The closest Service landholdings to DeSoto 

and Boyer Chute Refuges are a part of the Rainwater Wetland Management District (WMD) 75 

miles to the west, the Iowa WMD 75 miles to the east, Squaw Creek NWR 100 miles downriver, 

and Lake Andes NWR Complex 200 miles upriver.

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges provide sanctuary for wildlife in a vast agricultural landscape. 

The wildlife, habitats, and recreation opportunities associated with this big river system are 

unique and important. The refuges play a role in a much larger effort to rehabilitate the Missouri 

River ecosystem and provide opportunities for the public to increase their understanding and 

appreciation of this ecosystem.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

Figure 3-6: Lower Missouri River Floodplain
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

Figure 3-7: The Missouri River Basin
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

The history of the Missouri River as a part of the United States began when the Missouri River 

Basin was acquired from France on April 30, 1803 as a part of the Louisiana Purchase. The 

first federal exploration of the new territory occurred between 1804 and 1806, led by army 

officers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. Subsequent exploration and navigation of the 

Missouri River included the adventures of John J. Audubon, Prince Maximilian, John C. 

Fremont, and Major Stephen Long. The first steamboat traveled the river in 1819, and the first 

federal improvement of the river began in 1824 with the removal of snags. Between 1820 and 

1837, natural meandering and migration of the river in the area that now contains the presentday refuges moved the main channel three miles eastward from the Fort Calhoun bluffs near 

Fort Atkinson to its present location. Steamboat travel increased on the river and reached its 

peak in the 1880s but was quickly superseded by trains in the 1890s. A series of legislative 

acts followed, greatly changing the system dynamics and use of the Missouri River. The natural 

processes of this river system and the resulting landscape patterns changed dramatically over 

the 20th century as a result of two major anthropogenic factors: dam construction on the upper 

two-thirds of the Missouri River, and channelization on the lower 735 river miles below Sioux 

City, Iowa. The legislation with the greatest impacts on the hydrology and natural resources of 

the system include the following acts (USACE 2006):

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1912: Authorized the Corps to create a six-foot 

navigation channel from St. Louis to Kansas City, Missouri.

The Flood Control Act of 1944: Authorized the development of the main stem of the 

Missouri River by the Corps according to the “Pick-Sloan Plan.” This plan called for a 

complete treatment of the river for flood control, navigation improvement, hydroelectric 

power generation, and the provision of water for irrigation, municipal use, and industry. 

Although not implemented in its entirety, it led to the creation of hundreds of miles of 

levees south of Sioux City, Iowa and six main stem dams above Sioux City. The dam 

construction era started in 1946 with Garrison Dam in North Dakota (excluding the Fort 

Peck Dam, which was completed in 1937, prior to the “Pick-Sloan Plan”) and was 

complete by the mid-1960s. The southernmost main stem dam, Gavins Point, located 

west of Yankton, South Dakota was completed in January of 1957.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945: Authorized the Corps to secure a 9-foot deep by 

300-foot wide navigation channel along the 735 river miles from St. Louis, Missouri, to 

Sioux City, Iowa, as a part of the “Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation 

Project (BSNP).” This navigation channel was officially completed in 1981 and has been 

maintained to the present day.

Before the 20th century, the Missouri River flooded annually on a cycle that included a 

March/April rise caused by rain and melting snow on the Great Plains and then a higher June 

flood pulse when the Missouri River filled with runoff from Rocky Mountain snowmelt. In 

summer and fall the river discharge declined, reaching a low point in late December. Fall rains 

sometimes prompted a slight rise in the river during October or November. This annual cycle of

rising and falling water levels, and the associated sediment flow and deposition within the 

floodplain, once created some of the Nation's most outstanding wetland and bottomland 

habitats.

In accordance with the “Pick-Sloan Plan,” six large dams were constructed on the Missouri 

River reaches in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana. This greatly changed both the flow 

regime of the river and the quantity of sediment transported to downstream reaches (National 

Research Council Panel 2002). Numerous Rivers and Harbors Acts have kept the Corps 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

working to create and maintain a channel that meets minimum navigation requirements for 

barge traffic below Sioux City, Iowa. The dams and channelization have brought with them 

socio-economic benefits such as recreation, power generation, irrigation, transportation, and 

water storage—but at a high cost to the natural resources of the ecosystem. In fact, “American 

Rivers” designated the Missouri River one of the most endangered river systems in the United 

States in 1997. On the landscape, the river’s channelization prompted the construction of 

levees and dikes, the armoring and stabilization of the river’s banks, the dredging of the 

navigation zones, and the confinement of the river to a single, stable channel. On the 

channelized stretches of the river the once broad river floodplain of 1.9 million acres with its 

mosaic of forests, shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands was reduced to a narrow, highly 

engineered, incised river course surrounded by agriculture, residential development, and 

industry. The channelization process eliminated 72 miles of river and nearly 354,000 acres of 

natural habitats, including the sandbar nesting areas required by bird species such as the 

federally endangered Piping Plover and Interior Least Tern. Channelization also virtually 

eliminated the backwater spawning habitat required for fish species such as the federally 

endangered pallid sturgeon. Additionally, these changes eliminated the cottonwood 

regeneration cycles that provide successional riparian forest stages important to raptors and 

passerine birds, and the backwater wetlands that provide food and resting areas for migratory 

birds in the central flyway (National Research Council Panel 2002). The Missouri River 

ecosystem currently hosts at least 60 mammals species, 301 bird species, 52 reptile and 

amphibian species, and 156 fish species (USACE 2006).

Today in terms of river miles, the Missouri River is 35 percent impounded, 32 percent

channelized, and 33 percent unchannelized in inter-reservoir reaches (MRNRC 1998). Over the 

entire course of the Missouri River, forest and shrubland vegetation has declined by 47 percent

since the late 1800s (Dixon et al. 2010). This same study analyzed the river reaches just south 

of Boyer Chute NWR (from Plattsmouth, Nebraska to Kansas City, Missouri) and found 70

percent of the land within a three-mile buffer of the river now in agricultural cropland, 9 percent

forest, 7 percent grassland, 4 percent urban, and found that sandbar habitat had been nearly 

eliminated (Dixon et al. 2010).

Land Cover: Past and Present

Prior to European settlement the Missouri River meandered as a braided, dynamic series of 

channels, sandbars, backwaters, and sloughs across a wide floodplain. Even in the years 

between 1820 and 1890 the river channel migrated 5 miles eastward from the Fort Calhoun, 

Nebraska bluffs to its present location (USACE 1995). It is likely that the refuges were once 

covered by a shifting mosaic of bottomland forests, prairies, wetlands, and successional 

shrublands. The continual migration of the river channel would have removed the forest cover 

and periodically reset the succession cycle. Willows colonized bare islands and sandbars, to be 

succeeded by cottonwoods, which were later replaced by silver maple, box elder, red mulberry, 

and American elm.

Beginning in the late 1800s, lands in the river bottom were cleared for agriculture. This process 

increased in the 1940s and 1950s and is now characterized by agricultural land, altered 

hydrology, and scattered remnants of natural cover types.

Some of the earliest accounts of the vegetation and landscape in the area of the refuges comes 

from the journal entries of historical figures such as Captain Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, 

the Corps of Discovery, and surveyor William N. Byers.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

The following edited excerpts describe the landscape and vegetation Lewis and Clark

encountered from the Council Bluff and surrounding area (adapted from Lewis and Clark et al. 

2002).

July 30, 1804 

We proceeded on to a clear open prairie on the left shore, on a rise of about 70 feet

higher than the bottom, which is also a prairie of high grass, plum bush, grape vine, and 

hazel. Both levels form bluffs to the river. The lower prairie is situated above the high 

water mark at the foot of the rising ground below the high bluff. We came to a small 

grove of timber at the foot of the rising ground between those two prairies.

Captain Lewis and I went up on the high bank and walked a short distance in the high 

prairie and observed the most beautiful prospects imaginable. This prairie is covered 

with grass 10 or 12 inches in height, soil of good quality, and the land rises another 80 or 

90 feet about 1⁄2 a mile back and is a one continual plain as far as can be seen. From 

the bluff on the second rise immediately above our camp is visible a beautiful bottom 

interspersed with groves of timber. The river may be seen for a great distance both 

above and below meandering through the plains between two ranges of high land (70 to 

300 feet), which appear to be from 4 to 20 miles apart, each bend of the river forming a 

point which contains tall timber, principally willow, cottonwood, some mulberry, elm, 

sycamore, and ash. The groves contain walnut, Kentucky coffee tree, and oak and in 

addition, hickory and linden.

August 1, 1804

The prairie, which is situated below our camp is above the high water level and rich, 

covered with grass from 5 to 8 feet high interspersed with copse of hazel, plumbs, 

currents (like those of the U.S.) raspberries, and grapes of different kinds, also 

producing a variety of plants and flowers not common in the United States.

The prairies produce the black currant common in the U.S., the goose berry common in 

the U.S., and two kinds of honeysuckle, one which grows to a kind of shrub common 

about Harrodsburg in Kentucky (coralberry/Indian currant/buck brush), the other is not 

large or tall and bears a flower in clusters short and of a light pink color, the leaves differ 

from any of the other kind in as much as the leaves are distinct and do not surround the 

stalk as all the other does (wolfberry/western snowberry).

August 4, 1804

Proceeded on, passed through between snags, which was quit across the river the 

channel confined within 200 yards, one side a sand point, the other a bend, the banks 

washing away and trees falling in constantly for 1 mile.

In 1856 William N. Byers, the first deputy surveyor of the Nebraska Territory, also gave a 

description of the Cabanne Post area six miles south of Fort Atkinson (just north of present-day 

Dodge Park) near Florence, Nebraska (Jensen 1998).

“Mostly level prairie-rolling . . . soil first and second rate clay and vegetable loam. The 

remainder of the township is mostly hilly & very broken, soil second rate – clayey. A 

good deal of this land is timbered with oak, walnut, elm, linn, ironwood, ash and hickory 

with a dense under growth of some wild plum, hazel, grape vines, & briars. Near the 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

river the land is level and wet, frequently swampy all subject to overflow. The growth is 

willows, cottonwood, grape vines, weeds and soil is first to third rate.”

Congress created the Missouri River Commission in 1884 and charged the five-member group 

with the development of the Missouri River Basin for river commerce, a task they undertook until 

the program ended in 1902. As a part of their charge, the Commission conducted an extensive 

surveying effort of the Missouri River in 1879 and 1894, including land cover and cultural 

features. Within this historical survey archive, the land that includes DeSoto and Boyer Chute 

Refuges is contained in the third of nine index maps, on plate XXIV. This plate shows a wider 

river channel, largely uninterrupted gallery forest of cottonwood and willow, small patches and 

strips of woodlands and forests scattered throughout the river terrace, regular sandbars and 

sand islands throughout the primary river channel, and a number of floodplain drainages and 

off-river wetland/open water areas. At the time of the survey, the main channel of the Missouri 

River coincided with the path of the existing Boyer Chute, and the DeSoto Bend oxbow just 

upstream and was not yet fully developed (figure 3-8).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

Figure 3-8: Historic Land Cover (1894)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

In addition to historic descriptions of the Missouri River landscape, information contained in soil 

surveys can be used to understand vegetation capacity in an area. The soils in a given locality 

are the result of the parent rock material, organisms, climate, and relief as they interact over 

time. These factors and the resulting soils determine, in part, which vegetation communities 

take hold in a geographic locale. Soil survey data collected over the past century by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) includes 

written descriptions of native vegetation, which can be linked to the primary soil unit and 

mapped. Figure 3-9 uses data from the Soil Survey Geographic database to display the 

potential natural vegetation at DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges.

Potential vegetation on DeSoto NWR based on soil data indicate that nearly half (48 percent) of 

the total refuge acreage is suited to mesic tallgrass prairie with little or no woody component. 

Common species include big bluestem, little bluestem, Indiangrass, switchgrass, western 

wheatgrass, sideoats grama, and others. Another 21 percent is wet prairie containing additional 

species such as Kentucky bluegrass, blue grama, and sedges. Just over 10 percent is suited to 

sparse cottonwood, willows, and sandburs. Only 1 percent is considered good forest land that 

might include oak species. The remaining areas of the refuge are either in an open water status 

(13 percent) or considered a undifferentiated bottomland soil with aquatic conditions (6 percent).

For Boyer Chute NWR, the interpretation of vegetation based on soils indicates that the majority 

(77 percent) of the refuge’s soils are typically associated with prairie grass species absent any 

woody vegetation. Most of these prairie areas (82 percent) include a typical mix of tallgrass 

prairie species, while the remainder are considered wet prairies. Approximately 8 percent of the 

soils within the authorized boundary are suitable for a mixture of native grasses, sandburs, 

willows, and cottonwoods. According to this dataset, the remainder of Boyer Chute NWR 

(approximately 15 percent) is comprised of open water, saturated wetland soils, or contains

gravel extraction operations.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

Figure 3-9: Potential Vegetation Based on Soils
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

In 2010 the Corps completed a study comparing the composition, extent, and distribution of 

vegetation in the basin in 1892, the mid-1950s, and 2006. The study sampled 13 segments of 

the river, and only one of these occurred in the unchannelized section of the river below Sioux 

City, Iowa. Although segment 13 from Plattsmouth, Nebraska to Kansas City, Missouri (river 

miles 365.5 to 595.5) does not include the refuges, the development paradigm and land cover 

information are similar. The study indicates that in 2010, 70 percent of the floodplain was 

agricultural cropland, 9 percent forest, 7 percent grassland, and 4 percent urban. Most of the 

transition to agriculture and the decline in floodplain forests occurred before the mid-1950s, 

whereas much of the loss of shrubland (75 percent) and grassland (49 percent) occurred after 

the mid-1950s (Dixon et al. 2010).

A 21-class national land cover dataset developed by the Multi-resolution Land Characteristics 

Consortium using 2001 Landsat imagery was used to understand the geographic distribution of 

land use (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2003). This imagery is medium resolution data with 

30-meter pixels, so features less than 100 feet are generalized. However, across large areas 

this imagery is useful for understanding which parts of the landscape have retained natural 

cover types and which have been developed for human uses. Figure 3-10 shows the resulting 

imagery and depicts land cover emphasizing lands in the Missouri River floodplain. Cropland, 

pasture, and grassland now cover the vast majority of the region. The cities of Omaha and Blair

in Nebraska and Council Bluffs and Missouri Valley in Iowa stand out due to their developed 

cover types. Forests, wetlands, and open water are all relatively minor components. The 

outline of the floodplain is accentuated in the figure by a white transparent mask over nonfloodplain areas, and can also be discerned on the landscape by the abrupt change from the flat 

agriculture lands in the river valley to the mixed forest/grassland cover types on the bluffs.

Close-ups of DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges are included in figure 3-10 to provide additional 

detail for the refuges. The limitation to using this data at a fine scale is fairly clear in the case of 

Boyer Chute NWR. The data does not accurately distinguish grassland areas of the refuge from 

surrounding cultivated cropland; some restored wetlands are also indiscernible. It does, 

however, portray the extent of the riparian forests and woodlands, show the limited coverage of 

successional shrublands, and illustrate the intensity of agricultural development. On DeSoto 

NWR the grasslands and forests are discernible, but few wetlands are visible, and much of the 

West Side Unit is shown as agriculture. Finer resolution and more accurate cover type

assessment of lands owned and managed by the Service within the authorized refuge

boundaries can be found in the Habitat section of this chapter.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

Figure 3-10: National Land Cover Data in the Area of the Refuges
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

Physical Environment

The Physical Environment section describes the abiotic resources associated with the refuges 

including topography, geology, climate, soils, water, and air. These underlying, non-living 

components of an ecosystem provide the stage on which wildlife, habitat, and people interact.

Topography and Geology

Contained entirely within the Missouri River floodplain, the land surface of the two refuges is 

relatively flat, and much of the refuge lands are within the 10-year floodplain level (figure 3-11). 

Elevation on DeSoto NWR ranges from 987 feet (301.1 meters) above MSL in low areas with 

ponds and in areas adjacent to DeSoto Lake, to 1,014 feet (309.2 meters) MSL on levees and 

roads. In Boyer Chute NWR’s authorized boundary, elevations range from 976 feet (297.6 

meters) MSL in lower wetland areas and drainage ditches, to 1,092 feet (332.9 meters) MSL on 

the small south-central points that rise onto the bluff (Jacobson et al. 2007). The elevation data 

show depressional areas of both refuges such as the wetlands on the outer rim of DeSoto Lake 

and Boyer Chute NWR’s Mud Lake and Horseshoe wetland complexes.

The bedrock in the area of the refuges is made up of sedimentary deposits from the Late 

Carboniferous system, Pennsylvanian series, and Missourian stage sedimentary deposits. On 

the Nebraska side of the river, the bedrock is classified into the Kansas City group (Burchett 

1959, 1986). This geologic formation underlies approximately 19 percent of Washington County 

and is located primarily in the southeast corner of the county. The group is made up of 

limestone and shale deposits and has an approximate maximum thickness of 200 feet. The 

limestones range in color from dark to light gray and brownish gray, and range in structure from 

very thin beds to massive, argillaceous and fossiliferous deposits with thin layers of chert, pyrite, 

and mica near the base. The color of the shales varies from shades of gray to greenish gray, 

red, and black and may be slightly sandy, calcareous, carbonaceous, fissile, and fossiliferous. 

On the Iowa side of the river, the bedrock underlying the refuges is considered to be part of the 

Bronson group (limestone, shale) and the Upper Cherokee group (shale, sandstone, limestone) 

both occurring in south-central and southeast Iowa (Witzke et al. 2010). In the Bronson group, 

sandstones and coals are uncommon, while marine fossils are prevalent. Ancient oceans 

expanded (producing limestone beds) and receded (producing shale beds) in cycles producing 

numerous layers of these sedimentary deposits. The Cherokee group contains alternating 

deposits of shale, clay, siltstone, lesser sandstone, thick coal beds, and minor but persistent 

limestone beds.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

Figure 3-11: Extrapolated Flood Frequencies*
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

Climate

The refuges reside in a zone considered to have a humid continental climate, typical over large 

areas of land masses in the temperate regions of the mid-latitudes. The climate is typified by a 

zone of conflict between polar air masses pushing southward and tropical air masses pushing

northward. Humid continental climates are marked by variable weather patterns and a large 

seasonal temperature variation. Summers are often warm and humid with frequent 

thunderstorms, and winters can be very cold with frequent snowfall and persistent snow cover.

Average annual precipitation is 26.5 inches. Rainfall during the warm season is 19.2 inches or 

72 percent of total rainfall. The frost-free season generally falls between April 28 and October 

11, and there is an average of 136 days per year below 32 °F. Annual average temperature is 

49.3 °F. Summer average temperature is 75 °F with an average daily maximum temperature of

87 °F. Average winter temperature is 25 °F. Temperature extremes range from 113 °F to -28 

°F. Average annual relative humidity is 68 percent. Evaporation from a Class A evaporation 

pan in Lincoln, NE (~70 miles southwest) averages 60 inches per year, 74 percent of which 

occurs between May and October. Sunshine occurs 64 percent of the total possible daylight 

hours. Average wind speed is 11 mph, and wind direction is predominantly north by northwest. 

Strongest winds occur in the spring, with area maximums at 109 mph.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Precipitation data for the refuges is collected using the Parameter-elevation Regressions on 

Independent Slopes Model (PRISM), which uses point precipitation measurements, elevation 

data, and other spatial data sets to derive a continuous climatic data layer for the United States. 

PRISM data for the area of the refuges through 2009 indicates relatively consistent long-term 

trends (figure 3-12). Annual precipitation totals have roughly followed a 6–8 year cycle from wet 

to dry over the past 85 years, with the highest precipitation totals in 1993 and 2001 and the 

lowest totals in 1934 and 1939. On average, peak precipitation occurs during May and June, 

although monthly totals in certain years have exceeded 8 inches during April, May, June, July, 

and August over the last 34 years. After peak precipitation in early summer, the remainder of 

the year through December experiences a gradual decrease in precipitation (PRISM 2011).

Figure 3-12: Annual Precipitation in the Area of the Refuges (1925-2009)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

Insight can be gained into the periodicity of annual wet and dry cycles over the long-term using 

the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). This index represents moisture conditions based on 

monthly temperature and precipitation data as well as the soil’s water holding capacity at a 

location (Palmer 1965). A PDSI score ranging from 0.5 to -0.5 is within a normal range of 

variation. However, the scale extends to scores over 4 or under -4, which indicate wet and dry 

extremes respectively. The refuges fall into U.S. Climatological Division 25-06, East Central 

Nebraska, and 13-04, West Central Iowa. The annual PDSI calculations starting in the year 

1895 are illustrated in figure 3-13 (NOAA, 2011). In general, dry weather runs in 10-year cycles 

on the prairie and severe drought in 20-year cycles (Zohrer 2006).

Figure 3-13: Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) for the Refuges
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

Predicted Climate Change

The increase of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the earth’s atmosphere 

resulting from the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperature, commonly referred to as global warming. In addition to rising air and water 

temperatures, there are a number of other effects associated with a changing global climate 

including intense heat waves: shrinking permafrost zones, winter snow cover, sea ice, and 

glaciers; ocean acidification; changing precipitation patterns and associated effects on water 

availability (drought, flooding); a general decrease in open water areas and soil moisture levels; 

increasing fire severity—intensity, extent, and frequency; migrating plant productivity and 

agricultural zones; habitat shifts at all scales from ecosystems and biomes to specific sites; 

dislocation of species as habitat ranges experience shifts, reductions, and/or expansions; 

increasing issues with plant and animal pathogens and pests—both exotic and endemic; and 

more.

Several examples of potential climate change impacts on wildlife have been identified. The 

following are just a few issues that may require further attention as climate change progresses 

(Green et al. 2000; Schneider and Root 2002).

• Habitat available for coldwater fish, such as trout and salmon, in lakes and streams 

could be reduced.

• Forest distributions and compositions may change, with some species shifting their 

range northward, higher in altitude, or being replaced as other tree species move in to 

take their place.

• Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding habitat due to more severe and frequent 

drought events.

• Changes in the seasonality of life cycle stages such as migration and nesting could put 

some animals out of sync with the life cycles of their prey species.

• Herpetofauna may have trouble meeting the moisture conditions required for 

reproduction and respiration in their local habitats, and they may have difficulty 

dispersing through inhospitable environments.

• Animal and plant species, including invasive or pest species, shift their ranges north in 

latitude as winter climatic conditions become more moderate, and the warm seasons 

lengthen.

The resiliency of natural systems is tied to biodiversity. The diversity of organisms may be one 

of our greatest weapons against climate change; each organism will react and respond 

differently (Scott et al. 2009). Biological communities will not shift or remain intact because of 

the variability in each organism’s sensitivity to climate change, size, mobility, lifespan, and the 

availability of food, shelter, and other resources it requires (Karl, Melillo, and Peterson 2009). In

response, we must assess and provide for increased representation and redundancy across 

seasonal, geographic, and ecologic thresholds. Initial prioritization of action should be directed 

to those species for which climate change poses the greatest threat, namely those with limited 

distributions, highly specific ecological niches, and/or limited mobility. These include plants and 

animals that are highly temperature-sensitive or are confined to high altitudes or polar areas 

(Scott et al. 2009).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

The DOI issued Secretarial Order Number 3226 in January 2001 requiring all federal agencies 

with land management responsibilities within the DOI to consider potential climate change 

impacts as part of long-range planning efforts. This report was amended in January of 2009 to 

further expand and define bureau climate change, carbon sequestration, and energy

conservation responsibilities.

A climate change study by Magness et al. (2011) on the NWRS gave DeSoto and Boyer Chute 

Refuges a low exposure rating estimating a 0.011 oC (DeSoto NWR) and 0.0019 oC (Boyer 

Chute NWR) rise in temperature per year based on historic rates of change between 1950 and 

2006. The paper also indicated that DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges have a low sensitivity to 

climate change because they are not near the edges of the Temperate Grassland, Savanna, 

and Shrubland biome (Olson et al. 2001) and contain little critical habitat for threatened and

endangered species. They also are considered to have a low adaptive capacity, because they 

contain little elevation change, a small latitude range, have very little of their watersheds 

permanently protected, and have a high watershed road density. Based on these conditions, 

the refuges’ resilience and vulnerability to climate change were considered moderate.

Mitigation and Adaptation

According to the 2009 report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” there are 

two broad categories of responses to global climate change: mitigation and adaptation. 

Mitigation refers to actions taken before change occurs—efforts to reduce climate change as we 

move forward from the present and curb its effects before they increase in severity or reach 

critical thresholds. Adaptation measures can be applied both before (anticipatory) and after 

(reactive) climate changes have occurred and are actions aimed at avoiding or coping with 

harmful impacts and taking advantage of new opportunities presented by new climatic and 

environmental conditions (Karl, Melillo, and Peterson 2009; FWS 2009b).

There are many ways that refuges currently help mitigate the onset of climate change including

increasing ecological resiliency and reducing environmental stressors. Refuges will also play a 

critical role in adaptation strategies in the future. Table 3-1 (next page) lists a number of 

examples in which refuges contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

Table 3-1: Refuge Contributions to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Challenge Associated with Climate 

Change Refuge Mitigation/Adaptation Potential 

Rising ambient air temperatures caused by 

increasing greenhouse gasses

Sequester carbon in vegetative biomass and serve as 

“sinks” for greenhouse gasses. Move towards agencywide carbon neutrality. Contribute to renewable energy 

development efforts.

Increased water temperatures from solar 

radiation

Manage for forest canopy adjacent to waterways.

Changing precipitation frequency and 

intensity leading to flooding or drought

Provide floodplains as protection against surges and 

reservoirs to buffer periods of drought. Enhance wetland 

and bottomland habitats for groundwater recharge and 

filtration of waterborne pollutants (fertilizers, pesticides, 

excessive sediment).

Disrupted ecological processes that sustain 

basic life support functions

Tailor refuge management to protect or, if necessary, 

restore essential ecological processes and services such 

as pollination, seed dispersal, soil formation and 

stabilization, primary production, photosynthesis, and air, 

water, and nutrient cycling.

Rising sea levels and increasing tropical 

storm intensities

Buffer coastal areas with natural cover types to minimize 

socioeconomic losses as waters advance inland and 

storms pass from the oceans onto land.

Changes in wildfire frequency and intensity Use controlled burn programs to reduce fuel loads on the 

refuge, and provide trained fire professionals to off-refuge 

areas in need.

Loss of species and their required habitats Protect lands with a diversity of habitats for declining 

species and spearhead efforts to protect species of 

concern. Protect genetic diversity and serve as a source 

area for repopulation efforts.

Geographical shifts in biomes and species’ 

ranges

Serve as ecological hubs in a greater network of 

conservation lands allowing for species migration.

Altered species phenologies and 

interactions (competition, predations, 

parasitism, and disease)

Provide natural, minimally-altered settings for the 

evolutionary process and wildlife interaction.

Advancement of exotic invasives, pest 

species, pathogens, and contaminants

Control and eradicate invasives on refuge lands, providing 

habitat for endemic species. Direct efforts to reduce 

species susceptibility to disease, pathogens, pests, and 

contaminants.

Limited scientific understanding of long-term 

climate change implications

Develop inventory and monitoring sites for ecological and 

climatic variables. Conduct directed research to address 

climate change topics. Continue to build scientific capacity

and expertise in the agency. Foster collaboration in the

conservation science community. 

General lack of knowledge and 

understanding regarding climate change

Increase climate change education, training, and outreach 

both within the agency and to external audiences. Tailor 

environmental education and interpretation programs to 

include climate change topics. Provide conservation 

support to partners. Collaborate and share information 

and resources, both internally and externally.

Inadequate legal, regulatory, and policy 

framework to address climate change

Assist in the review and revision of environmental laws, 

regulations, policies, guidance, and protocols to increase 

incentives and eliminate barriers to conservation actions 

addressing climate change. Revise grant programs to 

direct funding to projects that address climate change.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Soils

Soils of the Missouri River floodplain are highly variable, ranging from light sandy soils that drain 

quickly to dense clays that are nearly impermeable to water. The soils of both refuges were 

recently formed from coarse to fine-textured alluvium (river-deposited sediments). The variation 

in local soil characteristics are a consequence of historic annual flood cycles and the continual 

migration of the pre-channelized river across the floodplain. The mouth of the Boyer River 

meets the Missouri River at the eastern edge of Boyer Chute NWR resulting in the accumulation 

of sediments and the formation of Boyer Island. Overall, the soils on both refuges are generally 

low-to-moderate in organic matter and are calcareous—ranging from neutral to moderate 

alkalinity. Available phosphorus is generally low, while available potassium is generally high. 

Permeability ranges from rapid to slow, depending on site-specific alluvium deposition history. 

Sand, loam, and clay layers vary over short distances; in some areas clays and loams form the 

upper layer of the soil and are underlain by fine sand and sandy loams. Other areas on the 

refuges contain soils consisting entirely of clay or entirely of sand. Still other areas have sandy

loams over clay or clay loams.

Figures 4-14 and 4-15 provide additional detail on the extent and distribution of soils across the 

authorized refuge boundaries. The soil types with the greatest extent within the authorized 

boundaries for both refuges are either in the Albaton-Haynie-Sarpy association or are in the 

Onawa series. They are nearly level, except for short slopes along old channels and 

drainageways, and on a few ridges in the sandy areas. The three soils in the association are 

deep, nearly level, formed in alluvial bottomlands and differ primarily in their sediment type and 

the resulting drainage; Albaton is clayey and poorly-drained, Haynie is silty and well-drained, 

and Sarpy is sandy and excessively-drained. Onawa, the other soil series on the refuges with a 

large area of coverage, is very deep, somewhat poorly-drained alluvial soil with a layer of clay 

over loam (USDA NRCS 2011).

A number of soils have moderate (500–1,000 acres) and minor (200–500 acres) coverage on 

the refuges. Included are Cooper, Modale, and Moville (silt underlain by clay and somewhat 

poorly-drained); Grable (silt underlain by sand and well-drained); Sarpy and Wathena (sandy 

and moderately well-drained to excessively-drained); Onawet (silty clay loams and very poorlydrained); Forney and Luton (clay and poorly-drained); Percival (clay underlain by sand and 

somewhat poorly-drained); Omadi (loam and moderately well-drained); and Salix (a mix of silty 

clay loam and moderately well-drained) (USDA NRCS 2011).

The drainage classes associated with refuges’ soil types are illustrated in figure 3-16. This 

information, in combination with the flood frequency map (figure 3-11), can be used to identify 

the wetland and upland restoration potential of sites across the refuges. On DeSoto NWR 

concentrations of well-drained soils form a band running diagonally northeast to southwest in

the center of the refuge. These correspond with areas that are a part of the oxbow bend of the 

river and the island formed within the oxbow. Areas north of DeSoto Lake, and on the central 

portion of the West Side Unit have increased water retention and poorer drainage. The 

drainage on Boyer Chute NWR is a diffuse mosaic, with a higher concentration of well-drained 

soils in the east half (including Boyer Island) and large patches of poorly-drained soils that are 

remnants of previous Missouri River channel scars. The bluffs are evident on the refuge’s 

western boundary as a solid band of well-drained soils.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Figure 3-14: Soil Types, DeSoto NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

Figure 3-15: Soil Types, Boyer Chute NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Figure 3-16: Soil Survey Drainage Classes
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

Water Resources

Refuge Hydrology

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges are categorized within the hydrologic units of the USGS 

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) system as depicted in table 3-2:

Table 3-2: Refuge Hydrologic Unit Codes

HUC Level Name Sq. Mi. HUC Number

1 Region Missouri 529,350 10

2 Sub-region Missouri-Little Sioux 9,140 1023

3 Basin Missouri-Little Sioux 9,140 102300

4 Sub-basin Big Papillion-Mosquito 1,160 10230006

5 Watershed Honey Creek-Missouri River 182 1023000605

6 Sub-watershed (DeSoto NWR) Moore’s Creek-Missouri River 65 102300060504

6 Sub-watershed (Boyer Chute NWR) Moore’s Creek-Missouri River 65 102300060504

Deer Creek-Missouri River 34 102300060505
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

Figure 3-17: Watershed and Hydrology of the Refuges
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

All of DeSoto NWR and the northwest portion of Boyer Chute NWR fall within the Moore’s Creek 

– Missouri River sub-watershed (Level 6, HUC 12), while the southeast portion of Boyer Chute 

NWR falls within the Honey Creek – Missouri River sub-watershed (Level 6, HUC 12). Figure 3-

17 depicts the drainage areas as well as the rivers, streams, and ditches associated with the 

refuges. The drainage basins associated with the refuges have relatively small upstream areas, 

and all water ultimately flows into the Missouri River. Boyer Chute NWR contains two additional 

drainage systems that flow in from the east (Iowa). These drainages travel only short distances 

through the authorized refuge boundary before emptying into the Missouri River. The bigger of 

the two is the Boyer River and its sub-basin, which has its own 1,089 square-mile watershed 

(Level 4, HUC 8), and the second is the Honey Creek sub-watershed (Level 6, HUC 12), which 

drains a 27 square-mile area.

The majority of the water that flows from the sub-watershed through DeSoto NWR on the east 

side of the Missouri River flows to DeSoto Lake. The drainage area for the lake is 12,563.46 

acres (19.63 square miles) (Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2012), and contains three 

major drainage ditches: Young’s, Brown’s, and Rand’s. There are also a few smaller, unnamed 

drainage channels and large areas of surface flow across the refuge. The flat topography of the 

floodplain and variable soils also afford natural ephemeral wetland areas. A number of old 

Missouri River channel scars on and adjacent to the DeSoto NWR retain water during flood 

stages. One of these on the south end of DeSoto Lake releases water south along the east 

edge of Wilson Island State Recreation Area before draining to the Missouri River. Another of 

these scars on the west side of the Missouri River takes on water from the main river channel 

during high water periods.

On Boyer Chute NWR, two streams flow eastward through the refuge from the bluffs on the 

western edge of the floodplain: Turkey Creek to the north and Deer Creek to the south. Both 

streams have been modified for improved drainage and are maintained by the Fort Calhoun 

Drainage District. Two water control structures were installed by the Papio-Missouri River 

Natural Resource District and one was installed by refuge staff to divert water to restored 

wetland basins on the refuge. High Missouri River flows can cause flooding on the refuge and 

turn the ditches and creeks into backwater areas. In more extreme high water conditions, the 

refuge may experience overbank flooding from the Missouri River. In other situations, the 

Missouri River may be acting as a hydraulic dam preventing drainage from other parts of the 

refuge. Seasonal groundwater levels can also impact the ability of surface water to drain off the 

refuge.

Water level data for the Missouri River is regularly collected by USGS gauges upstream of the 

refuges, at Boyer Chute, and at several groundwater monitoring sites located throughout the 

Missouri River floodplain. The Missouri River gauge upstream of the refuge in Decatur, 

Nebraska does not indicate many large fluctuations—not surprising considering modern 

regulation of Missouri River flows. A review of Missouri River water levels over the past 20 

years shows that the regulated water levels of the Missouri River are relatively consistent. 

Notable exceptions include summer flood events in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2010, and 

2011. Long-term data show that the Missouri River tends to crest and remain at higher water 

levels beginning in mid-March. Figure 3-18 uses data from USGS groundwater monitoring sites

at Blencoe, Iowa (30 miles north of the refuges) and Percival (60 miles south of the refuges) to 

show floodplain groundwater trends. The available data spans the years from 1995–1996 and 

2008–2011, and indicates a median depth to groundwater of approximately 10 feet. The graph 

also shows that groundwater response is approximately a month after the Missouri River peaks, 

water levels peak mid-summer and are relatively low from late-September through late-April, 

and a number of spikes suggesting water levels are especially responsive to rain events.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

Figure 3-18: Groundwater Trends in the Area of the Refuges

Water Rights

The refuges have a system of ditches, creeks, wells, and water control structures for moving 

water within the refuges to fill the various impoundments. 

Water law in the state of Nebraska is governed by prior appropriation water law, meaning that 

during shortages, water is appropriated to those individuals and entities that hold the oldest 

water rights. This is different than the neighboring state of Iowa, which governs its water law 

under riparian water law doctrine and allows equal rights to riparian land owners.

In accordance with Nebraska state water law, the Boyer Chute NWR maintains five surface 

water rights and has eight wells registered to account for water withdrawals and diversions used 

for habitat management on the refuge. The five surface water rights total 842.65 acre-feet per 

year, while the eight groundwater wells allow for the supply of significantly more water. Most of 

these rights are supplemental, meaning the water sources are commingled to supply the refuge 

needs for optimum operation. Currently, water management activities at DeSoto NWR do not 

require permitting under Iowa state water regulations (<25,000 gallons per day), and water is 

neither pumped nor diverted from the portions of the refuge located in Nebraska. 

The main season of water use is from mid-March until early December. This varies with water 

conditions as determined by annual precipitation, snowmelt, and availability of water from 

creeks and supply ditches. Adequate water is important to provide spring and fall migration 

stopover habitat for migratory birds.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Water Contamination

Contamination of water resources on DeSoto NWR consists predominantly of sediment and 

agricultural runoff that enters the refuge via sheet flow (non-point sources), drainageways, and 

the Missouri River. Occasional flood events can also bring contaminants onto refuge lands and 

waters. Three drainage ditches (Young’s, Rand’s, and Brown’s) drain neighboring agricultural 

fields, enter the refuge, and outlet into DeSoto Lake.

Groundwater samples on DeSoto NWR indicate elevated iron concentrations. Wetland units fed 

by groundwater sources incur iron flocculate, limiting primary productivity. Treatment methods 

are prohibitively expensive, and using alternative water sources is recommended.

Prior to the establishment of Boyer Chute NWR the Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources 

District retained Jacobson Helgoth Consultants, Inc. to do an environmental site assessment of 

the Boyer Island and West Chute units. They concluded, "No information was found which 

indicates that the properties have been affected by hazardous waste, PCBs [polychlorinated 

biphenyl], or other toxic substances or pollutants." Further, "With the exception of the small 

dump sites . . . no information was found which would indicate previous use for industrial, 

military or landfill purposes." The quality of groundwater and surface water are normal for the 

area. Water pumped from irrigation wells shows signs of considerable iron content. No known 

industrial or agricultural contaminants are known to exist. Other potential contaminant sources 

within the Boyer Chute NWR approved acquisition boundary are residential septic systems and 

agricultural non-point source runoff.

Treated sewage effluent from the Fort Calhoun Sewage Treatment Plant on the western 

boundary of the authorized refuge boundary previously flowed through the refuge, emptying into 

Turkey Creek and then entering the Missouri River. However, the Fort Calhoun Sewage 

Treatment Plant is no longer in service. Through a renewable 20-year inter-local agreement 

signed in July of 2007, Fort Calhoun, Nebraska opted to construct piping and conveyance 

facilities to transport its sanitary wastewater to a treatment facility in Blair, Nebraska.

Missouri River System

The Missouri River’s impact on the floodplain landscape has been greatly reduced over the past 

century, yet it retains a role in reshaping the mosaic of habitats during floods. The river once 

played a much larger role, as the dynamic landscape of the Missouri River Basin continually 

reshaped its channel and floodplain through a never-ending process of creation and destruction, 

deposition and erosion. However, numerous Flood Control Acts and the Missouri River Bank 

Stabilization and Navigation Project were used to control erosion and protect land along the 

river. Over the past century, the Missouri River has been converted from a free-flowing river 

into a series of reservoirs and channelized waterways, effectively separating the river from its 

floodplain. Since 1890, the length of the Missouri River between Sioux City, Iowa and St. Louis, 

Missouri has been shortened by about 75 miles or almost 10 percent (USACE 2004). This vast 

engineering program has had devastating impacts on fish and wildlife populations and habitat. 

Roughly 168,000 acres of natural channel and 354,000 acres of associated floodplain habitat 

have been lost on the lower 730 miles of river. These accreted lands have since been 

developed for agricultural, residential, and industrial uses. The shallow water habitats essential 

to fish spawning and rearing of young have been reduced by 90 percent in some areas. In 

addition, islands and sandbars, important nesting habitat for migratory birds and other species, 

have been virtually eliminated. Moreover, riparian forest habitat has been reduced from 76

percent of floodplain vegetation in the 19th century to just 13 percent by 1972.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

The flow cycles of the Missouri River have always varied seasonally and annually, but a 

substantial change occurred in December of 1952 with the beginning of flow regulation. 

Preregulation seasonal flow fluctuated more dramatically, with peak flows in the spring and 

lower flows the remainder of the year. In the post-regulation period spring flow starts early but 

are moderated to avoid flooding, water levels are then held artificially high and stable through 

the summer to late fall, finally water levels are drastically reduced during the winter (nonnavigation) season. Figure 3-19 depicts the nature of the flow change from year-to-year. 

Before regulation the peaks were higher and the troughs lower, with a greater frequency of 

larger flood events. Aside from the 2011 flood year, post regulation has a much more stable 

and moderated trend.

Figure 3-19: Missouri River Mean Daily Streamflow at Omaha, Nebraska (1928-2012)*

In addition to flow volumes and timing, the sediment load was an important component of the 

historic Missouri River system. The river was a naturally turbid river, and continuous bank 

erosion and slack water deposition were common. Today, many of the native fish species in the 

Missouri River, including the pallid sturgeon, are specially adapted for life in turbid waters like 

those that were present in the historic river. The suspended sediment load in the river has 

decreased from 69 to 99 percent, depending on location and proximity to the main stem dams. 

Releases from Gavins Point Dam are cooler than historic river temperatures, free of sediment, 

low in nutrients, and saturated with dissolved oxygen. As distance increases from Gavins Point 

Dam the water temperature, turbidity, and nutrients increase from tributaries.

With the implementation of the Clean Water Act water quality in the Missouri River has 

improved over the last 30 years. Sources of pollution in the river include runoff of fertilizers, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

pesticides, and herbicides from a predominantly agricultural watershed, as well as discharges 

from municipal wastewater treatment facilities and other urban industrial operations.

A U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE, Corps) 2004 report on Missouri River stage trends 

indicates that there has been a downward trend/stage decrease on the Missouri River above 

Omaha, Nebraska (i.e., the channel has become deeper). This change is a result of a more 

linear channel, reduced sediment loads from upstream reaches, increased bed erosion, and a 

downward incision of the channel. In the absence of other factors, greater volumes of water 

would be necessary in the future to achieve the same levels of overbank flooding. The same 

study indicates that south of Omaha the stage has been increasing (i.e., the channel is 

becoming shallower). This shift is attributed to increased land surface runoff, tributary sediment 

inflows, and deposition within the main channel.

Current Management

Water quality management of the Missouri River is under the jurisdiction of the individual states 

through which the river passes.

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) has placed the segment of the 

Missouri River between Sioux City, Iowa and Bellevue, Nebraska on the state’s impaired waters 

list for 2010. This segment was listed as impaired for aquatic life, and a fish consumption 

advisory has been issued (NDEQ 2010). No information was available for the streams and 

ditches passing through the Nebraska side of the authorized boundaries.

The Iowa DNR has also placed the segment of the Missouri River between the water supply 

intake at Council Bluffs, Iowa (river mile 619) and the confluence with the Boyer River, which is 

just south of DeSoto NWR and includes the segment of the river that borders the Boyer Chute 

NWR backwater restorations, on the state’s 2010 impaired waters list. This segment of the river 

is considered impaired for drinking water use because of arsenic levels (Iowa DNR 2010). The

same 2010 data classifies the Boyer River from Dunlap, Iowa south as impaired due to the 

presence of E. coli (Escherichia Coli).

Air Quality

Greenhouse gasses, fine particles, ozone, air toxins, mercury, and lead are all airborne 

pollutants that affect human health and the health of natural ecosystems. The protection of air 

quality has been formally monitored and regulated since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 

1970, and its subsequent revisions in 1977 and 1990 have intended to keep policy at pace with 

the evolving state of science and technology. The threats associated with global climate 

change have reinvigorated efforts to monitor both point sources of contaminants and non-point 

sources such as transportation and residential combustion. The EPA is responsible for 

establishing policy and guidance, which are used by the individual states to develop specific 

State Implementation Plans and Smoke Management Programs.

There is one air quality monitoring station for Washington County, Nebraska, located in Blair, 

which monitors for National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Standards. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Criteria Air Pollutants

To protect public health, the Clean Air Act established concentration limits on six criteria air 

pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and 

lead. The 2002 National Emission Inventory (NEI) database documented 10 facilities in 

Washington County (of 492 in the State of Nebraska) whose emissions are estimated for one or 

more criteria air pollutants by state and federal agencies. The list includes a diversity of 

industrial businesses in Fort Calhoun and Blair, Nebraska including a power plant, a feed 

company, manufacturing enterprises, stone processors, and a number of construction 

companies. In 2002, the total quantity of criteria pollutants emitted yearly by these facilities was 

approximately 165 tons. Washington County’s 2002 rank among Nebraska’s 93 Nebraska 

counties for the criteria air pollutants was 15th for particulate matter (<2.5 micrometers), 19th for 

sulfur dioxide, 20th for ammonia, 22nd for particulate matter (<10 micrometers), 23rd for carbon 

monoxide, 28th for nitrogen oxides, and 32nd for volatile organic compounds. Overall, 

Washington County contributed 0.001 percent of the state’s total annual point source criteria 

pollutant emissions, which in 2002 was 155,000 tons (EPA 2011).

Criteria air pollutant emission in Harrison County, Iowa is negligible.

Hazardous Air Pollutants

The NEI lists 188 hazardous air pollutants that are known to or suspected to cause serious 

health problems. The 2002 NEI identifies three facilities in Washington County, Nebraska that 

emit hazardous air pollutants. The three facilities include a landfill, a concrete company, and a 

manufacturing enterprise. In this list, the number of hazardous pollutant types emitted by each 

facility ranges from 9 to 28, and the combined emission volume of these point sources is less 

than 1 percent of the total estimated state emissions. 2002 data estimate that approximately 

54,928,285 pounds of hazardous air pollutants are emitted yearly in Nebraska from all sources, 

point and non-point (EPA 2011). In 2002, the county ranked number 17 of all 93 Nebraska 

counties in the quantity of hazardous air pollutants emitted at 1.14 percent of the state total 

(EPA 2011).

According to 2002 data, there is only one site in Harrison County, Iowa that emits hazardous air 

pollutants. A manufacturing facility emits 21,500 pounds of mixed isomers annually. The 

county ranks 48 of 79 Iowa counties for its release of hazardous air pollutants.

Current Management

Prescribed burning is the refuge management activity with the greatest effect on air quality. The 

management of smoke is incorporated into planning prescribed burns and, where possible, the 

suppression of wildfires. The areas surrounding the refuge are Class II air quality zones, or 

areas where moderate change in air quality are allowable. Class I areas, which allow no 

change from current air quality standards—such as federal wilderness or national parks, are not 

present. Wildland fires are expected to be of short duration with minimal effects on long-term air 

quality. Prescribed fire use on the refuge will not reduce long-term air quality and will adhere to 

all current air quality standards. Sensitive areas are identified and precautions are taken to 

safeguard visitors and local residents. Smoke dispersal is a consideration in determining 

whether a prescribed burn is within prescription guidelines. Generally, fine grass fuels and 

small burn unit sizes (80–600 acres) generate low volumes of smoke for short durations (four–

five hours).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

Habitat

Habitats on both refuges are completely contained within the Missouri River alluvial floodplain 

and are therefore a mixture of bottomland forest, open woodland, shrub/scrub, wet and dry 

prairie, seasonal wetland, and open water habitats (figure 3-20). Agriculture is also a managed 

cover type on DeSoto NWR. The land cover percentages documented in the 2001 DeSoto 

NWR CCP were slightly higher for forest (42 percent), much higher for agriculture (25 percent), 

and much lower for grassland (20 percent).

Figure 3-20: Current Land Cover Quantities on DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges

Past management of the refuges has favored mesic habitats generated by infrequent and lowseverity flood conditions. However, approximately 95 percent of the surface area of both 

refuges was inundated during the 2011 flood. The post-flood vegetation response will vary from 

site to site, and the previously stable refuge habitats are likely to succeed and change over the 

next few years. Water has always been a primary driver in the succession of refuge habitats. 

Before the Missouri River was dammed and channelized, floodwaters and heavy sediment 

loads would continually shape and reshape this landscape, creating and erasing river system 

features that evolved through time from open water and wetland to upland and back again. Fire 

regimes and large herds of grazing animals were also historically important to changes in this 

river valley landscape. Today, many of these broader landscape processes have been reduced 

or eliminated from the system. The refuge incorporates prescribed fire into habitat management 

to simulate historic processes where possible. Aside from active habitat management 

conducted by refuge staff, many factors interact to shape the refuge vegetative communities 

including human-altered and remnant native hydrology; seasonal water tables, moisture 

regimes, and flood/drought cycles; and local relief and soil characteristics.

Habitat monitoring on both refuges consists of periodic onsite evaluations. Annual aerial 

photography missions have been scheduled to document habitat response to the 2011 flood, 

and ground truthing will be required to verify ground conditions. Water level monitoring on 

refuge wetlands and DeSoto Lake are taken at staff gauges periodically but not recorded.

Agriculture

7%

DeSoto 

Lake

11%

Missouri 

River

3%

Seasonal 

Wetlands

2%

Bottomland 

Forest

35%

Shrub/Scrub

3%

Grassland

36%

Sandbar

1%

Developed

2%

Current Land Cover - DeSoto NWR

Missouri 

River

7%

Seasonal 

Wetlands

5%

Bottomland 

Forest

4%

Shrub/Scrub

1%

Grassland

29%

Sandbar

0%

Developed

1%

Inholding 

(Agriculture)

53%

Current Land Cover - Boyer Chute NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

The habitats at DeSoto NWR are approximately one-third grassland and one-third forest with 

the remaining third a mixture of open water, agriculture, and minor components such as 

shrub/scrub, developed areas, seasonal wetlands, and sandbar habitat. The grassland 

component is a mixture of mesic grasslands and wet prairie. Forests contain bottomland tree 

species, and density ranges from dense young stands, mature open savannas, to late 

successional cottonwood forest. The distribution of these cover types can be seen in figure 3-

21.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

Figure 3-21: Current Land Cover, DeSoto NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

Figure 3-22: Current Land Cover, Boyer Chute NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

Nearly all of the land that now comprises the authorized boundary for Boyer Chute NWR was 

farmed prior to the creation of the refuge in the 1990s. Restoration and rehabilitation of wetland 

and upland habitats have been and will continue to be an important part of refuge management 

activities. According to restoration records maintained by the refuge, habitat restoration has 

occurred on 2,350 grassland acres, over 370 wetland and riverine acres, and approximately 570 

acres of woodland and shrubland.

In 2010 a mapping project conducted by the Region 3 Division of Conservation Planning, in 

coordination with refuge staff, classified the lands and waters of Boyer Chute NWR into cover 

types and general vegetation classes. The project used a mosaic of color-infrared image tiles 

flown in August of 2009. Image segmentation was used to classify one-meter cells into spectral 

categories, which were then associated with cover type classes equivalent to the formation level 

of the National Vegetation Classification Standard. Those areas in private ownership are 

predominantly agricultural cover types and were excluded from this analysis. Figure 3-22

illustrates and summarizes refuge vegetation based on the 2009 (pre-flood) land status. 

According to this data, over 60 percent of the refuge is classified as prairie, and when combined 

with wet meadow areas (10 percent), nearly three-quarters of the Service-owned lands fall into 

a mixed grassland and forb cover type. Wetlands and open water constitute approximately 12

percent of the refuge. Forests and open woodlands located primarily adjacent to waterways 

and wetlands constitute another 15 percent of the refuge. Finally, areas with some level of 

development such as buildings, roads, and parking lots, make up approximately 1 percent. This 

landscape has changed dramatically since the 2009 imagery was collected, including changes 

associated with major flooding in 2010 and 2011 and work done by the Corps to create shallow 

water habitat in the form of backwaters and side channels.

Missouri River Channel

The importance and potential of the Missouri River as a navigation channel was quickly 

recognized by early American explorers. By the mid-1800s, the river was already heavily 

traveled by steamboats and keelboats. As demand for commercial transportation grew in the 

second half of the 19th century, so did demand to “tame” the river by removing woody debris, 

snags, and other hazards to boat traffic. The first half of the 20th century was marked by 

intensive channelization of the river and the beginning of reservoir construction, including six 

major flood control dams in the Missouri’s upper reaches. These dams and channelization 

efforts did help reduce flooding but in so doing, altered the natural flood cycle and sediment 

transport on which the ecosystem depended. In 1997, the Missouri River was designated as 

the most endangered river system in the country (American Rivers 1997).

In the stretch of the Missouri River that passes by the refuges, the river runs at approximately 

990.6 above MSL during normal flows, increasing to 994.2 MSL for the 10-year flood level, and 

996.6 MSL for the 50-year flood elevation level. Normal flows from November through February 

are approximately 16,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 33,000 cfs between March and 

October each year.

DeSoto NWR originally contained approximately nine miles of the Missouri River’s channel. In 

1960 this extent was reduced to slightly over three river miles (641.1 through 644.7) when the 

DeSoto–Bertrand Bend of the Missouri River was cut off and a new, shorter channel was 

excavated by the Corps. The new channel arcs southeast across the bottom of the refuge 

separating the West Side Unit from the rest of the refuge, it creates an island of Nebraska land 

on the east side of the Missouri River, and also forms a small pocket of Iowa land on the west 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

side of the river. The West Side Unit lies only 0.8 miles from the north side of Boyer Chute 

NWR’s authorized boundary. A large extraction site, the Fort Calhoun Quarry (Martin Marietta 

Materials), lies between the refuges on the west bank. Although the precise surface acreage of 

the Missouri River channel changes slightly over time, recent estimates indicate that it spans 

approximately 286 acres of surface area within DeSoto NWR. Over time the Missouri River has 

incised its channel in the stretch passing through DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges.

The Missouri River runs just inside Boyer Chute NWR’s authorized boundary on the north and 

east, including eight miles of river channel from river milepost 640 in the northwest to river 

milepost 632 in the southeast. Three major riverine feature restorations have been undertaken 

by the Corps on Boyer Chute NWR. The first is the Boyer Chute itself, a large side channel

restored in 1994. A natural chute formed there long ago, but deteriorated after a river wall and 

shale dike were constructed across the upstream-end of the chute in 1937 as part of the Flood 

Control Acts and Missouri River channelization era. The chute closure was undertaken in 1937 

to force water through the main river channel for navigation, and it gradually silted in over time 

forming a linear strip of seasonal and permanent wetlands in the footprint of the old chute.

In 2009–2010, the Corp restored two additional Missouri River aquatic habitat sites on Boyer 

Chute NWR. The first site is a side channel area called “Lower Calhoun Bend Side Channel” on 

the north end of the Boyer Island Unit. It was dredged to be a 2,700-foot long chute with a nineacre main channel and two additional channels that form during high water (adding an additional 

two acres). The main channel was cut 76 feet wide and 5 feet below the construction reference 

plane. This feature was virtually erased by the flooding that occurred in 2011. The second site, 

Boyer Bend Backwater, is a 39-acre restoration on the east side of the Boyer Island Unit. The 

backwater averages 76 feet wide, and is nearly 6,900 feet (1.3 miles) long. The southern end 

remains open to the river, while the northern end is closed with rock. The rock closure includes 

a 30-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe to allow a trickle flow into the backwater. An 

additional 715 feet of backwater is included as an auxiliary connection to the river. The 

backwater cut through seven old river dikes, requiring the removal of 1,180 cubic yards of rock. 

Roughly four to seven acres of trees were removed for the excavation of the backwater and 

used in the construction of timber assemblages for fish habitat. This feature was also greatly 

altered by the 2011 floods but was in the process of being rehabilitated during the writing of this 

CCP.

Current Management

The Corps has primary jurisdiction over the main channel of the Missouri River. There are a 

number of wing dikes installed and maintained in the main channel to direct flow away from 

banks and side channels, and the sides of the river have been armored using rip-rap in sections 

(see figure 3-23). Six chevrons have been constructed by the Corps in the DeSoto NWR stretch 

of the Missouri River channel to create sandbar habitat and nine in the Boyer Chute NWR 

stretch. On the east bank of the DeSoto NWR stretch of the Missouri River, 12 sites have been 

de-armored to encourage bank erosion. Refuge management maintains a regular dialogue with 

the Corps regarding riverine restorations on the Lower Missouri River.

Wetlands and Open Water

DeSoto NWR has approximately 200 acres of seasonal wetland habitat and approximately 22 

acres of ponds. This includes 170 acres in large, managed wetland complexes: Headquarters, 

Red Barn, Botos, Lone Tree, and Wood Duck. There are also a number of small sloughs, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

channels, and shallow areas associated with DeSoto Lake (see figure 3-23). The refuge can 

actively manage the majority of these seasonal wetland acres by diverting or pumping water 

from DeSoto Lake, drainage ditches, and groundwater sources. Approximately 30 acres also 

occur as unmanaged wetlands, side-chutes, and drainage ditches on the refuge.

DeSoto NWR currently has a 12.2-mile levee system that is also depicted in figure 3-23. The 

2011 floods impacted this levee system, and at the time of writing conversations were ongoing 

regarding the future of flood control infrastructure in the area.

Boyer Chute NWR contains approximately 460 acres of wetland/moist soil habitats and riverine 

features (figure 3-24 and table 3-3). Approximately 207 of these wetland acres allow some form

of water level management, while the remaining wetland acreage is unmanaged and follows 

seasonal moisture trends. As mentioned in the previous section, three riverine features have 

been created by the Corps: Boyer Chute, Boyer Bend Backwater, and Lower Calhoun Bend 

Side Channel—the latter of which was erased by the 2011 floods.

The National Wetlands Inventory

The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) is an extensive, ongoing survey by the Service of 

aquatic habitats across the United States. The NWI is based on interpretation of aerial 

photographs, not ground surveys, and its criteria differ somewhat from those used in 

jurisdictional wetlands delineations for permitting by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act.

The existing NWI information indicates that DeSoto NWR has 1,680 acres of wetlands spanning 

31 different types (figure 3-25). DeSoto Lake and the Missouri River account for approximately 

two-thirds (1,084 acres) of the total NWI acreage, forested wetland comprise another 385 acres, 

emergent wetlands are 200 acres, and ponds make up another 13 acres. The majority of the 

identified wetlands are clustered near the upstream-end of DeSoto Lake on the west side of the 

refuge.

The NWI for Boyer Chute NWR depicts the Missouri River channel, the Boyer Chute before its 

restoration by the Corps, a number of riparian woodland, shrubland, and emergent habitats 

along these major waterways as well as small lakes and ponds in the vicinity of the refuge

(figure 3-25). The NWI information identifies 20 different wetland types spanning 1,350 acres 

within the authorized boundary of Boyer Chute NWR. Over half the acres (56 percent) comprise 

the Missouri River and the Boyer Chute. There are also 376 acres of forested wetlands, 170 

acres of emergent wetlands, and just over 50 acres of ponds and lakes. Few seasonal 

wetlands, restored basins, or flood-prone areas are delineated, and the drainage modifications 

resulting from agricultural development prevalent throughout the area are not well documented 

in the NWI.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Figure 3-23: Water Resources, DeSoto NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

Figure 3-24: Water Resources, Boyer Chute NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

Figure 3-25: National Wetland Inventory
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

Table 3-3: Aquatic Habitat at Boyer Chute NWR

Feature Name Management Capability GIS Acres*

Bluewing Wetlands Yes 7.5

Boyer Bend Backwater - 36.6

Boyer Bend Wildlife Management Area (WMA) Wetland - 30.0

Boyer Chute - 57.4

Dugout Wetlands - 4.2

Horseshoe North (north of water control structure) Yes 15.4

Horseshoe South - 91.2

Lower Calhoun Bend Side Channel - 8.8

Mallard Wetlands East Yes 18.6

Mallard Wetlands West Yes 26.5

Meander Wetlands Yes 5.2

Mud Lake North Yes 15.2

Mud Lake South Yes 19.3

Nathan's Lake East Yes 27.9

Nathan's Lake West Yes 16.5

Pintail Wetlands Yes 7.1

Rail Wetlands Yes 21.2

Skink Wetlands - 21.9

West Dike North - 3.7

West Dike South - 1.1

Yellowlegs Wetlands Yes 26.8

TOTAL ACRES 207 462

*All GIS acreages are approximate calculations of areal extent based on 2010 aerial imagery.

Current Management

Water control structures are used to manage water levels. Additional management actions 

include pumping water between units, disking wetlands, and prescribed burning. Water is 

typically pumped into units in the fall to provide stopover habitat for migratory waterfowl.

DeSoto NWR’s wetlands consist of historic scours, side channels, oxbows, and natural 

depressions. Several factors have limited the size and extent of wetland habitats on the refuge

in the past, including the following:

• Many wetland areas were modified to trap sediment in the past as a part of the Corps’

Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project.

• Missouri River channel training structures and greater control of the river’s water levels 

have virtually eliminated the natural overbank flooding that once occurred within the 

floodplain—along with the natural wetland complexes that were created and replenished 

by these flood events.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

• DeSoto Lake’s water levels have been maintained below certain thresholds to avoid 

drainage issues with upstream landowners.

• A number of restorable wetland areas have been left unrestored to facilitate the 

agriculture program.

DeSoto NWR has 170 acres of managed seasonal wetlands in five wetland complex 

management units. Each complex is comprised of a number of smaller sub-units. The 

wetlands are managed to provide a diversity of habitats and vegetation structure (forests, 

annual emergent vegetation, dense perennial vegetation, mudflats, and open water) for use by 

migratory birds. Refuge wetland complexes are illustrated in figure 3-23, and include:

• Headquarters (21 acres)

• Red Barn (34 acres)

• Botos (32 acres)

• Lone Tree (75 acres)

• Wood Duck (8 acres)

The Headquarters Complex has three sub-units connected by ditches and stop-log structures. 

Water is pumped from a well to feed this complex. The Red Barn Complex was created in 2004 

and has two sub-units. Water is pumped into these units from two separate wells. The Botos 

Complex has four sub-units that are connected by stop-log structures. This complex is fed by 

the same well used for a portion of the Red Barn Complex. The Lone Tree Complex is 

composed of two moist soil units. The south unit has four cells interconnected by water control 

structures. Water is pumped into the south unit seasonally from a well at the southeast corner 

of the unit. The north unit consists of two cells interconnected by stop-log structures. The 

Wood Duck Complex is filled by a ditch system and/or water pumped from DeSoto Lake. Five 

of the wells that feed these wetland complexes were installed in 2003 and 2004, and electric 

pumps are used to extract groundwater. These seasonal wetland complexes are filled each 

spring and fall to accommodate migratory birds passing through the area. During the summer 

the water levels are drawn down to promote plant growth.

Climatic conditions and rain events largely dictate the water availability within most of Boyer 

Chute NWR’s wetlands. Refuge staff work to maintain productive wetland habitat for waterfowl 

feeding and resting and for other wildlife by maintaining a healthy balance of open water and

emergent vegetation. Periodic soil disturbance is used to stimulate annual forb germination.

Water level management and herbicide application are also used to control undesirable 

emergent and aquatic vegetation such as river bulrush, cattails, and phragmites.

Boyer Chute NWR is able to manage water levels in 12 wetland units using 16 water control 

structures. Six of these wetland units (approximately 124 acres) use water-control structures to 

divert water from Deer Creek into the basins. In non-drought years there is adequate drainage 

in Deer Creek to supply the needed water to all six wetlands. The units that utilize Deer Creek 

diversion structures include:

• Mallard East (19 acres)

• Mallard West (26 acres)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

• Nathan's Lake East (28 acres)

• Nathan's Lake West (17 acres)

• Mud Lake South (19 acres)

• Mud Lake North (15 acres)

Five additional wetlands encompassing approximately 76 acres also have water control 

structures to provide management capability but are entirely dependent upon precipitation or

Missouri River flooding to supply water. These wetland units include:

• Rail (21 acres)

• Meanders (5 acres)

• Horseshoe North Impoundment (15 acres)

• Yellowlegs (27 acres)

• Bluewing (8 acres)

Water levels in the Bluewing wetland (8 acres) can also be managed by pumping water from a 

nearby well into the basin. A suction line can be dropped into the center-pivot irrigation well 

casing in the northwest portion of the wetland and a 6-inch trash pump can be used to add 

water to the area.

There also are a number of wetlands on the refuge in which climatic conditions largely dictate 

water availability because a direct water source is unavailable. Boyer Chute NWR has 232 

acres of these unmanaged wetlands, including:

• Skink (22 acres)

• Pintail (7 acres)

• Dugout (4 acres)

• West Dike North (4 acres)

• West Dike South (1 acre)

• Boyer Bend Backwater (37 acres)

• Lower Calhoun Bend Side Channel (9 acres)

• Horseshoe Lake Complex – unimpounded areas (91 acres)

• Boyer Chute (57 acres)

The Boyer Chute, Boyer Bend Backwater, and Lower Calhoun Bend Side Channel have been 

designed to remain connected to the Missouri River. Their water levels are entirely dependent 

on Missouri River flows.

The Horseshoe Lake Complex is a large, drained wetland feature with very little active water 

management. Water exits the complex via an open ditch two-thirds of the way down the east 

side of the bend and ultimately discharges into the Boyer Chute. The southern tip of the 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

wetland complex (approximately 5 acres) is on private property. Restoration of this wetland 

complex is a high priority for the refuge.

There is one additional 30-acre wetland area not owned or managed by the Service but located 

within the authorized boundary, Boyer Bend WMA Wetland. This wetland is owned and 

managed by the Iowa DNR.

The Fort Calhoun Drainage District maintains an easement on Deer and Turkey Creeks, 

permitting access for maintenance.

DeSoto Lake

DeSoto Lake is a large, prominent, and central feature of DeSoto NWR. The surface area of 

the lake varies seasonally, but average total surface area ranges from 800–900 acres. The 

water volume has been estimated at approximately 6,390 acre feet. According to a 2006 USGS 

study, average water levels in the lake range from 986.5 to 989.5 feet above MSL, constituting a 

difference of 156.5 acres of surface area (Elliot et al. 2006). Multiple drainage ditches extend 

over 24 linear miles and drain 12,563.46 acres (19.63 square miles) of predominantly 

agricultural private land in the watershed before entering DeSoto Lake via three primary inputs 

(Iowa DNR 2012). Water levels in DeSoto Lake are influenced by four major factors related to 

precipitation in the watershed: runoff from the three aforementioned agricultural drainage 

ditches (Young’s, Rand’s, and Brown’s Ditches) that release into the lake, Missouri River flows, 

sheet flow over the land surface, and local groundwater levels.

Bathymetric maps were created by the Service in 1967 using five-foot contour intervals, then 

again by the Iowa Conservation commission in 1979 using four-foot contour intervals, and finally

again in 2006 by the USGS. All work prior to 2006 did not document the survey density and/or 

water surface elevations and thus are of limited comparability with other studies. The 2006 

study created high-precision maps of depth, elevation, and substrate condition based on a water 

surface level of 988.76 feet above MSL. Results indicate an average depth of 7.6 feet and a 

maximum depth of 21.98 feet. Overall, the west arm of the lake is substantially shallower (no 

point greater than 11.5 feet) than the central or eastern portions, and the deepest areas occur 

on the outside of the central and eastern sections, opposite sandbar deposition areas (see 

figure 3-26). These depth features are consistent with those found in other bends of the Lower 

Missouri River and are a legacy of the bend’s previous riverine conditions. Substrate in areas 

under four feet is primarily soft silt and fine sand; clay is rare. A considerable amount of soft silt 

is located near ditch outlets. Assuming similar lake levels in 1979, comparison of the three lake 

bathymetry studies indicates an overall shallowing trend; maximum depth in 1967 was recorded 

as 34.9 feet, 26 feet in 1979, and 21.98 in 2006. According to these numbers, estimated 

sedimentation rates for the deepest parts of the lake from 1967–1979 were 8.9 inches per year, 

and from 1979–2006 were 1.8 inches per year (Elliot et al. 2006).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

Figure 3-26: DeSoto Lake Bathymetry (2006)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

Current Management

Past management of the DeSoto Lake prioritized open water habitat for the sport fishery. 

Walleye, channel catfish, flathead catfish, white bass, largemouth bass, and northern pike are 

typically stocked in the lake. The upper end of DeSoto Lake and a limited number of shoreline 

areas provide shallow water habitat conditions and cattail marshes. The central and lower 

portions of the lake are managed for open water habitat. DeSoto Lake has been managed 

without connectivity to the Missouri River throughout most of its history to maintain the stocked 

sport fishery. At times managed connectivity was created via water control structures on either 

end of the lake. At the time of writing, the fish passage barrier at the southern end of DeSoto 

Lake was not functional due to damage sustained during the 2011 flood. This lower end of the 

lake can also be opened and free-flowing to the Missouri River. When Missouri River levels are 

high and above the inlet elevation, lake management is designed to allow for water intake. 

Winter lake levels are maintained high to reduce fish kills; spring drawdowns are used to 

accommodate spring runoff from the watershed; and a fall drawdown occurs to provide food 

resources for waterfowl.

To improve the lake’s fishery and reduce the rough fish populations the lake was drawn-down in 

1985, treated with 9,000 gallons of Rotenone, and then re-stocked with sport fish. Additional 

improvements to the fishery have included installing an artificial aeration system with 16 helixers

on the northeast side of the lake in 1985 to raise dissolved oxygen levels (damaged during 2011 

flooding); providing additional cover, bottom structure, and habitat diversity in the form of rock 

jetties, underwater piers, and brush piles; armoring the banks of the lake to prevent erosion; and 

adding an electric fish barrier between the lake and the Missouri River (not functioning at the 

time of writing).

Lake management and monitoring continues to be conducted in coordination with the Service’s 

Columbia, Missouri Fisheries Office, the Iowa DNR, and the Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission (NGPC). The lake’s fish monitoring program has included electroshocking and 

creel censuses. One additional method used to reduce the lake’s rough fish population has 

been permitting private commercial harvesters to net buffalofish and carp. This activity has 

occurred between April and October with the year’s take ranging from 7,000–18,000 pounds.

The three drainage ditches that terminate in DeSoto Lake are a substantial source of 

suspended sediment. There are pending water quality issues related to turbidity and algae, and 

the lake is currently listed as a state impaired water by the Iowa DNR under section 303(d) of 

the Clean Water Act. Watershed farmers are encouraged to put buffer strips of native 

vegetation along drainage ditches. Water from agricultural ditches is pumped into refuge

wetlands to filter drainage when possible. Limited water quality monitoring is conducted in the 

lake.

Grasslands

Grasslands were a major component of the Missouri River floodplain ecosystem prior to largescale conversion to agriculture. The extent and distribution of different grasslands types in the 

river valley varied over time in response to disturbance frequency and severity. Because the 

Missouri River valley at DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges is located in bottomlands between 

the tallgrass prairie ecosystem to the east and the shortgrass prairie ecosystem to the west, the 

refuges support native grass species that are found in tallgrass, shortgrass, and wet prairies.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

Historically, uplands and well-drained areas of the refuges would have contained warm and cool 

season grasses with occasional forbs and shrubs. Northern tallgrass prairie remains an 

important habitat on the refuges. Tallgrass prairie was once the Midwest’s largest and most 

biologically productive ecosystems, but it has been reduced to less than one-tenth of one 

percent of its original extent and has become functionally extinct due to fragmentation, fire 

control, and the extirpation of keystone species. Today’s remaining prairie remnants are 

generally small, and woody encroachment further threatens the habitat quality.

Some of the native upland grasses found in the tallgrass prairies of the refuges include sideoats 

grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), switchgrass 

(Panicum virgatum), Canada wild rye (Elymus canadensis), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), 

sand lovegrass (Eragrostis trichodes), eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides), Indiangrass 

(Sorghastrum nutans), buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), 

green needle grass, (Nassella viridula), Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus), and western 

wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii).

Flood conditions like those experienced in the mid-1990s and 2010–2011 occur infrequently in 

modern times due to river regulation. This, combined with increased drainage systems for

agriculture, have reduced the occurrence of wet prairies in the Missouri River floodplain. 

Nonetheless, in low areas or during prolonged or extreme precipitation events, ground and 

surface water levels can lead to saturated soil conditions and ephemeral wetlands. In these 

areas the prairie community may transition to include wet prairie species that can survive long

periods of inundation such as prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), sedges (Carex sp.), and 

switchgrass (Panicum vergatum).

DeSoto NWR supports approximately 2,987 acres of grasslands distributed throughout the 

refuge. The majority of the refuge’s grasslands contain warm season grasses, but a number of 

areas have been planted to cool season grasses.

When established, Boyer Chute NWR’s authorized boundary contained no virgin tallgrass 

prairie; all grasslands had been cleared and were being used for agriculture. However, native 

tallgrass prairie has been reestablished in many areas of the refuge. Grasslands and

herbaceous vegetation now comprise approximately 2,918 acres of the refuge.

Current Management

Prior to flooding in 2010 and 2011, both refuges’ grasslands were actively managed for upland 

(mesic) prairie species to support grassland birds. Grassland habitats were established and 

maintained through prescribed burns, mowing, haying, seeding (local ecotype), and hydrological 

restorations. Grazing has not been used on either refuge to date. Annual noxious weed 

inspections were conducted and treatments were applied as necessary. Post-flood upland 

grassland management will continue in many areas, but some grasslands on the refuges may 

shift to favor larger sedge meadow components as a result of the 2010 and 2011 floods. 

Grassland management is also guided by studies conducted on the refuges, such as work in the 

late 1990s (Van Dyke 2004) indicating that grassland birds respond better to burning than 

mowing and that they are sensitive to the shape and size of the management unit.

Grassland restorations take place during the dormant winter season or spring season and are

typically performed using Truax drills and a broadcast seeder. The broadcast seeder is first 

used to disperse larger, coarse, combine-harvested grass seeds; the smaller forbs are then 

applied in a second seeding. Three different seed sources have been used in recent years for 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

grassland restorations: a standard commercial seed mix, a mix from Waterfowl Production 

Areas in the Rainwater Basin area of Nebraska (100 to 200 miles west of the refuges), and a 

local ecotype mix (collected within a 50-mile radius of the refuges). The local origin seed is 

sourced from two local vendors that have exclusive harvesting rights to a number of virgin 

prairies in Iowa.

An important component of grassland management is a prescribed fire program. Historically, 

fires served as large disturbance mechanisms in the tallgrass prairie, but historic fire intervals 

are unknown. It is estimated that fires occurred in one- to five-year intervals in eastern 

Nebraska (Schneider et al. 2005). Native Americans regularly burned the prairie to drive game 

animals, and lightning fires occurred frequently. Grasslands can burn whenever there are dry 

solids, even in mid-summer when foliage is green. Fires that occurred across the prairies in the 

past burned tens of thousands of acres at a time. The spread of these fires was affected locally 

by topographic relief and fuel quantities, the latter of which was affected by herds of American 

bison (Bison bison).

On the refuges, fire management for tallgrass prairie involves a 3- to 5-year cycle of prescribed 

burning. The refuges are a combination of Condition Class 3 lands, as defined in table 3-4, and 

native or restored lands more accurately classified into Condition Classes 1 and 2.

Table 3-4: Habitat Condition-based Fire Management Guidelines

Condition 

Class Example Fire Regime Management Options

1 Fire regimes are within the historical range, and the risk of losing key ecosystem 

components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact 

and functioning within the historical range. Where appropriate, these areas can be 

maintained within the historical fire regime by treatments such as prescribed fire.

2 Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The risk of losing 

key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from historical 

frequencies by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased). This results 

in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity, severity, and 

landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their 

historical range. Where appropriate, these areas may need moderate levels of restoration 

treatments, such as prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, to be restored to the 

historical fire regime.

3 Fire regimes have been substantially altered from their historical range. The risk of losing 

key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical 

frequencies by multiple return intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more 

of the following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes 

have been appreciably altered from their historical range. Where appropriate, these areas 

may need high levels of restoration treatments, such as mechanical treatments, before fire 

can be used to restore the historical fire regime.

Forests

The quantity, composition, and age structure of the refuges’ wooded habitat-types have 

changed greatly over the past century. Historic accounts of the Lower Missouri River (circa 

1892) estimate just under 20 percent of the floodplain was in forested and shrubland cover 

types (Dixon et al. 2010). Cottonwood, oak, black walnut, and hickory are mentioned in Lewis 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

and Clark’s description of the area. Much of both refuges may historically have been 

bottomland forest, cottonwood parkland, and shrub/scrub habitats kept in a continual state of 

succession by the meandering and migration of the Missouri River channel. The Missouri River 

Valley was then a corridor of braided, sinuous channels, sandbars, backwaters, sloughs, and 

marshlands all connecting the river to its floodplain. Willows colonized bare islands and 

sandbars, to be succeeded by cottonwoods, which in the process of plant community 

succession were replaced by silver maple, box elder, red mulberry, and American elm. Today, 

cottonwood (Populus deltoides) is the dominant canopy tree in the forests and woodlands. On 

the refuges it is concentrated primarily along the banks of the Missouri River, Boyer Chute, 

DeSoto Lake, and in large blocks within the oxbow formed by DeSoto Lake. Reaching 100 feet

or more in height, cottonwoods tower above all other trees in the floodplain. The majority of the 

existing cottonwoods appear to be between 50–100 years of age, and extensive mortality has 

been occurring in these stands for several years. One benefit of the older cottonwood stands is 

roosting and cavity nesting habitat for birds. Concerns have been raised regarding minimal 

regeneration of this species. Historically, flood pulses were important disturbance mechanisms 

for floodplain vegetation and new germination occurred in disturbed areas, but these events 

have been virtually eliminated since Missouri River flow regulation was stabilized circa 1952. 

The reduced frequency, or absence, of these flood pulses (and the sediment loads they once 

transported) has reduced or prevented the formation of the bare, moist, sand substrates 

required for recruitment seedbeds and the cyclic regeneration of cottonwood and willow stands.

Other common floodplain trees on the refuges include black willow (Salix nigra), sandbar willow 

(Salix interior), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), black walnut (Juglans nigra), boxelder (Acer 

Negundo), American elm (Ulmus americana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and the 

exotic Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila). Many cottonwood areas are being encroached upon by 

shade-tolerant species that are not flood dependent, including hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), 

red mulberry (Morus rubra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and most noticeably, roughleaf 

dogwood (Cornus drummondii). These species may result in greater mast production (fruit and 

nut) as they increase in prevalence.

According to aerial imagery from July of 2012, DeSoto NWR has approximately 2,966 acres of 

bottomland forest and open woodlands with an additional 230 acres of shrub/scrub habitat for a 

total of 3,196 total combined acres (see figure 3-21).

Vegetative analysis of the 4,040 acres at Boyer Chute NWR currently owned and managed by 

the Service estimates approximately 15 percent (573 acres) of the refuge is bottomland forest 

forests and cottonwood parkland (429 acres) or shrub/scrub habitat (144 acres) (see figure 3-

22). The coarser-resolution 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) (see figure 3-10) 

provides a similar estimate (approximately 528 acres). When the NLCD is expanded to the 

entire 10,010 acquisition boundary, the quantity of forest does not increase dramatically 

(approximately 790 acres), because the vast majority of non-Service lands in the authorized 

boundary have been cleared for agriculture (Homer et al. 2007). In fact, many of the larger 

cottonwood trees on the east side of the Boyer Chute were harvested just prior to purchase by 

the Papio-Missouri Natural Resource District.

Current Management

Forest management on both refuges is predominantly passive. A few sites have been disked, 

seeded, flooded, or burned in the past. Refuge staff has used numerous methods to increase 

the size and diversify the age structure of cottonwood stands. Attempts to plant new forest 

stands have been met with limited success due to dry soil conditions and deer depredation. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

The most successful efforts at cottonwood restoration have been a result of natural reversion 

after large flood events. There is little or no tree harvest on the refuges. Moderate to high tree 

mortality is expected following the 2010 and 2011 floods and management will identify 

recruitment areas, allow natural regeneration, and support the establishment of new stands in 

appropriate areas.

Sandbar Habitat

Missouri River sandbar habitat is rare but essential for two federally listed species of bird. Least 

Terns and Piping Plovers have not been recorded nesting on DeSoto NWR since the 1970s. 

Historic sandbars on the refuge, including the old main sandbar (the spoil pile on the northwest, 

or inlet, arm of DeSoto Lake) and three sandy beaches adjacent to DeSoto Lake, have 

succeeded to other habitat types, and woody encroachment has been encouraged in certain 

areas to avoid wind erosion.

At times in the past sandbar habitat areas on DeSoto NWR were disked annually to remove 

encroaching vegetation. Despite these efforts, these areas were only marginally suitable for 

nesting birds because of vegetation establishment and easy access to ground predators like

raccoons, skunks, and mink. However, these sandbar areas have been used by waterfowl for 

loafing and by nesting turtles.

In the past on Boyer Chute NWR no management effort has been directed to creating or 

maintaining sandbar habitat.

Current Management

Several new sandbars were deposited on both refuges after the 2011 flood, but the location of 

these features makes them undesirable for Interior Tern or Piping Plover habitat. They are 

located next to forested areas, and on DeSoto NWR they are far from DeSoto Lake. Ongoing 

inventories and monitoring will help determine the future management of these sites as 

sandbars or successional bottomland forest.

Agriculture and Cooperative Farming

Agriculture is the primary land use in the counties that surround the refuges. More natural 

habitat have been converted to cropland than to any other cover type, and much of this 

transition occurred by the middle of the 20th century.

Most of the land that comprises DeSoto NWR was cleared and used for agriculture in the 1940s 

and 1950s. In fact, an additional 350 acres of the refuge was cleared to plant crops in 1963–

1964. At one time nearly half (3,714 acres) of DeSoto NWR was cultivated to provide food for 

migratory waterfowl with the rationale that cropland provided food, loafing areas, and cover for 

migratory birds and other wildlife. The cropped acreage has been reduced over time so that by 

the time the 2001 CCP was written just under 2,000 acres remained in cultivation. The 2001 

CCP planned for the reduction of cropland on DeSoto NWR to 475 acres by 2016.

No farming occurs on any lands owned by the Service within the authorized Boyer Chute NWR 

boundary. However, most of the private land within the boundary is currently utilized for 

agricultural production.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

There are a number of benefits and challenges associated with agriculture for the refuges due 

to their location in the Missouri River floodplain. For over a century levees and impoundments 

have been constructed to make farming possible on lands within the natural floodplain zone of 

the Missouri River. These lands offer highly fertile alluvial land with ready access to irrigation. 

However, yields are regularly reduced by flood events and seasonal high water tables. 

Agricultural use keeps otherwise marginal floodplain land values high, and engineered drainage 

alters local hydrology and natural drainage patterns. The land conversion also adversely 

impacts wildlife species by decreasing habitat availability, quality, and connectivity thereby 

increasing overall fragmentation of habitat. In addition, runoff from crop fields and pastureland 

contribute to non-point sources of pollution. Many agricultural processes can also lead to 

increased erosion, sedimentation, and eutrophication in the watershed lakes, ponds, wetlands, 

streams, and rivers. Many of these substances, such as organochlorines and 

organophosphates, are known to be toxic to fish and wildlife via direct exposure, 

bioaccumulation, and bio-magnification (Cox 1991).

Current Management

In 2012, 16 agricultural fields comprising approximately 617 acres of DeSoto NWR were farmed 

by three local cooperators. Farm field locations on the refuge remain fairly static, but crops 

types have a three-year rotation of corn, soybean, and wheat/clover. The refuge receives a 25

percent share, which provides additional food stores for migratory birds.

No agriculture has occurred on Service-owned land on Boyer Chute NWR since 2004; however, 

nearly all inholdings (5,309 acres, or 53 percent of the total authorized boundary) are farmed 

annually. Cooperative farming occurred on the refuge in the past as means to transition newly 

acquired lands from cropland to native cover types.

In 2011, the Midwest Region of the Service completed an environmental assessment (EA) for 

row crop farming and the use of genetically modified glyphosate tolerant (GMGT) corn and 

soybeans on refuge lands (FWS 2011e). Under the selected alternative, beginning in 2012, the 

use of farming on Refuge System lands in the Midwest Region can continue only in specified 

management situations: for achieving multiple objectives that include habitat restoration, habitat 

management, supplemental food for wildlife, and/or attracting wildlife for viewing and 

photography. In addition, the use of GMGT crops can be used only for habitat restoration. 

Similarly, the Service’s ecological integrity policy specifies that GMGT crops cannot be used on 

refuge System lands unless they are “essential to the accomplishment of refuge purposes.” If a 

refuge proposes the use of GMGT crops under any circumstances an approval process, 

including an eligibility questionnaire, is required to explain and justify the need. Currently, 

GMGT crops are not used on DeSoto NWR.

Special Management Areas

In 1972, Cottonwood Research Natural Area (RNA) was established alongside the Missouri 

River at the southeastern arm of DeSoto Lake (see figure 3-21). This 320-acre zone has an 

overstory of mature cottonwoods, a midstory of roughleaf dogwood, and an understory of poison 

ivy and horsetail species. The RNA has been used by Bald Eagles as a roosting site. No active 

management is conducted in this area. To date, no specific research has been conducted in 

this area.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Invasive Plant Species

Invasive species enter new areas and often cause harm to the environment, the economy, and 

in some cases human health. Invasive species are a growing challenge in wildlife and habitat 

management, because there are increasing numbers of invasive species, and because

introductions occur across all habitats on land and water. The introductions are often 

irreversible, the controls for invasive species are often expensive and/or toxic, and invasive 

species often have negative impacts to native species in the form of displacement and

competition.

In Washington County alone there are 84 invasive plant species documented by the Early 

Detection and Distribution Mapping System, a database maintained by the University of 

Georgia’s Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health (University of Georgia 2011). 

Many of these have spread to the refuges―including some that were introduced intentionally 

(i.e., smooth brome grass was planted as a ground cover by DeSoto NWR staff early in the 

refuge’s history).

The following list includes some of the more common invasive species on the refuges:

• Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

• musk thistle (Carduus nutans)

• leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)

• purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)

• common reed (Phragmites australis)

• Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila)

• Chinese elm (Ulmus parviflora)

• tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima)

• bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare)

• garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata)

• white mulberry (Morus alba)

• reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)

• smooth brome grass (Bromus inermis)

• honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.)

• autumn-olive (Elaeagnus umbellate)

• cats claw vine (Macfadyena unguis-cati)

• cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.)

• crown vetch (Coronilla varia)

• dame's rocket (Hesperis matronalis)

• tall fescue (Festuca elatior)

• henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

• common mullein (Verbascum thapsus)

• multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)

Concentrations exist and vary by habitat; examples include garlic mustard and honeysuckle in 

forests, phragmites in wetlands and along water edges, reed canarygrass in wet meadows, and 

smooth brome in grasslands.

Current Management

Management for invasive species is achieved, where possible, through eradication, reduction, 

containment, and prevention. Invasive species are controlled in a variety of ways on the 

refuges, including prescribed burns, mechanical removal (e.g., plowing, manual removal), 

chemical applications (e.g., glyphosate), biological controls (e.g., the musk thistle seed head 

weevil), and flooding. In the wake of large flood events such as those in 2010 and 2011, the 

species, distribution, and severity of invasive species can change drastically. A few examples 

of treatments practices for some of the more common and problematic invasive plant species 

are described in the following paragraphs.

Thistles have been a primary invasive species management target because of their common 

occurrence in grassland restorations. The refuges use Aminopyralid (Milestone®) herbicide to 

eradicate Canada and musk thistles.

Smooth brome grass is found along many existing roads and trails on the refuges and often 

expands from these edges into restored grasslands. Both mechanical (plowing) and chemical 

(glyphosate) controls have been used.

Common reed (phragmites) is on the Department of Interior Species of Concern list, and genetic 

evidence has confirmed the existence of both native and introduced genotypes in North 

America. Several Phragmites clones have been discovered on the refuges, both native and 

exotic. Glyphosate herbicides have been used to control their spread. Mowing and prescribed 

burns are other tools that can be used to control this species.

Honeysuckle and autumn olive are invasive shrubs found throughout the refuges. On DeSoto 

NWR they are found near locations where they were planted as a landscape plant shortly after 

the establishment of the refuge (such as near the Visitor Center). Treatment includes

mechanical removal (cutting) in the fall and chemical (glyphosate or 2 percent triclopyr) 

application.

There are concerns regarding the increase of reed canarygrass on the refuges following the 

2011 flood.

Wildlife

The lands and waters of DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges host a diversity of wildlife, including 

over 250 species of birds, more than 60 fish species, 35 species of mammals, 30 species of 

reptiles and amphibians, and numerous invertebrates. Moreover, the refuges are well within the 

potential range of numerous additional species. Further wildlife inventorying and monitoring are

likely to yield additions to the refuges’ species lists (appendix B), and a changing climate may 

impact the ranges of the species that occur on the refuges. The refuges’ wildlife inventory 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

includes a number of state and federally listed species such as the Interior Least Tern, Piping 

Plover, pallid sturgeon, and others.

As a part of comprehensive conservation planning, national wildlife refuges are charged with 

identifying their Resources of Concern—species or groups of species that are considered high 

conservation priorities for management. The process begins by compiling comprehensive lists 

of refuge species by taxa. These lists are then refined through a series of filters to arrive at a 

subset of potential focal species that the planning team evaluate for selection. The process is 

designed to be science-based, transparent, and well-documented. The final selections are 

species or groups of species chosen for their ecological significance, management implications, 

legal relevance, feasibility, and potential to enhance conservation partnerships. Table 3-5

summarizes the results of this process for DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges. Additional 

information on this process can be found in the introduction to appendix B.

Table 3-5: Potential Focal Species for Refuge Management

Landscape Habitat Potential Focal Species Other Benefitting Species*

Missouri 

River

Missouri River channel [none selected, managed by 

the Corps]

gulls (m), terns (m), swallows (b), 

waterfowl (m)

Missouri 

River

secondary channel/ 

backwater area

[same as wetlands] [same as wetlands], plus Blackcrowned Night-Heron (m, pb)

Missouri 

River 

floodplain

DeSoto Lake [same as wetlands] [same as wetlands], plus pelicans 

(m, sv)

Missouri 

River 

floodplain

wetlands shorebirds (m), waterfowl/ 

dabblers (m, wv) including 

Northern Pintail, marshbirds 

(m, b), and wading birds (m, b)

Mallard, Wood Duck, swallows (b, 

m), terns (m), gulls (m) including 

Franklin’s Gull (m, sv), secretive 

marshbirds (b, m) including Least 

Bittern (b, m)

Missouri 

River 

floodplain

bottomland mesic 

grassland

Eastern Kingbird (b) Northern Harrier (m, b), Bobolink 

(b, m), wrens (m) including Sedge 

Wren (m, b), rails (m, b) including 

Yellow Rail (m), Dickcissel (b) 

Missouri 

River 

floodplain

wet meadow rails (m, b) Yellow Rail (m), Sora and Virginia 

Rail (b, m), wetland sparrows (m) 

including Nelson’s Sparrow (m)

Missouri 

River 

floodplain

bottomland forest Red-headed Woodpecker (b) Rusty Blackbird (m, wv), Bald 

Eagle (b, m, wv), Mallard (m, b, 

wv); passerines (m)

Missouri 

River 

floodplain

cottonwood parkland Red-headed Woodpecker (b) Orchard Oriole (b), Bald Eagle (b,

m, wv), other raptors (b, m, wv)

Missouri 

River 

floodplain

shrub/scrub Black-billed Cuckoo (b) Bell’s Vireo (b), warblers (m), 

vireos (m), and thrushes (m)

Missouri 

River

sandbar Piping Plover (m, pb), Interior 

Least Tern (m, pb)

Hudsonian Godwit (m), terns (m), 

shorebirds (m), and gulls (m, wv)

 *Abbreviation Key: (m) migrant, (b) breeder, (pb) potential breeder, (sv) summer visitor, non-breeding, (wv) winter 

visitor
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

According to the 2001 DeSoto NWR CCP, population objectives were set for snow geese (help 

reduce the mid-continent population by 5 percent annually) and deer (a maximum of 30–35 deer 

per square mile, or 330–380 wintering deer on the refuge). No population objectives have been 

established for Boyer Chute NWR.

Birds

The refuges provide habitat to many migratory and resident bird species (see appendix B for the 

refuges’ bird list). A broad spectrum of birdlife is represented, from resident game birds such as 

quail, pheasant, and wild turkey to shorebirds, waterfowl, neotropical migrants, short distance 

migrants, resident songbirds, hawks, owls, and other raptors.

The Missouri River Valley is noted for its large-scale migrations of water birds and waterfowl 

including White Pelican, Double-crested Cormorant, Greater White-fronted Goose, Canada 

Goose, and a large percentage of the mid-continent Snow Goose and Ross’s Goose 

populations (the latter species limited to a few hundred birds). Also included are several 

species of dabbling duck including the Mallard, Green-winged Teal, Northern Pintail, Bluewinged Teal, Ring-necked Duck, Lesser Scaup, Wood Duck, and Common Merganser. When

the 2001 DeSoto NWR CCP was written, hundreds of thousands of snow geese were using 

DeSoto NWR for resting and feeding, primarily in November and December. Roughly 70,000 

ducks, primarily mallards, stop at the refuges during the fall migration.

The Missouri River is a major raptor flyway for the eastern Great Plains, but most of the birds 

follow the eastern loess bluffs in Iowa southward. Detailed data for migratory raptors in this 

region can be derived from the Hitchcock Nature Center located five miles southeast of the 

refuges in Pottawattamie County, Iowa. Monthly tallies can be obtained from the Hawk 

Migration Association of North America. Dominant raptors utilizing this site and occasionally 

occurring on the refuges include Turkey Vulture, Broad-winged Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk, Redtailed Hawk, Northern Harrier, Osprey, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, and Merlin. Maintenance 

and restoration of riverside gallery forest offers shelter for migrant raptors. A number of Bald 

Eagle roosting sites are located at or near the refuges. Bald Eagles migrate across the refuges 

in late November and December; well over 250 have been observed on the refuges at one time.

A considerable number of shorebirds utilize the Missouri River Valley during spring and fall 

migrations, although species diversity is typically greatest in spring when suitable habitat is 

more readily available. The refuges have a low diversity of shorebirds species and a low overall 

quantity of shorebirds from what would be expected based upon refuges along the same 

general north–south valley alignment such as Squaw Creek NWR to the south (Missouri) and 

Big Stone NWR to the north (Minnesota). Lack of habitat for shorebirds may be the reason for 

this. A deficit of available habitat likely exists most years in mid-summer to late summer and 

autumn. Species that occur in moderate to large numbers in other sections of the Missouri 

River Valley include Black-bellied Plover and American Golden-Plover (mainly during spring for 

both species), Semipalmated Sandpiper, Least Sandpiper, White-rumped Sandpiper (mainly 

late spring), Pectoral Sandpiper, Dunlin, Stilt Sandpiper (more common in spring), Long-billed 

Dowitcher, Wilson’s Snipe, Hudsonian Godwit, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Red-necked Phalarope 

(mainly spring), and Wilson’s Phalarope (mainly spring). Shallow water foraging areas and 

exposed flats attract the above species from April 20 to June 5 and from July 1 through the end 

of October.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Large numbers of Black Tern and Forster’s Tern and the federally listed interior Least Tern 

utilize the Missouri River as a migration corridor to northern breeding grounds, especially in 

spring. Other species such as Franklin’s Gull, Bonaparte’s Gull, and Caspian Tern also utilize 

this stretch of river. All of these species seek roosting islands either in the main channel of the 

river or use adjacent marshes as resting areas during migration.

Three species of concern in the Midwest Region of the Service that are found in this area in 

good numbers are the Red-headed Woodpecker, Whip-poor-will, and Orchard Oriole. All three 

species utilize open, lightly grazed or periodically burned savanna habitat. The woodpecker and 

the oriole are also found in bottomland forest, especially cottonwoods. The woodpecker prefers 

older, mature cottonwoods with numerous dead branches and snags, while the oriole prefers 

younger, denser cottonwoods.

Streamside and upland thickets in this region also attract two species near the northwest portion 

of their breeding range—Bell’s Vireo and Blue Grosbeak. Suitable habitat for both species 

includes dense and tall thickets that result from periodic burn regimes followed by a severalyear burning moratorium.

The Missouri River Valley is a major flyway and stopover site for thousands of migrant swallows 

including all regularly-occurring eastern North American species. Tree snags near water, 

bulrush, native cattail, and other tall wetland grasses in ponded areas allow local populations of 

these birds to roost at night. Identification and protection of these roost sites in mid to late 

summer is beneficial to these bird populations.

Like other refuges situated along major migration corridors, the aerial habitat is considered a 

separate habitat in its own right providing a major foraging habitat for Whip-poor-wills, migrant 

waterfowl and water birds, shorebirds, raptors, and day-flying passerines such as swallows and 

Chimney Swift; as well as breeding birds with aerial courtship displays such as Red-tailed Hawk 

and American Woodcock. Future development of wind turbines and power lines on nearby 

bluffs could be a major hazard to some of these species.

DeSoto NWR has been recognized as an Important Bird Area (IBA) by the Audubon Society in 

both Iowa and Nebraska. Boyer Chute NWR was designated a Nebraska IBA in 2005. The IBA 

program identifies sites that are critical to the survival of bird species and promotes the 

conservation of these sites to maintain healthy bird populations. It is part of an international 

program overseen by National Audubon Society and BirdLife International in over 150 countries 

around the world.

Current Management

The refuges’ management for birds involves both habitat management and monitoring/survey 

efforts. Refuge habitat restorations have prioritized warm season, high diversity prairie and

larger, unfragmented blocks of forest and grassland habitats. As a result, the refuges’ 

grasslands and forests host substantial numbers of trust species and birds of conservation 

concern (McCarty and Wolfenbarger 2009).

Grassland habitats are actively managed for grassland birds such as Dickcissel, Loggerhead 

Shrike, Grasshopper Sparrow, Henslow's Sparrow, Bobolink, and Eastern Meadowlark. 

Grassland habitat management includes prescribed fire, mowing, seeding, and hydrological 

restorations. Annual Christmas and spring bird counts, weekly counts during migrations, and 

other periodic point counts are conducted.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

The refuges currently contain nearly thirteen miles of Missouri River waterfront habitat (counting

Service-owned lands only); full acquisition would result in over 22 miles of riverfront habitat. 

DeSoto Lake and Missouri River side channels, chutes, and backwaters also provide shoreline 

habitat. In addition, the refuges also contain permanent and seasonal wetlands, which are 

managed to provide productive habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and 

secretive marshbirds. Wetland water levels are adjusted, where possible, to maintain a balance 

of open water, emergent vegetation, and mud flat areas. Use of refuge wetlands by ducks, 

geese, coots, shorebirds, and wading birds is monitored weekly during both spring and fall 

migrations. Migratory waterfowl numbers have increased in recent years on both refuges (figure 

3-27). Weather in recent years has played a role in the increasing migratory waterfowl numbers 

on DeSoto NWR. In addition, two management actions have been undertaken to support the 

increasing trend: an increase in wetlands and food on the refuge, and the establishment of the 

closed areas to provide refugia. Additional wetlands are being restored to attract greater 

numbers of migratory birds. Waterfowl counts are conducted weekly during the spring and fall 

migrations. Over twenty waterfowl species use the refuges as a stopover. Those in greatest 

abundance on the refuges include Mallards, Canada Geese, and Wood Ducks, with peak total 

waterfowl numbers during fall migrations ranging from 10,000 to 70,000 birds (28,000 in 2010 

and 42,000 in 2011).

Figure 3-27: Migratory Goose and Duck Trends at DeSoto NWR, 1967-2013

Many of the monitoring efforts on the refuges have been conducted in collaboration with partner 

organizations utilizing volunteers. Boyer Chute NWR began breeding bird surveys in the late 

1990s, which were replaced by the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) 

program when a banding station was established on the refuge in 2001. Christmas bird counts 

are conducted each year in December, and annual spring bird counts occur in May. Both have 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

10/3/1967

11/17/196710/21/196812/26/1968

10/8/1970

12/14/197011/17/197210/26/1973

10/4/1974

12/13/197411/13/1975

11/1/1976

10/11/197712/20/1977

11/7/1978

12/27/1978

11/2/197910/3/1983

11/10/1983

10/4/1984

12/10/198411/27/198511/19/1986

11/4/1987

10/27/198810/18/198910/26/199010/17/199110/28/199210/29/199311/16/199410/26/199510/24/1996

10/7/1997

12/17/199712/22/199812/15/1999

12/6/2000

12/27/2001

12/4/2002

11/12/200310/20/200410/12/200512/22/200511/29/200611/13/2007

11/5/200811/4/2009

11/10/201011/16/201111/14/2012

3/6/2013

Total Geese

Total Ducks
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

been conducted regularly in cooperation with the Omaha Chapter of the Audubon Society. Both 

refuges have had Wood Duck nesting box programs in the past.

Mammals

At least 30 mammal species have been observed on the refuges with over twice that number of 

species unconfirmed but expected to occur based on their known breeding ranges (see 

appendix B for the refuges’ list of mammals). A wide variety of mammals including white-tailed 

deer, bobcats, coyotes, red foxes, badgers, raccoons, opossums, skunks, muskrats, mink, 

beavers, squirrels, rabbits, woodchucks, and smaller species such as long-tailed weasels, 

gophers, mice, voles, and shrews can be found on the refuges. These species spend much of 

their time in uplands, but will use wetland and riverine areas as well for water, food, and shelter 

during dryer periods.

No federally listed mammal species have been confirmed on the refuges, but state listed 

species such as the spotted skunk, eastern pipistrelle, and southern flying squirrel have ranges 

that overlap the refuges. Bison and elk were once important keystone species of this prairie 

landscape but were extirpated in the early 1900s.

Current Management

The only mammal species that is actively managed and monitored on the refuges is white-tailed 

deer. When possible, aerial surveys are used to monitor the deer population. Flooding in 2010-

2011 greatly reduced the area available to deer. The current deer population on the refuges is 

unknown because of the animal movement associated with the flood.

In order to maintain healthy habitats, the refuges have tried to manage for less than 20 deer per 

square mile. Excessive deer populations can also negatively affect plant communities on the 

refuges through selective over-grazing and reduced plant regeneration within the browse line. 

Few natural deer predators remain to keep deer populations in check, and deer herds can

increase by 30 to 40 percent annually when protected and provided optimum habitat conditions 

(West Virginia DNR 1999). Optimum and maximum carrying capacity estimates for deer on the 

refuges vary, and habitat conditions themselves vary from year-to-year based on the dynamics 

of the floodplain. In general, abrupt declines in the local deer population can adversely affect 

the genetic structure of the herd. Conversely, when population levels exceed carrying capacity,

deer become more susceptible to disease (e.g., hemorrhagic disease and chronic wasting 

disease), resulting in higher mortality.

Deer management is typically conducted through the refuge hunting programs. The hunting 

program provides the most effective tool for deer management on the refuges and facilitates the 

collection of harvest data. Managing for quality habitats and healthy wildlife populations through 

hunt programs supports the refuge goal of maintaining viable wildlife populations associated 

with tallgrass prairies and bottomland forests. Hunt programs also provide important recreation

opportunities for the public.

Fish and Other Aquatic Species

The Missouri River Basin supports 156 native fish species, of which 33 are now listed by the 

states within the basin as rare, endangered, or threatened (Hesse et al. 1989). In addition to 

state listings, the pallid sturgeon has been federally listed as endangered since 1990. It is 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

estimated that both annual catch and species diversity of commercial fish in the Missouri River 

declined by over 80 percent between 1947 and 1963 (Funk and Robinson 1974). Much of this 

change is the result of modifications to the river channel and tributaries and land use changes in 

the drainage basin. Some of the system changes responsible for declining fish populations

include the removal of snags, loss of floodplain connectivity, alteration of the hydrograph, loss of 

sediment transport, altered water temperature, fish bypass, and sport and commercial fish 

harvest (Hesse et al. 1993).

Of the 156 fish species in the basin, 92 species are found in the Lower Missouri River and are 

associated with the refuges—64 of which have been confirmed on the refuges (see appendix B

for a complete list). The refuges have played a part in a larger, basin-wide effort to increase 

habitat for a variety of native fish species, including many species that have experienced drastic 

population declines over the past century. The restoration of floodplain wetlands and riverine 

habitats such as chutes, backwaters, side channels, and sloughs benefit species of concern like 

the pallid, shovelnose, and lake sturgeon; sturgeon and sicklefin chub; longnose and shortnose 

gar; blue and flathead catfish; sauger, burbot, paddlefish, blue sucker, and silvery minnow.

In addition to rare, declining, threatened, and endangered species, more common fish species, 

including game species, are present in the refuges’ aquatic habitats. Channel catfish, bigmouth 

buffalo, and freshwater drum are examples of larger fish species that are well adapted to the 

backwaters, chutes, and side channels provided at Boyer Chute NWR.

Non-native fish such as common and bighead carp are also abundant in the Missouri River 

ecosystem. Large numbers of these exotic species can be seen in shallow backwaters and 

tributaries of the river. Refuge staff has noticed an increase in the number of Asian carp on the 

refuges, from just a few scattered sightings in the past, to large numbers in just about every 

shallow water habitat on the refuges.

Stocked game fish in DeSoto Lake include largemouth and white bass, black and white crappie, 

channel and flathead catfish, bluegill, walleye, and northern pike.

Current Management

The Corps is responsible for managing the Missouri River, with an emphasis on maintaining 

flows for navigational purposes. The biological opinion document for managing the Missouri 

River and associated listed species issued to the Corps by the Service in 2000, and its 2003

amendment, encourage flow enhancement, shallow water habitat restoration, unbalanced flow 

regulation, species propagation, monitoring, and adaptive management (FWS 2000a, 2003).

Reasons for listing the pallid sturgeon include habitat modification (loss, degradation, and 

contamination), lack of reproduction, commercial harvest, and hybridization. Beneficial 

management activities for the species include restoring braided channels, seasonal flow 

patterns, turbidity, and microhabitat diversity. Additional information on the pallid sturgeon and 

associated recovery efforts can be found in the Threatened and Endangered Species section of 

this chapter (FWS 2000a, 2003).

In collaboration with the Corps, habitat has been created on Boyer Chute NWR in the form of 

side channels, backwaters, and shallow water areas for pallid sturgeon and other riverine 

species. Nearly 60 acres of riverine habitat was created by the restoration of the Boyer Chute in 

1994. In addition, the Corps restored approximately 45 acres of backwater and side channel

habitat along the Missouri River on Boyer Chute NWR in 2009–2010. These restoration 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

activities have created spawning and nursery habitat as well as resting areas for native fish 

species. An additional benefit achieved by reconnecting wetlands and floodplain streams to the 

main river channel is increased sediment release into the river system. This influx raises water 

temperature, increases available food resources for aquatic invertebrates, and increases the 

overall biological productivity of these waters.

DeSoto Lake is an important part of DeSoto NWR’s management for fish and aquatic species. 

In order to improve the lake fishery and reduce the rough fish populations, the lake was drawndown in 1985, treated with chemicals (9,000 gallons of Rotenone), and then re-stocked with 

sport fish. Additional measures to improve the fishery have included an artificial aeration 

system with 16 helixers installed in 1985 to raise dissolved oxygen levels (damaged during 2011 

flooding); providing additional cover, bottom structure, and habitat diversity (rock jetties, 

underwater piers, and brush piles); armoring the banks of the lake to prevent erosion; and 

adding an electric fish barrier between the lake and the Missouri River (also damaged during the 

2011 flood).

Fish monitoring for DeSoto Lake includes electroshocking and creel censuses. Lake 

management and monitoring continues to be conducted in coordination with the Iowa DNR and 

Nebraska GPC, including stocking the lake with walleye.

In addition to the populations of fish and aquatic species associated with the Missouri River, 

riverine habitat restorations, and DeSoto Lake, additional aquatic habitat is provided by the 

refuges’ wetlands and small open water basins.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Surveys have documented 24 species of reptiles and amphibians on the refuges, with over 60 

total species expected to occur locally (see appendix B for the refuges’ reptile and amphibian 

list).

On Boyer Chute NWR, surveys conducted throughout refuge wetlands by the University of 

Nebraska-Lincoln in the summers of 2004 and 2008 have confirmed nine amphibians species,

and the refuge overlaps the ranges of at least 14 additional species. These species are all fairly 

common toads and frogs that are associated with off-river seasonal wetlands where fish 

predation is less of a concern. However, they also occur in riverine habitats including the 

Missouri River channel, Boyer Chute, and associated side channels and backwaters. Common 

amphibian species include gray tree frogs, leopard frogs, and cricket frogs.

Reptile species found on the refuges include six turtle species, eight snake species, and one 

species of skink. Common reptile species include snapping turtles, false map turtles, softshell 

turtles, bull snakes, and garter snakes.

Current Management

No routine management or monitoring of herpetofauna is currently conducted on either refuge.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

Threatened and Endangered Species

There are a number of federally listed or state listed species of conservation concern that have 

ranges and habitats that overlap DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges. In the context of the Lower 

Missouri River ecosystem as a whole, three species of fish, one mussel, three mammals, two 

birds, one beetle, and five species of plant are considered federally endangered or threatened 

(NRCP 2002, FWS 2004, FWS 2011b, Whitmore and Keenlyne 1990). Table 3-6 summarizes 

species that are currently listed with a federal, state, or Lower Missouri River conservation 

status and that are associated with the refuges habitats. In the table, E indicates an 

endangered species, T indicates a threatened species, C indicates a species of concern.

Table 3-6: Refuges’ Potential Species of Concern, including Conservation Status

Species Name Scientific Name

Federally listed 1State listed in Washington Co., NE 2State listed in Pottawattamie Co., IA 3State listed in Harrison Co., IA 3Lower Missouri River Ecosystem 4

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus C C

Barn Owl Tyto alba E E

Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum E E E E

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T E E T

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus E E E E E

Sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gelida E

Niangua darter Etheostoma nianguae T

Topeka shiner Notropis topeka E

Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens T

Pink mucket pearlymussel Lampsilis abrupta E

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E E

Gray bat Myotis grisescens E

Gray wolf Canis lupus E

Least shrew Cryptotis parva T

Plains pocket mouse Perognathus flavescens E E

Southern bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi T

Eastern massasauga rattlesnake Sistrurus catenatus catenatus C

Great plains skink Eumeces obsoletus E

Ornate box turtle Terrapene ornata T

Western worm snake Carphophis amoenus T

American burying beetle Nicrophorous americanus E

Dusted skipper Atrytonopsis hianna C C

Ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe C C

Regal fritillary Speyeria idalia C

Wild indigo dusky wing Erynnis baptisiae C

Leonard's skipper Hesperia leonardus C

Olympia marble Euchloe olympia C

1 FWS 2010a

2 NGPC 2008 3 FWS 2007, FWS 2011a, Iowa DNR 2013 4 NRCP 2002, FWS 2004, FWS 2011b, Whitmore and Keenlyne 1990
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Three federally listed species have been associated with refuge habitats in the past: pallid 

sturgeon, Interior Least Tern, and Piping Plover.

The pallid sturgeon was federally listed as endangered in 1990, can reach a length of up to six

feet, can weigh as much as 80 pounds, and occurs in the Missouri, Mississippi, and Yellowstone 

Rivers. There are over 3,300 miles of riverine habitat in the pallid sturgeon’s range, yet it is 

rarely encountered in the Lower Missouri River. This is primarily due to the loss of key 

backwater and side channel habitat required by the species.

The Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) was federally listed as endangered in 1985. This 

species lives along large rivers and may sometimes be found hunting fish in shallow wetlands 

and along pond/lake shorelines. Terns nest from late April to August using barren to sparsely 

vegetated sandbars along rivers, sand and gravel pits, or lake and reservoir shorelines. They 

scrape a shallow hole in an open sandy area, gravelly patch, or exposed flat—preferably in the 

middle of a river far from predators—laying two to three eggs. They also often nest in small 

colonies of 2–20 pairs to provide increased protection from predators. The wide river channels 

dotted with sandbars that are preferred by the terns have been replaced by narrow forested 

river corridors. Recreational activities on rivers and sandbars can disturb nesting terns causing 

them to abandon their nests. Current estimates suggest 4,700 to 5,000 adult birds remain.

Piping Plovers (Northern Great Plains population) were federally listed as threatened in 1986. 

These birds make their nests on open, sparsely vegetated sand or gravel beaches adjacent to 

alkali wetlands and on beaches, sandbars, and dredged material islands of major river systems. 

They winter along South Atlantic, Gulf Coast, and Caribbean beaches and barrier islands, then 

arrive in their breeding grounds form mid-March through mid-May, remaining for three to four 

months per year. They lay three to four eggs in shallow scraped depressions lined with light 

colored pebbles and shell fragments; chicks hatch within 30 days. Small sand dunes, debris, 

and sparse vegetation provide shelter from wind and extreme temperatures.

Current Management

Throughout their combined histories, the refuges have undertaken efforts to support all three 

federally listed species historically associated with their habitats.

Boyer Chute NWR has worked with the Corps to help restore aquatic and riverine habitat types 

essential to the endangered pallid sturgeon. In addition to the Boyer Chute itself, two projects 

were completed along the Missouri River at Boyer Chute NWR in 2009–2010. These projects 

created nine acres of side channel habitat and 37 acres of backwater habitat. The chute and 

backwater habitat benefit many native fish species by providing warm water nurseries for 

young-of-the-year native fishes (such as chubs and minnows) and juvenile pallid sturgeon. 

These habitats may be critical to the early life stages of the pallid sturgeon and are thought to 

be essential to the success of the species. Research continues on the importance of chute and 

backwater habitats to larval pallid sturgeon during the drifting phase and downstream migration 

period that follows (FWS 2000a, 2003). In addition to providing nurseries, the development of 

these habitats offers multiple benefits to the ecosystem and its aquatic wildlife, such as 

improved water quality, enhanced water temperature diversity, potential spawning areas for 

native species, protection from high river velocities, and greater connectivity to the floodplain 

(Edwards 1983).

In 2004, the Service’s Gavins Point Fish Hatchery released 52 pallid sturgeon into the Boyer 

Chute. Several of those pallid sturgeon have been recaptured at various locations in the region, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

including (from north to south) Sandy Point Bend, DeSoto Cutoff, Boyer Bend, Bellevue Bend, 

Otoe Bend, and Upper Brownville Bend.

The historic presence of sandbar-nesting species such as the Interior Least Tern and Piping 

Plover was dependent on habitat provided by large, natural river dynamics that have been 

nearly eliminated in this portion of the Missouri River. Dams and channelization along the 

Missouri River, managed for barge traffic, disrupted these natural fluctuations and the sandbars 

disappeared. In 1890, sandbar habitat encompassed 35,273 acres along the Missouri between 

Nebraska and Iowa; in 1976 sandbars covered only 57 acres.

Piping Plover data in DeSoto NWR’s files document an average annual peak migration 

population of 55 birds on the refuge from 1960–1970. Nesting records include a total of 45

nests and 135 young from 1963 to1965, but there are no nesting records for the period from 

1966 to 1970.

The annual number of migrating Least Terns observed on DeSoto NWR from 1960 to 1970 

averaged 36 individuals. From 1972 to 1982 the average number observed declined to seven. 

Sources indicate that the last documented Least Terns to nest on the refuge did so in 1968 and 

1973 (Kent and Dinsmore 1996, Iowa Ornithologists’ Union 1968 and 1973).

Both species were observed on the spoil pile on the northwest, or inlet, arm of DeSoto Lake 

created in 1958–59 by cutting the new river channel, and the 1,800-foot strip of the former north 

swimming beach. Public access to both areas (just over 40 acres) was halted in 1988 to avoid 

disturbance and maintain the sites for these species. However, the last Piping Plover nest 

recorded on DeSoto NWR was found in 1977. As mentioned previously, the primary issue 

associated with the decline of these bird species is the loss and degradation of nesting sandbar 

habitats required by these species. The Piping Plover is also highly sensitive to disturbance. 

Ever since DeSoto Lake was separated from the Missouri River, vegetation has encroached 

onto the majority of the refuge’s sandbars, and the habitat suitable for these two species has 

declined. Occasional development of the required breeding habitats for these species occurs 

after large flood events, and the renewed use of these habitats is encouraged by the refuges. 

However, maintaining appropriate conditions long-term through management prescriptions is 

prohibitively expensive and less effective than naturally created sandbar habitat. Unless the 

Missouri River channel is allowed to meander, the river flows are returned to historic regimes, 

and the river’s sediment load increases, the habitat for these species will remain limited in 

Nebraska and Iowa. The refuges continue to monitor for the reoccurrence of these species 

locally—particularly following large-scale, landscape-modifying flood events.

As natural sandbar nesting habitat began to disappear in Iowa and Nebraska, the birds began to 

look elsewhere to nest, finding places like sand and gravel mining operations suitable. In Iowa, 

the Interior Least Tern is currently known to nest at only two sites—one near Council Bluffs and 

the other near Sioux City. Both sites contain fly ash deposits from power plants.

The refuges provide appropriate habitat and are within the expected range of other federally 

listed species in table 3-6, such as the Indiana bat and eastern massasauga, but there are no 

known confirmed observations of these species on the refuges.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Invasive Animal Species

Within the Missouri River, common, bighead, and grass carp are the most frequently

encountered invasive fish species. Large numbers of Asian carp have been seen on the refuge

in recent years. Because they are planktivorous and attain such a large size, these carp have 

the potential to deplete local zooplankton populations (Laird and Page 1996). A decline in the 

availability of plankton can lead to reductions in populations of native species including all larval 

fishes, some adult fishes, and the native mussels that rely on plankton for food.

Zebra mussels, an aggressively invasive bivalve, have shown up in the refuges’ reach of the 

Missouri River in this past decade. Zebra mussels can decimate populations of native 

freshwater mussels, impact fisheries, clog water intake pipes, foul boat hulls, and disrupt 

aquatic ecosystems. Economic impacts of zebra mussels in North America during the next 

decade are expected to be in the billions of dollars (Missouri Department of Conservation 2010).

Current Management

Past management sought to control fish passage into DeSoto Lake—particularly non-native 

carp species, but flood damage to the lake’s water control structures has reduced this 

management capability. Currently riverine fish can enter the lake through the refuge’s water 

control structures. State partners conduct annual fisheries surveys to monitor carp populations 

in the lake.

Aside from invasive fish species, no other invasive or exotic animal species management is 

conducted at the refuges. The refuges remain actively engaged with partners working on 

aquatic species management in the Missouri River for fish, mollusks, and plants. Additional

invasive animal species in the region, both aquatic and terrestrial, are being carefully monitored, 

including feral hogs, which have been sighted in both Nebraska and Iowa in recent years.

People

The People section of this chapter contains background on the various human dimensions of 

the refuges. Included are a portrait of the local communities, the diversity of public uses and 

visitor services available, refuge administration and infrastructure, support provided by partners 

and the public, and management of historic and cultural resources.

Socioeconomic Setting

In west-central Iowa, the entrance to DeSoto NWR is located less than 8 miles west of Missouri 

Valley, Iowa on U.S. Highway 30 and is only 6 miles east of Blair, Nebraska. The refuge is split

between three counties: Washington County in Nebraska and Pottawattamie and Harrison 

Counties in Iowa. The entrance to Boyer Chute NWR is located three miles east of Fort 

Calhoun, Nebraska in Washington County. Some of the unacquired lands of the authorized 

refuge boundary also span Pottawattamie County in Iowa.

On the Iowa side of the Missouri River, the largest towns in Harrison County (population 14,928) 

are Missouri Valley (population 2,838) and Logan (population 1,534). Pottawattamie County to 

the south has a larger population of 93,158 because it contains the city of Council Bluffs 

(population 62,230). On the Nebraska side of the Missouri River, Washington County has a 

population of 20,234, which includes Blair (population 7,990) and Fort Calhoun (population 908). 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

Blair, the Washington County seat, is located 13 miles north of Fort Calhoun. Fifteen miles 

south of Boyer Chute NWR in Douglas County is Omaha, Nebraska, with a 2010 population of 

408,958. Iowa has just over 3 million people, and Nebraska has approximately 1.82 million 

people of which approximately one-third live in the Greater Omaha–Council Bluffs Metropolitan 

Area. The Greater Omaha–Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area, contains almost 900,000, making 

it the 60th largest metropolitan area in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

Development in the floodplain near DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges has come predominantly 

in the form of agriculture with only minor residential development. Development pressures in 

the area immediately surrounding the refuges have been low to moderate over the past half 

century, with Missouri Valley’s population decreasing by about 20 percent, Fort Calhoun’s 

population doubling over the past 50 years, and Blair’s increasing by 62 percent over the same 

time period (table 3-7).

About a dozen farmsteads are located within Boyer Chute NWR’s authorized boundary—

primarily on the Nebraska side of the river. There are also three residential developments/trailer 

courts on the edge of the Missouri River within the authorized boundary—two on the Nebraska 

side and one in Iowa. In Nebraska, on the northwest corner of the refuge lies Desoto Park 

Estates, and to the southeast is the smaller development on North River Lane. Across the river 

in Iowa lies a dispersed housing development in the area of the Goosehaven Loop Road.

Table 3-7: Population Change over Time in the Cities and Towns near the Refuges

City 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Missouri Valley, Iowa 3,567 3,519 3,107 2,888 2,992 2,838

Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 458 642 641 648 856 908

Blair, Nebraska 4,931 6,106 6,418 6,860 7,512 7,990

Omaha, Nebraska (City Only) 301,358 346,929 314,255 335,795 390,007 408,958

Demographics and Housing

The racial makeup of Harrison County is 98.3 percent White, 1.2 percent Hispanic, 0.4 percent

American Indian, 0.3 percent Asian, and 0.2 percent Black or African American. The racial 

diversity increases very slightly in Washington County with 97.2 percent White, 2.1 percent

Hispanic, 0.6 percent Black or African American, 0.3 percent Asian, and 0.2 percent American 

Indian. Douglas County, immediately to the south of Washington County and containing the city 

of Omaha, is 76.4 percent white, 11.6 percent Black or African American, 11.2 percent Hispanic, 

2.7 percent Asian, and 0.7 percent Native American (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

The average age of Harrison County residents is 42.9, with 75.9 percent over the age of 18 and 

17.8 percent over 65 years of age. Females are in the slight majority at 50.6 percent. 

Washington County residents are slightly younger overall, with an average age of 40.8 years, 

74.8 percent over the age of 18, and 14 percent over 65 years of age. Females are again in the 

slight majority at 50.2 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

Only 1.9 percent of Harrison County’s residents speak a language at home other than English, 

while 2.6 percent of Washington County’s population speaks a language at home other than 

English. The most abundant ancestral origins claimed by Harrison County residents include 

German (43.7 percent), Irish (19 percent), English (11.1 percent), and Danish (5.1 percent). 

Similarly, Washington County residents claim German (44.3 percent), Irish (15.8 percent), 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Danish (12.7 percent), English (10.3 percent), Swedish (6.5 percent), and Czech (5.3 percent) 

origins.

In Harrison County 63.1 percent of men and 57.5 percent of women in the county are currently 

married, 24.8 percent of men and 18.3 percent of women have never been married, and 7.3

percent of men and 9.9 percent of women are divorced. In Washington County 62.4 percent of 

men and 59.1 percent of women in the county are currently married, 28.1 percent of men and 

21.7 percent of women have never been married, and 6.7 percent of men and 8.7 percent of 

women are divorced (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

In Harrison County, there are 6,096 occupied households of a possible 6,760 housing units 

(90.1 percent occupancy), with an average owner-occupied household size of 2.55 people. The 

numbers are slightly higher in Washington County, where there are 7,454 occupied households 

of a possible 8,270 housing units (90.1 percent occupancy), with an average owner-occupied 

household size of 2.68 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

Employment and Income

In Harrison County, 67.3 percent of adults over 16 years of age are employed. The largest 

employment sectors include education and health care (22.3 percent), manufacturing (13.3

percent), and retail (10.4 percent), with 6.2 percent engaged in agriculture or forestry. Also, 

14.9 percent are employed by the government and 10.4 percent are self-employed. The mean 

household income is $62,488, and 6.2 percent of families have incomes below the poverty line 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

Just over 69.4 percent of the population over age 16 in Washington County is employed. The 

largest employment sectors include education and health care (22.0 percent), manufacturing 

(11.2 percent), and retail (10.1 percent), with 4.3 percent in agriculture or forestry. Government 

employees make up 11.1 percent and 7.8 percent are self-employed. The mean family income 

is $91,307, a third higher than in Harrison County, and only 2.6 percent of the population lives 

below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

Education

Of Harrison County’s residents, 91.2 percent of those over 25 years of age have completed a 

high school level of education, with 9.1 completing associate degrees, 15.9 having bachelor’s 

degrees, and 3.4 percent with graduate or professional degrees. In 2010, a quarter of the 

population was enrolled in school (3,648), with 18.8 percent of those enrolled in post-secondary 

education (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

In Washington County, 93.4 percent of those over 25 years of age have attained a high school 

diploma. Of this total, 9.0 percent have an associate degree, 27.4 have a bachelor’s degree, 

and 6.6 percent have a graduate or professional degree. In 2010 over a quarter of the county 

population was enrolled in school (5,681), with 26.0 percent of those enrolled in post-secondary 

education (U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

Economic Value of the Refuge to the Local and Regional Economy

Visitors to DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges spend money on a wide variety of goods and 

services, including food, lodging, transportation, outdoor apparel, binoculars, cameras, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

ammunition, and fishing tackle. Economic benefits also include annual payroll to 15 employees,

tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of materials and equipment, and services purchased from 

local vendors.

In 2006, DeSoto NWR was included in a national study of economic benefits provided to local 

communities by national wildlife refuges. The study found that there were 283,781 visits to the 

refuge in 2006, primarily associated with non-consumptive uses (261,581), fishing (20,000), and 

hunting (2,200). Most visitors were residents (64 percent). Visitors spent an estimated $2.9 

million related to recreation at the refuge (residents: $1.9 million and non-residents: $1 million). 

The final adjusted economic benefit provided by the refuge after the spending had cycled 

through the economy was $2.6 million. This figure takes actual visitor expenditures and adds 

financial benefits to locals who earned income from the visitors’ activities. Calculations predict 

that this economic activity also generated the equivalent of 52 jobs for the local economy. 

Spending on recreation in 2006 also generated $364,500 in tax revenue. Finally, it is estimated 

that for every one dollar in budget expenditures at DeSoto NWR ($1.5 million in the 2006 fiscal 

year), $4.26 worth of recreation-related expenditures and net economic value were generated 

(Carver and Caudill 2007).

In 2004, Boyer Chute NWR was included in the national study of economic benefits provided to 

local communities by national wildlife refuges. The study notes that there were 22,044 visits to 

the refuge in 2004, primarily associated with hiking trails (16,816) and fishing (2,086). Visitors 

spent an estimated $123,000 related to recreation at the refuge (residents: $80,400 and nonresidents: $42,600). The final adjusted value after the spending had cycled through the 

economy was $192,900. This figure takes actual visitor expenditures and adds financial 

benefits to locals who earned income from the visitors’ activities. Calculations predict that this 

economic activity also generated the equivalent of three jobs for the local economy. Spending 

on recreation in 2004 also generated $26,700 in tax revenue. Finally, it is estimated that for 

every one dollar in budget expenditures at Boyer Chute NWR ($494,100 in the 2004 fiscal year), 

$0.67 worth of recreation-related expenditures and net economic value were generated (Caudill 

and Henderson 2005).

The 2011 Nebraska Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan provides additional 

information regarding recreation in the state (Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 2010). 

Nebraska has 2.4 percent of its total land and water base of 1,166,852 acres open to public 

recreation, with an additional 900,000 acres of privately-owned recreation lands and waters. Of 

the publicly available recreation lands, 51 percent are federally managed, 25 percent are 

managed by the NGPC, and 15 percent are enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. 

Recreation activities engaged in by Nebraskans that often overlap with national wildlife refuges 

include picnicking (77.4 percent), driving for pleasure (67.8), sight-seeing (66.7 percent), 

walking (65.3 percent), nature observation/photography (59.2 percent), and fishing (53.7

percent). Public use at the refuges currently accommodates a number of these activities.

The Iowa DNR estimates that nearly a quarter of the state population participates in hunting or 

fishing, that 1.3 million Iowans participate in wildlife-associated recreation annually, and that this 

recreation generates $1.5 billion dollars annually—the equivalent of 16,000 jobs (Zohrer 2006).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Visitor Services

DeSoto NWR was established with the approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission 

with the dual intention of providing for the needs of migratory birds and providing public 

recreation to local communities. Both refuges provide a number of facilities and opportunities 

for visitors, including all six of the priority uses established by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation, as well as other wildlife-dependent recreation. 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges are open daily from sunrise to sunset. Following the 2011 

floods, both refuges are managed out of DeSoto NWR.

DeSoto NWR has collected fees since 1987. Fees are collected as mandated by Congress 

under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. At the time of writing, the entrance fee 

program was $3.00 per vehicle and $20.00 to 30.00 per commercial van/bus; federal Duck 

Stamps, Interagency passports and other such passes are accepted in lieu of the fee. A visitor 

survey conducted in 2011 shows 85 percent of the visitors surveyed feel the fee is about right; 

13 percent feel it is too low or far too low; 88 percent agreed that the fee paid was justified by 

the value of the experience (Sexton et al. 2011). Boyer Chute NWR has no entrance fee, and 

there are no plans to collect a visitor fee.

For over two decades following its establishment, in addition to more traditional wildlifedependent public uses, DeSoto NWR hosted diverse recreational activities such as picnicking, 

swimming, water skiing, and power boating. Many of these uses ended in the mid-1980s, well 

before the compatibility lawsuit against the Service in the 1990s questioned recreational uses 

that were not wildlife dependent. Visitation at DeSoto NWR has changed through time as a 

result of changes in recreation opportunities offered by the refuge, the addition of an entrance 

fees in 1987, and multiple years of flooding in the 1990s and in recent years. Just under 

200,000 people visited the refuge annually in the 1960s. Annual visitation rose to nearly 

350,000 in the 1970s, and then peaked in the 1980s at nearly 400,000 before decreasing to an 

annual average of 300,000 in the 1990s. In the late 2000s, average annual visitation hovered 

around 215,000, and then visitation dropped to record lows in 2010 and 2011 as a result of 

catastrophic flooding on the Missouri River, the closure of Wilson Island State Recreation Area,

evacuation of the Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection, and the seven-month closure of the 

refuge. The refuge and visitor center reopened to the public in January of 2012. In August of 

2013, the Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection was returned to DeSoto NWR. At the time of

writing Wilson Island State Recreation Area remained closed. Table 3-8 shows DeSoto NWR’s 

annual visitation counts over the past 10 years.

Visitation at Boyer Chute NWR began over Labor Day weekend in 1996. Since the refuge’s 

inception, it has averaged just over 28,000 visitors per year. Similar to DeSoto NWR, visitation 

was greatly reduced in 2010 and 2011 due to long-duration, widespread flooding on the refuge. 

The history of visitation at Boyer Chute NWR appears in table 3-8 and is described in the 

sections that follow.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

Table 3-8: Visitation at DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges

Fiscal Year DeSoto NWR Boyer Chute NWR Comments

2002 176,009* 20,979

2003 329,091* 16,375

2004 362,427* 21,610 Last major snow goose migration

2005 216,000 25,439

2006 253,510 26,141

2007 211,263 27,286

2008 191,639 26,936

2009 254,770 29,582

2010 175,445 15,000 Major flooding – Boyer Chute NWR and 

Wilson Island State Recreation Area

2011 146,250 16,868 Major flooding – both refuges

2012 128,890 11,250 Flood recovery – select area closures

*Data incomplete; this sum covers the months of January through September.

In 2011, DeSoto NWR was one of five refuges in the Midwest Region of the Service selected to 

take part in a visitor survey. Seventy percent of the original 203 participating visitors completed 

the survey. Widespread flooding in 2011 made it impossible to fully complete the second 

sampling period. Highlights of the results indicated that nearly 90 percent of visitors surveyed 

were familiar with the Service’s conservation mission, half of surveyed visitors had come to the 

refuge on several occasions, and 63 percent were from communities in the area. Visitors 

indicated that the primary reasons for their visit were interpretation (28 percent), wildlife 

observation (15 percent), hunting (11 percent), and bird watching (10 percent); although they 

indicated that they engage in activities such as wildlife observation (61 percent), interpretation 

(45 percent), bird watching (44 percent), and auto tour driving (43 percent) while on the refuge. 

On average, visitors spend about $35.00 per day in the local area. Nearly 90 percent of visitors 

were satisfied with the recreation opportunities, and approximately 95 percent were satisfied 

with the information, services, and overall conservation work done by refuge staff (Sexton et al. 

2011).

Public Access and Facilities

Areas of DeSoto NWR open to the public from April 15 through October 14 include the area 

south of the headquarters and east of the entrance road, between the tour road and DeSoto 

Lake, and the area immediately surrounding the south end of DeSoto Lake near Wilson Island 

State Recreation Area. Only roads and trails in these public use zones are open the remainder 

of the year (October 15 to April 14). The area west of the Missouri River and the area southeast 

of DeSoto Lake are closed to the public except for the mushroom gathering season from April 

15 through May 31. Finally, the areas of DeSoto NWR closed year round to visitors include the 

areas inside the tour road, north of the lake, and west of the entrance road. During the hunting 

seasons temporary access is permitted to some of these zones. Figure 3-28 depicts the visitor 

services infrastructure on DeSoto NWR.

DeSoto NWR provides a self-guided paved and gravel auto tour road through the refuge; 

bicycling is also permitted on the tour route. Kiosks and signs are located throughout the refuge 

for welcoming, orienting, and providing interpretive information to visitors. Information and 

orientation services are also available at the refuge headquarters near the north entrance to the 

refuge and at the Visitor Center.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Four satellite gravel parking lots with informational panels are maintained throughout the refuge 

for hunting access. Three wildlife observation trails are maintained: one at the Visitor Center

(Visitor Center Trail) and two along the refuge tour route (Cottonwood Trail and Grassland 

Trail). Several accessible hunting blinds are available on the Center Island Unit. A covered 

environmental educational shelter is located at the Cottonwood trailhead; an environmental 

education gravel parking lot is maintained on the northeast corner of the refuge along U.S. 

Highway 30 to provide ranger guided school group access to the area. A large, accessible 

wildlife observation blind with two spotting scopes is located at Bob Starr Wildlife Overlook. 

Boating access to DeSoto Lake is provided at Middle Boat Ramp and hand-launch only access 

is available at the Steamboat Bertrand Discovery Site. Bank fishing is available seasonally

along DeSoto Lake at Sandbar Chute, Bullhead Pond, Middle Boat Ramp, Lakeview Drive, 

Prairie Lane, Whitetail Drive, and the South Gate Area; an accessible fishing pier is located at 

the South Gate Area.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

Figure 3-28: Current Visitor Services, DeSoto NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

The Visitor Center at DeSoto NWR opened in 1981, with 26,000 square feet of space for the 

Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection, interpretive exhibits, wildlife viewing galleries over 

DeSoto Lake, a theater, a small bookstore, an information desk, and numerous offices and 

meeting spaces. The building is maintained in good condition and has undergone major 

renovations over the past several years including new windows, a roof, lighting, and an entrance 

door. Additional repairs and modifications are being made to increase the building’s ability to 

withstand future flood events. Annually 70,000 to100,000 people visit the Visitor Center during 

open hours (9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., seven days a week).

The Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection has been housed in the DeSoto Visitor Center 

since the center was built in 1981. Flooding in 2011 caused the collection to be temporarily 

moved off-refuge. The Service is now conducting the first comprehensive inventory of the 

collection and is also in the process of updating the Visitor Center to better accommodate the 

collection and ensure a streamlined evacuation process should a future emergency arise. 

Curatorial staff are responsible for artifact loans, research and article publication, and technical 

assistance for inquiries from government agencies, museums, journalists, and researchers. 

Interpretation of the Steamboat Bertrand Discovery Site consists of a short trail leading from the 

parking lot to an observation platform, several interpretive panels, and a pond that formed at the 

completion of the Steamboat Bertrand excavation.

At Boyer Chute NWR (figure 3-29), all units are closed to the public except the West Chute and 

Boyer Island Units at the eastern end of County Road 34. All public use facilities are 

concentrated on these two units. The center of the south half of the Boyer Island Unit is also 

closed to the public. There is a heavy-duty bridge across the Boyer Chute that provides access 

to the Boyer Island Unit for both refuge staff and visitors. Its design has management 

implications, including safety concerns for boating in the chute, debris accumulation on the 

upstream side, and a reduction in the chute’s ability to meander. Boyer Chute NWR allows 

mushroom gathering for personal use with no date restrictions in all open areas of the West 

Chute and the Boyer Island Units.

Boyer Chute NWR provides a self-guided, paved automobile tour road in the West Chute Unit. It 

also provides access to six parking areas and bank fishing opportunities along the chute, 

including one accessible fishing pier. Bicycling is permitted on the tour road. Informational and 

interpretive kiosks are located at the refuge entrance and at the main parking lot. There are 

approximately 10 miles of trails on the refuge. One of the five wildlife observation trails is 

located at the south end of the West Chute Unit tour road (South Chute Confluence Trail, 0.5 

mile), and the other four are all located on the Boyer Island Unit [Oriole (0.5 mile), Meadowlark

(0.5 mile), North Island Loop (4.5 miles), and South Island Loop (3.5 miles) Trails]. Several 

satellite gravel parking lots are maintained throughout the refuge for hunting access.

Boyer Chute NWR has a maintenance facility located at the intersection of Sands Lane and 

River Tree Road. The main shop building has three maintenance bays and was updated in 

2009–2010. In addition to the main building, there are three pole sheds on the site used for 

equipment storage and general maintenance functions. Flooding in 2010 and 2011 has 

impacted the maintenance buildings and the use of this area.

Missouri River access is open to the public and managed by the Corps, not the refuges. There 

are no publicly accessible boat ramps to the Missouri River on either refuge, but access ramps 

can be found nearby in Blair, Nebraska and at Wilson Island State Recreation Area.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

Figure 3-29: Current Visitor Services, Boyer Chute NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Public Use

Hunting

DeSoto NWR hunting opportunities include muzzleloader and archery deer, archery turkey, and 

special shotgun turkey hunts for youth and disabled hunters. Boyer Chute NWR has offered 

muzzleloader deer and waterfowl (shotgun) since 2004. State hunting license reciprocity exists 

for DeSoto NWR, which contains land in both Iowa and Nebraska but not on Boyer Chute NWR,

because the refuge does not yet contain land on the Iowa side of the Missouri River. The 

refuge hunts are described in additional detail below and in figures 4-30 and 4-31.

Muzzleloader deer hunting is allowed at both refuges for managed, high saturation hunts. At 

DeSoto NWR this occurs in up to four hunt events annually, typically one of which is for bucks, 

the remainder are for antlerless deer; hunting zones vary between the two hunt types. At Boyer 

Chute NWR up to three antlerless muzzleloader deer hunt events occur annually on the five 

largest units: Boyer Island, West Chute, Nathan’s Lake, Horseshoe Lake, and North-Central.

Archery deer hunting occurs at DeSoto NWR in the fall during the dates when Nebraska and 

Iowa have overlapping open seasons (early October to mid-January). This hunt is offered in 

two areas of the refuge: west of the Missouri River and the area southeast of DeSoto Lake.

Archery turkey occurs in the spring during the dates when Nebraska and Iowa have 

overlapping open seasons (mid-April to mid-May). This hunt is offered within two areas of the 

refuge: west of the Missouri River and the area southeast of DeSoto Lake.

Shotgun turkey hunting events occur on DeSoto NWR in April and May for youth and disabled 

hunters.

Waterfowl hunting (ducks, geese, and coots) has been allowed on Boyer Chute NWR in 

accordance with state and federal hunting regulations since the completion of the 2007 

environmental assessment and follows the annual Service framework for the timing of migratory 

species hunting and the maximum allowable take. The area of the refuge designated for 

waterfowl hunting is defined as the immediate shoreline of the Missouri River, up to and

including the high bank, and between both ends of the Boyer Chute (see figure 3-31). The 

majority of the hunters access the area by boat, but land access is also available. An estimated 

20 waterfowl hunters use the refuge each season. DeSoto NWR does not currently have 

waterfowl hunting.

Small game hunting is not allowed on either refuge, although a fall youth pheasant hunt has 

been offered in the past on DeSoto NWR.

Trapping is not currently allowed on either refuge.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

Figure 3-30: Hunting Program, DeSoto NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

Figure 3-31: Hunting Program, Boyer Chute NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132

Fishing

DeSoto NWR provides anglers with opportunities to fish in DeSoto Lake from April 15 through 

October 14. In addition to bait and tackle, archery fishing for rough fish is permitted. Ice fishing 

on the lake is open from January 2 through the end of February. The lake supports a healthy 

fishery for bluegill, crappie, largemouth bass, white bass, and walleye. A number of fish habitat 

structures such as trees, rocks, and pallets have been added to enhance fish habitat. Motorized 

boating is permitted as long as visitors travel at no wake speeds (5 mph or less). The 2011 

flood permanently damaged two DeSoto Lake boat ramps located at the Steamboat Bertrand 

Discovery Site and the South Gate. Hand-launch access remains available at the Steamboat 

Bertrand Discovery Site. In addition, a number of access points for bank fishing and one boat 

launch facility (Middle Boat Ramp) are available. Bank fishing locations include Sandbar Chute, 

Bullhead Pond, Middle Boat Ramp, Lakeview Drive, Prairie Lane, Whitetail Drive, and the South 

Gate Area. An accessible fishing pier is located at South Gate Area. No fishing is allowed in 

the small ponds dispersed throughout the refuge. Finally, boat fishing is permitted on the 

stretch of the Missouri River that passes through DeSoto NWR.

Boyer Chute NWR provides anglers with bank fishing opportunities along the Boyer Chute and 

the Missouri River and boat fishing on the Missouri River. In addition to bait and tackle, archery 

fishing for rough fish is permitted. Creel surveys indicate anglers catch a few shovelnose 

sturgeon as well as channel, blue, and flathead catfish; carp, skipjack herring, and drum are 

also caught. No off-river waters are open to fishing on the refuge, and ice fishing was 

permanently closed at Boyer Chute NWR in 2001 due to safety concerns on the Boyer Chute. 

There was an initial surge of interest in fishing in 1996 when the refuge opened, and then use 

stabilized in the early 2000s at 2,000 to 3,000 visits per year. Since 2005 use has hovered 

around 4,000 visits per year. Years with widespread flooding across the refuge (2010 and 

2011) greatly reduce fishing visits and the refuge’s ability to host and monitor fishing use. 

During normal river flows, light fishing occurs on weekdays, and larger numbers of anglers visit

on weekends. Popular fishing spots include the north and south ends of the Boyer Chute, the 

area surrounding Boyer Chute Bridge, and the Sauger Pier. Litter associated with fishing can 

be problematic at times on the refuge.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

There are many opportunities to observe and photograph wildlife at DeSoto and Boyer Chute 

Refuges. Trails and public roads provide opportunities to see a diversity of big game, waterfowl, 

birds of prey, and songbirds in a floodplain landscape. The refuges provide thousands of acres 

of floodplain forests, prairies, and wetlands. These habitats benefit a broad diversity of wildlife 

including over 250 birds species, 35 mammal species, more than 60 fish species, and over 30 

reptile and amphibian species. Large concentrations of waterfowl, primarily snow geese, once 

attracted great numbers of visitors to DeSoto NWR.

Visitors to the refuges may see Red-headed Woodpeckers, Barred Owls, Bald Eagles, Yellowrumped Warblers, and Wild Turkey. Along the waterways, visitors may see Spotted 

Sandpipers, Great Blue Herons, Hooded Mergansers, and numerous species of waterfowl. The 

refuge habitats also attract mammals such as white-tail deer, beaver, muskrat, coyote, bobcat, 

badger, bats, and reptiles and amphibians including northern prairie skinks, softshell turtles, bull

snakes, Woodhouse’s toads, and leopard frogs. The species lists in appendix B provide 

additional information on wildlife that may be found on the refuges.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

In addition to views from the observation galleries in the Visitor Center, DeSoto NWR visitors 

can enjoy the Steamboat Bertrand Discovery Site, three nature trails (Visitor Center, 

Cottonwood, and Grassland) extending a total of 1.76 miles, the Bob Starr Wildlife Overlook, the

Missouri River Overlook, an auto tour route, and the South Gate Recreation Area. There are 

11.5 miles of roads (10.9 paved, 0.6 gravel) available to the public year round, and an additional 

7.0 miles of gravel roads open during non-migration periods.

Opportunities to observe wildlife are also abundant at Boyer Chute NWR. There are 21⁄3 miles 

of paved roads that parallel the Boyer Chute with accessible parking areas, restrooms, and a 

fishing pier. Wildlife viewing is available from refuge roads, trails, and the Sauger Pier. On the 

West Chute Unit, the South Chute Confluence Trail runs a half-mile from the South parking lot 

to the Missouri River. There are also four trails on the Boyer Island Unit [Oriole (0.5 mile), 

Meadowlark (0.5 mile), North Island Loop (4.5 miles), and South Island Loop (3.5 miles)].

Visitation to the refuges continues throughout the winter season. At Boyer Chute NWR all 

available visitor facilities are open year round, sunrise to sunset. DeSoto closes approximately 

one-half of the refuge tour roads from October 15 through April 14 to provide refugia for 

migratory birds during the fall and spring migration periods. Weather permitting, visitors 

continue to participate in wildlife observation and photography throughout the winter at both 

refuges by driving and bicycling on tour roads, and snowshoeing and cross-country skiing on 

trails in open areas. DeSoto NWR is a popular destination for wildlife-dependent activities year 

round due to its well-maintained and plowed tour road and extensive Visitor Center featuring a 

theater, large wildlife viewing galleries, educational bookstore, public meeting space, natural 

history exhibits, and the Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection display.

Environmental Education

DeSoto NWR operates a formal environmental education partnership with Blair Public Schools 

including an integrated curriculum developed with the school district for grades 3–12. The 

refuge is in the development stages of adding programs with other area schools, including an 

elementary school in Omaha. A number of other schools also utilize the refuges annually for 

self-guided or prearranged refuge staff-guided environmental education programs. DeSoto 

NWR hosts an average of over 5,000 student visits per year (5,951 in 2010; 6,321 in 2011; and 

4,041 in 2012).

In partnership with staff at DeSoto NWR, Boyer Chute NWR hosts several environmental 

education classes each year. As part of the DeSoto NWR/Blair Public Schools Environmental

Education Partnership, fifth grade students visit Boyer Chute NWR to study beavers and 

investigate signs of beaver activity on the refuge. As this partnership continues to grow it is 

likely that other grades from Blair Public Schools will visit the refuge. Other environmental 

education lessons are scheduled as requested.

Colleges and Universities periodically use the refuges for education and research, including 

Clarkson College, Creighton College, Dordt College, Drake University, Westmar College, the 

University of Nebraska, Iowa State University, Iowa Western Community College, the University 

of South Dakota, Morningside College, Hastings College, and Northwestern College.

Outreach and Programs

Onsite events hosted by DeSoto NWR in the past include Spring Migration 

Weekends/International Migratory Bird Day (IMBD) programs (February–March), Steamboat 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

Bertrand Days (April), National Volunteer Week/Earth Day/Spring Refuge Cleanup projects 

(April–May), Family Fishing Clinics (May–August), Teacher Workshop (June), Junior Refuge 

Manager programs (June–August), National Public Lands Day (September), National Wildlife 

Refuge Week/IMBD (October), Fall Migration Weekends/IMBD (November), Art-Of-The Wild 

wildlife art show (November), Backyard Bird Feeding programs (January–March), and wildlifethemed videos shown in the Visitor Center (weekends year round).

DeSoto NWR hosts weekend wildlife films, wildlife-related art exhibits, and winter and spring 

migration events Online outreach efforts, including Facebook, facilitate public awareness of 

special wildlife viewing opportunities, programs, and exhibits available in the Visitor Center and 

refuge.

Events hosted by Boyer Chute NWR in the past included Bike to Boyer (2005–2010), National 

River Cleanup Week (2004–2007), National Trails Day (2007 and 2008), International Migratory 

Bird Day bird walk (2009), and Fontenelle Forest/Boyer Chute Butterfly Count (July). Since 

2011, all refuge visitor services are based out of DeSoto NWR; public programs are 

intermittently scheduled at Boyer Chute or are included as part of programs (such as National 

Volunteer Week/Earth Day spring refuge cleanup projects, National Public Lands Day, and 

International Migratory Bird Day) being conducted and coordinated at DeSoto.

The refuges are also represented at outreach activities attended by staff. These events include 

Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo (Earth Day) Party for the Planet (April), Nebraska Public Schools –

Gifford Farm Park Family Nature Day (April), Omaha Public Schools Seventh Grade Career Day 

(April), University of Nebraska Medical Center’s Nebraska Science Fest (April), Metro Omaha 

Resources for Exploring Nature (MORE) – Family Nature Nights (Spring/Fall), Wilson Island 

State Recreation Area Campfire Talks (June–September), and Omaha’s Durham Museum –

Teachers Workshop (October). Refuge-specific interpretive brochures and publications are sent 

to area tourism centers and are available for download from the refuges’ website and Facebook 

pages.

Interpretation

Four primary interpretive themes form the foundation of interpretation and education on DeSoto 

and Boyer Chute Refuges. These themes offer visitors the opportunity to understand the 

natural and cultural resources of the refuges and the significance of these refuges nationally. 

The four themes are:

1. DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges provide sanctuary and a means of survival for 

migratory birds and other wildlife on the Missouri River floodplain by protecting, 

restoring, and enhancing diverse habitats that have largely disappeared from this 

important migratory bird corridor.

2. A mosaic of floodplain forest, grassland, wetland, sandbar, and riverine habitats are 

critical to the survival of diverse plant and animal life at the refuges—including rare, 

threatened, and endangered species such as the pallid sturgeon, Piping Plover, and 

Least Tern.

a. Innovative and science-based management techniques help preserve and 

restore native habitats and wildlife, especially migratory birds.

b. Wetlands are places of biological productivity, resilience, and beauty that provide 

resting and feeding areas for migratory birds, including Wood Ducks, Green-
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

winged Teal, Blue-winged Teal, Mallards, Great Blue Herons, egrets and many 

more.

3. Historic periods of exploration, settlement, and nation-building, including the passage of 

the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806) and Steamboat Bertrand (1865), heralded 

dramatic changes to the natural environment in the Missouri River Valley. These 

changes had substantial impacts on the wildlife and habitat in the Missouri River 

floodplain. Refuge resources and stories, such as those reflected by the Steamboat 

Bertrand Museum Collection, foster an appreciation for the impact of settlement in the 

Missouri River Valley and the refuges’ role in conserving the river’s unique natural 

history.

4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and conservation partners work collaboratively in a 

dynamic and changing environment to understand, restore, and conserve biological 

communities on the refuges to benefit wildlife, and to promote an enduring appreciation 

for the refuges, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and Service trust resources.

In addition to the substantial interpretive facilities at the Visitor Center, DeSoto NWR also has 

kiosks with welcoming, orienting, and interpretive information located at the north and south 

entrances to the refuge, Visitor Center parking lot, and the Lewis and Clark Historic Campsite 

area. Informational and interpretive signs are located at the Middle Boat Ramp, Bob Starr

Wildlife Overlook, Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection and Discovery Site, Missouri River 

Overlook, and several additional locations along the refuge’s tour road.

Natural resource interpretation provided at the kiosk and sign locations covers migratory birds 

and other wildlife, wildlife habitat, wildlife identification, wildlife conservation, threatened and 

endangered species, Missouri River channelization history, and recent habitat restoration 

efforts. Two major cultural themes are also interpreted throughout the refuge: the westward 

expansion of the United States (Lewis and Clark Expedition), and the mid-19th century Missouri 

River navigation and riverboat history (Steamboat Bertrand).

Boyer Chute NWR provides a self-guided, paved automobile tour road in the West Chute Unit, 

providing access to six parking areas and bank fishing opportunities along the chute including 

one accessible fishing pier. Bicycling is permitted on the tour road surface. Informational and 

interpretive kiosks are located at the entrance and at the main parking lot for the West Chute

and Boyer Island Units. The kiosks are used to welcome and orient visitors as well as provide 

interpretation about the biological resources of the refuges and recent habitat restoration efforts

including the Boyer Chute. One major cultural theme is interpreted—the westward expansion of 

the United States. Kiosk interpretive panels tell the story of Lewis and Clark’s first meeting with 

Indian tribes in August of 1804, three miles west at the nearby “Council Bluff.”

Refuge Administration

Both refuges are currently managed and staffed out of DeSoto NWR. The existing 

organizational chart identifies 21 positions, of which 16 are filled (see table 3-9). The 2001 

DeSoto CCP requested an additional nine positions over the 19 positions that existed at the 

time to accomplish the objectives of the plan. Administration is split between the DeSoto NWR

headquarters building, which houses most of the staff, and the Visitor Center, which houses the 

visitor services, law enforcement, and museum curatorial staff.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

Table 3-9: Staffing on the Refuges

Position Category No. of Employees

Manager 1

Wildlife Refuge Specialist 3

Administrative Officer 1

Museum Curation 2

Park Ranger 3

Law Enforcement 1

Maintenance 4

Student Trainee 1

TOTAL 16

The management of DeSoto NWR has been fairly stable since its creation in 1959. However, 

the management of Boyer Chute NWR has varied greatly over the 25-year lifespan of the 

refuge. The refuge was created as a unit of the Rocky Mountain Region of the Service (Region 

6), but was managed by the Midwest Region (Region 3) until July of 2001. During the early 

2000s the refuge was managed out of Region 6. Then in October of 2006, management was 

passed back to Region 3 of the Service and has remained there ever since. The refuges’ close 

proximity and shared ecology, habitats, wildlife management, and publics make shared 

management more efficient.

The operations and maintenance budget for the refuges have fluctuated over the past 5 years 

(see table 3-10). The late 2000s saw a generally increasing trend, and then in the early 2010s 

budgets have been stable for Boyer Chute NWR and gradually decreasing for DeSoto NWR—

the notable exception being 2012, which had a number of costs associated with 2011’s 

catastrophic flooding.

Table 3-10: Refuge Operations and Maintenance Budgets

Fiscal Year DeSoto NWR Boyer Chute NWR

FY 2008 $1,674,282 $281,022

FY 2009 $2,226,370 $287,723

FY 2010 $1,926,075 $322,298

FY 2011 $1,804,362 $222,736

FY 2012 $2,309,686 $223,392

FY 2013 $1,720,926 (estimated) Funding moved to DeSoto NWR

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement on the refuges focuses on both protection and prevention. Protection seeks 

to safeguard the visiting public, staff, facilities, and natural and cultural resources from criminal 

action, accidents, negligence, and acts of nature such as storms. Incident prevention occurs 

primarily through the patrols and activities of law enforcement staff. Law enforcement includes 

verbal warnings, written notices, and warrant arrests; incidents reported include poaching, 

dumping, drug and alcohol use, vandalism, and auto accidents.

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges share one Service law enforcement officer. As needed, the 

officer also assists other refuges in the Midwest Region. In addition, the refuges rely on 

assistance from the Iowa and Nebraska state conservation officers in the area and the Sheriff’s 

Offices in Blair and Missouri Valley.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

Refuge Support

To accomplish the conservation mission of the Refuge System, support from volunteers and 

partners is essential. External support is key to the success of many refuge programs.

Friends Group

The refuges share a single Friends Group: the Friends of Boyer Chute and DeSoto National 

Wildlife Refuge, a non-profit citizen group formed in 2003. At the time of writing, the Friends 

Group has approximately 55 members with about a dozen very active individuals. The goals of 

the Friends Group include providing awareness of the refuges and environmental education to 

residents of the surrounding communities, providing volunteers and support to refuge staff with 

environmental, educational, and wildlife-oriented projects, and raising funds for special refuge

projects. At DeSoto NWR the Friends Group also manages and operates the Visitor Center’s 

Eagle Emporium Bookstore.

Volunteer Program

Volunteerism on the refuges was relatively stable in the early 2000s but has declined in recent 

years due to the regularity of flood events, flood-related closures, and a reduction in the number 

of refuge events held throughout the year. Many volunteers work with the refuge as a part of 

the Friends Group or local birding groups. Refuge volunteers also assist with general 

maintenance, environmental education, and seed collecting activities. Table 3-11 tracks 

volunteerism on the refuges starting in 2000.

Table 3-11: Volunteerism at the Refuges

DeSoto NWR Boyer Chute NWR

Fiscal Year No. of Individuals Hours Donated No. of Individuals Hours Donated

2000 84 4,168 14 292

2001 88 3,926 5 212

2002 137 5,962 20 4,010

2003 85 5,809 22 1,594

2004 106 5,952 60 2,151

2005 312 6,532 155 1,576

2006 562 5,202 46 1,043

2007 373 3,962 44 847

2008 343 4,222 33 781

2009 293 3,851 21 611

2010 369 4,933 22 563

2011 191 2,633 0 0

2012 262 2,262 50 180
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

Partnerships

Refuges staff frequently interact with many federal, state, county, and local governments in 

addition to a number of non-governmental organizations. In fact, it is through these 

partnerships that Boyer Chute NWR was created; collaborative efforts led to the initial land 

acquisition and numerous habitat restorations on the refuge.

In addition, there are a number of ongoing partnership activities throughout the Greater Omaha–

Council Bluffs Metro Area. Examples include refuge participation in programs at the Omaha 

Zoo and Durham Museum, career days in metro area public schools, support of refuge activities 

by Bass Pro Shops®, interaction with the NGPC’s Omaha Visitor Center, and regular interaction 

with metro news and radio outlets.

The refuges meet annually with the Corps to discuss shallow water habitat restoration projects. 

Both refuges are in the path of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and have camps from 

the expedition on or adjacent to refuge lands. An artistic monument has been constructed on 

Boyer Chute NWR as a part of the interpretation of this history. The refuges are also partners in 

a range of Missouri River Recovery Program initiatives and working groups. The refuges are 

involved in the Loess Hills Alliance through their private lands program, which has undertaken a 

number of restoration projects within the Loess Hills. Other examples of refuge partnerships

include coordinating the refuge’s law enforcement program with the Washington County

Sheriff’s Department, updating Nebraska legislators on Service programs and emerging issues, 

and the diversity of research projects coordinated with the University of Nebraska’s Omaha and 

Lincoln campuses.

A number of the refuge key partners are listed below and in appendix I.

• Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District (PMRNRD)

• U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)

• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

• National Park Service – Midwest Regional Office (NPS)

• Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC)

• Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR)

• Lower Missouri River Ecosystem Team

• Missouri River Natural Resources Committee (MRNRC)

• Ducks Unlimited (DU)

• Back to the River, Inc. (B2R)

• The Nebraska Land Trust

• National Audubon Society – Omaha Chapter

• The Nature Conservancy

• Washington County Highway Department

• Washington County Planning Department

• Pottawattamie County Conservation Board
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

• The Upper Mississippi/Great Lakes Joint Venture (UM/GL JV)

• University of Nebraska – Omaha (UNO)

• University of Nebraska – Lincoln (UNL)

• Fontenelle Nature Association

• Fort Calhoun Volunteer Fire Department

• Blair Community Schools

• Local landowners

Private Lands Program (Partners for Fish and Wildlife)

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is a voluntary program that has been offered 

nationwide by the Service since 1987 to provide landowners with technical and financial 

assistance in restoring habitat and managing private property to benefit wildlife. Projects 

include wetland, upland, streambank, and aquatic habitat restoration. The program also 

strengthens relationships with federal, state, local, and private conservation partners.

DeSoto NWR currently maintains a coordinator position for the Private Lands/Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program it operates through DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges. Refuges staff 

assist with habitat restoration and enhancement projects in 28 counties along the Missouri 

River, 18 on the Iowa side (Lyon, Sioux, Plymouth, Woodbury, Monona, Crawford, Carroll, 

Harrison, Shelby, Audubon, Pottawattamie, Cass, Mills, Montgomery, Adams, Fremont, Page, 

and Taylor) and 10 on the Nebraska side (Burt, Washington, Dodge, Saunders, Douglas, Sarpy, 

Cass, Otoe, Nemaha, and Richardson). The refuges work with neighboring landowners and 

partners in the watershed to address water quality, drainage, and other hydrological issues. 

The refuges watersheds (see figure 3-17) are priority areas for targeting Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife projects. Along with wetland restoration projects, prairie restoration in the seven 

counties along the Missouri River containing the Loess Hills has been a priority of the upland 

habitat conservation program in recent years. As much as $30,000 of Partners for Fish and

Wildlife funds are allocated annually to restoring and enhancing wildlife habitat in the counties 

where the refuges work. Many of the habitat projects have been accomplished through 

coordination with Farm Bill programs operated by the USDA’s Farm Service Agency and Natural 

Resource Conservation Service.

Historic and Cultural Resources

Native American History and Early Settlement

Human activity has taken place in western Iowa and eastern Nebraska, including the Missouri 

River Valley, for the past 12,000 years. Early peoples, called “Paleoindians” by archaeologists, 

were highly mobile and followed the migratory habits of the big game animals present at the end 

of the last ice age, such as mammoths and ancient bison. This cultural group is largely known 

by the large, chipped-stone spear points used to kill and butcher these animals. Paleoindian 

spear points that have been found include Clovis, Plainview, Folsom, Hell Gap, Agate Basin, 

Alberta, Scottsbluff, Eden, Frederick, Lusk, and Brown’s Valley.

As the climate changed and became closer to what we experience today, the big game animals 

became extinct, and humans adapted; they became less mobile and used a much broader 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

range of plant and animals resources. These adaptive peoples, called “Archaic” by 

archaeologists, were foragers that, while still somewhat mobile, returned year after year to 

favorite hunting and gathering spots. They left behind a wide range of stone tools including 

smaller spear points and plant grinding implements.

By around 2,000 years ago, the introduction of new technologies from the East, such as clay 

pottery and the bow and arrow, set off a change in the subsistence and social structure of the 

people in western Iowa and eastern Nebraska. These peoples, called “Plains Woodland” by 

archaeologists, settled down in year round residences in small villages and utilized local 

resources. Because of their more stationary lifestyle they also started to develop designated 

burial sites in the form of earthen mounds.

As populations increased in these villages around 1,000 years ago, residents started to 

experiment with gardening and eventually added horticulture to their hunting and gathering 

activities. Transitioning into what archaeologists call “Central Plains Village,” these woodland 

peoples intensively planted and harvested corn, beans, and squash (introduced from the South) 

to supplement bison hunting and plant gathering activities. They built larger and more 

substantial lodges with a variety of storage and trash pits within the lodge floors. The St. 

Helena and Nebraska Phases of this period were centered along the Missouri River.

It is these Central Plains Villagers that European explorers encountered in the 1700s. 

Consequently, these are the earliest Native American groups for which there is ethnographic 

evidence of group identification and documentation of the tribes’ names. The area of the 

refuges was occupied by Siouan-speaking tribes, including the Omaha, Ponca, Oto, Missouri, 

Ioway, and Kansa. When Lewis and Clark passed through this area in August 1804 they met 

with the leaders of the Oto and Missouri just west of the refuge boundaries within the present 

day Fort Atkinson State Historical Park at the “Council Bluff” site. By 1820 the federal

government established Fort Atkinson in the same area, the first fort west of the Missouri River. 

The fort was short-lived, however, and was abandoned in 1827. Since then the area has seen 

the rise of rural European-origin farmers taking advantage of the rich Missouri River bottom 

soils. A number of early farmsteads, including standing structures, are contained within the 

refuges’ authorized boundaries.

Although no evidence of Native American peoples has been found within the authorized refuge

boundaries for either refuge, sites of the more recent Central Plains Village people have been 

found nearby. In fact, sixteen federally recognized tribes claim historic ties to the three counties 

that contain the refuges (appendix I). These tribes were invited to participate in the CCP 

process for the refuges.

The scarcity of evidence for pre-European human activity on the refuges is most likely due to 

active erosion and deposition of alluvial sediments from the Missouri River and its tributaries. 

As a result, while the potential for human activity is great, the tangible record of human 

occupation is sparse and not likely to improve. Even if ancient archaeological sites have 

survived years of sediment shifts, they are deeply buried and beyond the reach of ordinary 

Service activities. Such sites may turn up, however, during dredging activities along the 

Missouri River and its tributaries.

Harrison and Pottawattamie Counties in Iowa and Washington County in Nebraska contain 

numerous properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (59 as of December, 

2012). One is the Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection and Discovery Site on DeSoto NWR; 

another is Fort Atkinson on the western border of Boyer Chute NWR. The remainder are 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

primarily homes, churches, schools, and other historic buildings in towns throughout the 

counties. Aside from the Historic Register sites, it is believed by some historians that additional 

steamboats may have been lost in the area of DeSoto/Bertrand Bend. In addition, the August 3, 

1804 campsite of the Lewis and Clark expedition is believed to be located on DeSoto NWR, and 

two additional campsites from July 29 and 30, 1804 are thought to be located within or very 

close to the authorized boundary for Boyer Chute NWR (although not on Service-owned 

property). To date, no material artifacts have been recovered on the refuges from any Lewis 

and Clark campsites. DeSoto NWR contains 13 reported cultural resources sites. All of these 

sites are a part of the Western culture historic period, including two homestead sites. Just 

under 200 acres of DeSoto NWR have been subjected to archeological survey. This includes a 

survey conducted by Wichita State University in 1978 (the Blakeslee and King survey) at the 

location of the refuge’s Visitor Center. At Boyer Chute NWR, the most recent archaeological 

survey was conducted in 2009 prior to the installation of the maintenance shop’s geothermal 

wells. No evidence of archaeological resources was found at that time.

Steamboat Bertrand History

Over 400 steamboats were lost on the Missouri River during the early history of the United 

States, including the Steamboat Bertrand. DeSoto Visitor Center is home to a one-of-a-kind 

collection of civil war era artifacts that were excavated from the buried hull of the Steamboat 

Bertrand. On April 1, 1865, the Steamboat Bertrand was traveling up the Missouri River headed 

to the Montana goldfields when it hit a submerged log just below “DeSoto Landing” and sank 

with all of its cargo. Originally owned by J. J. Roe and Company, the 161-foot ship and its load 

of foodstuffs, clothing, and agricultural and mining supplies were on a two-month voyage from 

St. Louis, Missouri to Fort Benton in the Montana Territory. Rumor held that a wealth of 

mercury, whiskey, and gold were in the hull’s contents, but these items were not found during 

the excavation, and it is now believed that the most valuable cargo was salvaged by the 

insurance company shortly after the steamboat sank (Petsche 1974).

A failed attempt to find the Steamboat Bertrand occurred in 1896. Finally, in 1968 the buried 

wreckage was discovered on DeSoto NWR beneath 28 feet of silt and clay by two modern 

salvors, Jesse Pursell and Sam Corbino, using a flux gate magnetometer. The iron-rich 

howitzer ammunition, iron plows, steel bar stock, and kegs of nails caused aberrations in the 

magnetic readings so a grid of holes were drilled and cargo materials were encountered in the 

core samples. In accordance with the Antiquities Act of 1906, the complete cargo (10,000 cubic 

feet) excavated during 1968 and 1969 were turned over to the Service for exhibition and 

preservation. The work was overseen by National Park Service archaeologists at the Midwest 

Archaeological Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. The hull of the ship was left in place once the 

cargo was removed (Petsche 1974), and the Steamboat Bertrand Discovery Site is state listed 

(25WN14) and has also been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (#69000138)

since March 24, 1969. The well-preserved, time-capsuled artifacts include an array of tools, 

clothing, food, and equipment. Since 1981, the Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection has 

been on display in the DeSoto Visitor Center. This 26,000 square foot facility contains 

numerous exhibits, a conservation lab, collection research area, and library.

In October of 1991, the Service signed an agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Nebraska SHPO 

that articulates conditions for the documentation, curatorship, and preservation of the 

Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection. This agreement ensures compliance with Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Current Management

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

Cultural Resource Management

Cultural resources (archaeological sites, historic structures, and Native American traditional 

cultural properties) are important parts of the Nation’s heritage. The Service strives to preserve 

evidence of these human occupations, which can provide valuable information about 

interactions between individuals as well as between early peoples and the natural environment. 

Protection of cultural resources is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to 

protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

The Service is charged with the responsibility, under Section 106 of the NHPA, of identifying 

historic properties (cultural resources that are potentially eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places) that may be affected by Service actions. The Service is also 

required to coordinate these actions with the State Historic Preservation Office, Native American 

tribal governments, local governments, and other interested parties. Cultural resource 

management in the Service is the responsibility of the regional director and is not delegated for 

the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for 

issuing archaeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement.

Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) requires plans to 

survey lands and a schedule for surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable 

archaeological resources.” This act also affords protection to all archeological and historic sites 

more than 100 years old on federal land—not just sites meeting the criteria for the National 

Register, and requires archeological investigations on federal land be performed in the public

interest by qualified persons.

The Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about 

procedures, compliance, and implementation of these and other cultural resource laws. The 

actual determinations regarding cultural resources are made by the RHPO for undertakings on 

Service fee title lands and for undertakings funded in whole, or in part, under the direct or 

indirect jurisdiction of the Service, including those carried out by or on behalf of the Service,

those carried out with federal financial assistance, and those requiring a federal permit, license, 

or approval.

The responsibility of the refuge manager is to identify undertakings that could affect cultural 

resources and coordinate the subsequent review process as early as possible with the RHPO 

and state, tribal, and local officials. Also, the refuge manager assists the RHPO by protecting 

archeological sites and historic properties on Service-managed and Service-administered lands, 

by monitoring archaeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting 

ARPA violations.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

In this chapter:

Introduction

Habitat (1)

Wildlife (2)

People (3)

Introduction

This chapter presents the goals, objectives, and strategies that will guide management and 

administration of the refuges over the next 15 years. This management direction represents the 

plan for the refuges and mirrors Alternative D in the Environmental Assessment and Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan that was prepared as a part of the planning process.

The refuges have three goals: 

• Goal 1: Habitat - Provide quality native grasslands, floodplain forests, wetlands, sandbar, 

and riverine habitats through land conservation, restoration, and management.

• Goal 2: Wildlife - Protect, maintain, and enhance a diversity of resident, migratory, and 

endangered species native to the Missouri River floodplain.

• Goal 3: People - Refuge visitors will understand and appreciate management of the 

refuges and the Refuge System through participation in diverse wildlife-dependent 

recreation, environmental education, and outreach opportunities and will understand the 

progression of change in the Missouri River Valley as reflected through the Steamboat 

Bertrand Museum Collection and its history.

Goals, objectives, and strategies comprise the proposed future management direction. Goals 

are descriptive broad statements of desired future conditions that convey a purpose. Goals are 

followed by objectives, which are specific statements describing management intent. Objectives 

provide detail and are supported by rationale statements that describe background, history, 

assumptions, and technical details to help clarify how the objectives were formulated. Finally, 

beneath each objective there is a list of potential strategies—specific actions, tools, and 

techniques designed to fulfill the objective. The strategies may be refined or amended as 

specific tasks are completed or new research and information come to light.

Habitat (1)

Habitat Goal

Provide quality native grasslands, floodplain forests, wetlands, sandbar, and riverine habitats 

through land conservation, restoration, and management. (See figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.)

Objective 1.1: DeSoto Lake

Within 10 years of CCP approval, manage DeSoto Lake to mimic historic (preregulation) annual 

hydrological fluctuations and improve riverine fish passage while carefully avoiding impacts to 
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144

refuge neighbors; work to improve water quality and to remove DeSoto Lake from the Iowa list 

of impaired and threatened waters (section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act).

Rationale

In order to manage refuge habitats at benchmark conditions it is important to reestablish 

fluctuating water levels that support floodplain habitat and the wildlife that depend on these 

habitats.

DeSoto Lake was listed as a Category Five state impaired water by the Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources (DNR) under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for excessive turbidity in 

2004 and 2006, and then for both turbidity and algae in 2008 and their most recent 2010 

survey—citing aesthetically objectionable conditions in Secchi and Chl-a tropic surveys 

conducted between 2002 and 2008. Although the water quality issues in DeSoto Lake are 

considered a low priority by the state, the refuge can work to address and improve these 

conditions through on-refuge management actions and off-refuge partnerships. Much of the 

water that feeds DeSoto Lake enters from three agricultural ditches that drain the lake’s twenty 

square mile watershed, or from surface flow during rain events. Soil and water conservation 

efforts in the lake’s watershed can improve its water quality.

Figure 4-1: Projected Future Land Cover Quantities 

Agriculture

0%

DeSoto 

Lake

11%

Missouri 

River

3%

Seasonal 

Wetlands

17%

Bottomland 

Forest

35%

Shrub/Scrub

3%

Grassland

28%

Sandbar

1%

Developed

2%

Future Land Cover - DeSoto NWR

Missouri 

River

7%

Seasonal 

Wetlands

5%

Bottomland 

Forest

19%

Shrub/Scrub

1%

Grassland

15%

Sandbar

Developed 0%

1%

Inholding 

(Agriculture)

53%

Future Land Cover - Boyer Chute NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

Figure 4-2: Future Land Cover, DeSoto NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

Figure 4-3: Future Land Cover (Assuming Full Acquisition), Boyer Chute NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

Strategies

1. Use historic data to identify the average hydrograph for the stretch of the Missouri River 

containing DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges.

2. Remain active in efforts to study the hydrology of the area, including the 

hydrogeomorphic analysis being undertaken by the Service and its partners on the 

Lower Missouri River.

3. Replace inlet and outlet structures at DeSoto Lake with new structures that improve fish 

passage and water management capabilities within 10 years of CCP approval.

4. Use water control structures as needed to adjust seasonal water levels in DeSoto Lake.

5. Use wetlands to prefilter water entering DeSoto Lake from surrounding agricultural lands 

and associated drainage ditches.

6. Update DeSoto Lake water quality monitoring protocols in an inventory and monitoring 

step-down management plan to be completed within three years of CCP approval.

7. Continue to use the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program to work with landowners in 

the DeSoto Lake drainage basin (see chapter 3 for additional information).

Objective 1.2: Seasonal Wetlands

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge): Annually manage for seasonal wetlands that 

range from approximately 100 acres (dry conditions during nonmigratory periods) to 1,500 acres 

(full capacity in wet conditions during migrations); annually rotate management for mudflats, 

annual vegetation, and perennial vegetation.

Boyer Chute NWR: Given current acquisition status, annually manage for seasonal wetlands 

that range from 30 acres (dry conditions during nonmigratory periods) to 500 acres (full capacity 

in wet conditions during migrations). Assuming full acquisition of authorized boundary, annually 

manage for seasonal wetlands that range from approximately 30 acres (dry conditions during 

nonmigratory periods) to 1,200 acres (full capacity in wet conditions during migrations).

Rationale

Enhancing and maintaining the integrity of existing wetland habitat and restoring degraded 

wetlands to benchmark conditions is important for numerous reasons. The following list cites 

some of the key reasons:

1. It is National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) policy as mandated by 

the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 to “ensure that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained . . . ,” which

provides guidance to restore and maintain “biotic composition, structure, and functioning 

at genetic, organism, and community levels comparable with historic (benchmark) 

conditions . . .” on refuge lands where appropriate.

2. According to the Iowa DNR’s 2010 “Wetland Action Plan for Iowa,” Iowa has lost 90–95

percent of its original 4–6 million acres of wetlands (Evelsizer and Johnson 2010). The 

State of Nebraska has lost approximately one million acres (about 35 percent) of the 

state's original wetland acreage in the last 200 years (Dahl 1990).
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148

3. A mosaic of wetland habitat types on the landscape would support an abundant and 

diverse array of wildlife species.

4. Wetlands provide a multitude of ecosystem services that benefit both humans and 

wildlife—from flood control to improving water quality.

The short- and long-term objectives described in this CCP strive to maximize acres of refuge 

wetlands by protecting existing wetland habitat and restoring wetland areas that have been 

altered or degraded. There are areas of both refuges that have the environmental factors (soils, 

hydrology, relief, etc.) to support wetland habitat. Minor modifications in surface drainage and 

the addition of supplemental water will allow the refuges to create new seasonal wetland habitat

during critical migration periods.

Although a number of factors, including climate change, have the potential to affect fundamental 

ecosystem conditions and balances, historic records still form a benchmark by which 

management can gauge the level of habitat alteration and disturbance and use this information 

to guide restoration.

In addition, it is important to acknowledge the natural range of variation within each habitat type, 

both spatially and temporally, that is brought about by disturbance and local environmental 

factors. Selecting a range of target conditions and habitat acreages is a more accurate and less 

risky way to identify desired conditions than with exact quantities; however, numerical ranges 

can obscure the precision of existing data. Therefore, exact numbers are identified for the

habitat objectives with the understanding that the numbers are approximations based on the 

best available information. Furthermore, annual fluctuations in water levels make it nearly 

impossible to pinpoint exact desired acreages for wetland habitat types, particularly open water 

and emergent marsh. Nonetheless, an average of current and preexisting conditions obtained 

from a variety of sources, including an analysis of aerial imagery, the National Wetlands 

Inventory; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service soils data;

and presettlement vegetation estimates make it possible to establish target acreages—fully 

acknowledging the limitations of these data sources and resulting numbers.

In addition to rain and river water from periodic flood events, water will be pumped into wetlands 

from refuge agricultural ditches, DeSoto Lake, and groundwater sources. Surface waters 

directed into wetlands have the benefit of filtering and processing agricultural runoff from 

adjacent lands. Nutrients in agricultural runoff can help to increase the primary and secondary 

productivity in wetlands, augmenting food resources for wildlife.

The local benefits of diverse wetland habitats to bird species and other wildlife are well 

documented. Open water, emergent marsh, and sedge meadow habitats on the refuges are 

essential stopover sites during spring and fall migrations, supporting an average of 3 million 

waterfowl use days; a mix of divers, dabblers, and geese; and numerous other migratory bird 

species. There are notable concentrations of Northern Pintail, Mallards, Blue-winged Teal,

Green-winged Teal, Ring-necked Ducks, White-fronted Geese, and Canada Geese in the spring 

and fall.

Strategies

1. Complete a habitat step-down management plan within five years of CCP approval.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

2. Identify and restore wetland habitats and hydrology by using historical vegetation 

descriptions, soils data, and other data sources.

3. Manage wetlands to provide for a variety of habitats (mudflat, annual and perennial 

vegetation) needed to support species that depend on wetlands for their life cycle. 

Objective 1.3: Grasslands

DeSoto NWR: Over the life of the CCP manage for approximately 2,350 acres of mesic and wet 

grasslands.

Boyer Chute NWR: Over the life of the CCP, manage for approximately 1,500 acres of mesic 

and wet grasslands, given current acquisition status. Over the life of the CCP, manage for 

approximately 5,800 acres of mesic and wet grasslands, assuming full acquisition of authorized 

boundary.

Rationale

As mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, it is Service policy to 

“ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are 

maintained . . .” Service policy provides guidance to restore habitat to historical benchmark 

conditions on refuge lands where appropriate and possible. Much of the refuges’ uplands were 

once prairie but were converted to agricultural fields over the last 100 years. Newly acquired

refuge lands (within the Boyer Chute NWR authorized boundary) containing farm fields should 

be converted to prairie with native, local ecotype seed as a step toward restoring the lands to 

conditions associable with the presettlement period. Prairie is considered one of the most 

endangered ecosystems in the country. According to the Iowa Wildlife Action Plan, of the 30 

million acres of prairie that once covered Iowa only 0.1 percent remains (Zohrer 2006). The

Nebraska Wildlife Action Plan states that approximately 2 percent of the original tallgrass prairie 

remains in Nebraska—mostly in parcels less than 80 acres in size (Schneider et al. 2005). The

majority of this loss can be attributed to conversion to agriculture. As a result, many of the 

grassland birds and other wildlife associated with this habitat are also declining. By restoring 

prairies, the refuges would provide critical habitat for declining grassland birds and other wildlife 

and plant species.

Strategies

1. Identify and map the wet and mesic grassland habitat with the highest potential for 

restoration within the boundaries of the refuges.

2. Research historical vegetation records to assist in refining benchmark conditions.

3. Expand vegetation monitoring to include periodic field-based species richness surveys 

and GIS-based land cover analysis.

4. Further define refuge habitat management in a step-down management plan within five

years of CCP approval.

5. Restore natural ecological processes and functions such as fire and local hydrology to 

support these grassland habitats.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

150

Objective 1.4: Wooded Habitats (Bottomland Forest, Cottonwood Parkland, and 

Shrub/Scrub)

DeSoto NWR: Over the life of the CCP, continue to manage for approximately 3,200 acres of 

native bottomland forest, cottonwood parkland, and shrub/scrub, managing these habitats for 

structural and species diversity. Maintain large mature stands of bottomland forest with a 

diverse, dense understory component to provide nesting habitat for Yellow-billed Cuckoos, 

Chestnut-sided Warblers, Wood Thrush, and woodpecker species.

Boyer Chute NWR: Over the life of the CCP, allow the Center Island Unit and riparian buffers 

(approximately100 meters) along the Missouri River and Boyer Chute to succeed to bottomland 

forest (estimated 1,850 wooded acres within existing landholdings, and 2,650 wooded acres 

with full acquisition).

Rationale

Bottomland forests provide an important riparian habitat buffer for many watercourses on the 

refuges. This buffer helps improve water quality, protect refuge soils, and provide habitat for a 

diversity of native wildlife. In addition, a number of bottomland forest-dependent migratory 

songbirds are declining as a result of habitat loss and fragmentation. Conservation and 

management of suitable bottomland forest habitat is a principal strategy for maintaining healthy, 

self-sustaining populations of these birds.

Strategies

1. Promote natural regeneration of cottonwood bottomland forest on the refuges.

2. Where necessary, plant endemic Missouri River floodplain species that will enhance the 

bottomland forest communities, will re-establish missing historic plant community 

species, and are appropriate for contemporary Missouri River floodplain conditions.

3. Conduct a land cover/vegetation assessment across both refuges that distinguishes the 

habitat types covered by the CCP objectives at least once every 10 years.

Objective 1.5: Agriculture

DeSoto NWR: After CCP approval, eliminate the cooperative farming program and limit the use 

of farming techniques (not to exceed 200 acres annually) to scattered plots for habitat 

management needs.

Boyer Chute NWR: No cooperative farming program exists or is planned for Boyer Chute NWR.

Rationale

The use of farming techniques has long been recognized as a valuable habitat management 

tool on refuges. It can be used to set back succession, prepare seedbeds, control exotic, 

noxious, and invasive weeds, and meet other management objectives while providing 

supplemental food for biannual migrations. However, there are also concerns about genetically 

modified organisms and pesticide use associated with farming. In the past, agriculture was a 

larger part of the refuges’ habitat management program, and the cooperative farming program 

provided an opportunity to minimize refuge equipment and personnel costs, support the local 
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

economy, and promote relationships with refuge neighbors. The refuge now proposes to use 

agricultural practices to achieve long-range habitat goals and to address exotic, invasive, or 

noxious plants. Since these areas will be sprayed or disked anyway to control these species, 

this objective allows us to plant a cover crop to provide erosion control and offer a food source 

for migration.

Strategies (DeSoto NWR)

1. Upon CCP approval, eliminate cooperative and financial incentive farming, and reduce 

the use of farming techniques for habitat management to levels specified in the objective 

(generally not to exceed 200 acres per year).

2. Use farming techniques as habitat management needs and staff levels warrant over the 

life of the CCP.

3. Use annual planning activities to determine the extent farming techniques for habitat 

management will be used on the refuge each year. Areas planted will be limited to areas 

that require control of exotic, invasive, and/or noxious plants.

4. No genetically modified organism (GMO) crops or neonicotinoids will be used on the 

refuge.

5. Adhere to all regional and national guidance/policy regarding farming and pesticide use 

on refuges. 

6. Planted crops will generally be limited to small grains that can offer both erosion control 

and food value for wildlife.

7. No crops will be planted or harvested for commercial market or sale.

8. All crops will be left in the field as a supplemental food source for wildlife.

Objective 1.6: Land Acquisition

DeSoto NWR: The authorized refuge boundary is fully acquired at 8,365 acres. Over the life of 

the CCP, continue to evaluate acquisition opportunities for important habitats adjacent to the 

refuge, the sum not to exceed 10 percent of the existing refuge acreage.

Boyer Chute NWR: Over the life of the CCP, continue to use priorities established in the 1997 

expansion document (FWS 1997) to guide acquisition of the remaining inholdings (5,309 acres 

excluding the Missouri River surface area) within the authorized 10,010-acre refuge boundary.

Rationale

Land acquisition (fee title) is an important tool for permanently protecting wildlife habitat. The

Refuge System identifies land protection priorities, and then designates formal boundaries 

within which acquisitions can be made at fair market value from willing landowners. By 

extending permanent protection to important natural resources of the Nation, the Refuge

System is sustaining wildlife and habitats, “for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans” as directed by the mission of the Refuge System. Protection emphasis at Boyer 

Chute NWR is focused first on land that retains natural cover types, and then extends to those 

areas that have the greatest potential for the restoration of priority habitats such as wetlands, 

bottomland forests, and grasslands. Protection of habitat also extends benefits to other 
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152

important aquatic resources, wildlife, and habitat—while providing valuable open space and 

recreation opportunities to the public.

Strategies (Boyer Chute NWR)

1. Actively work with partners to secure lands via grant opportunities, donations, 

bequeaths, and purchases.

2. Provide accurate and up-to-date land acquisition information to landowners within the 

refuge acquisition boundary.

3. Where land acquisition is not practical within the refuge acquisition boundary, work to 

obtain conservation easements.

Objective 1.7: Invasive Plant Species

Both refuges: Monitor extent of invasive plant species annually, and maintain refuge habitats 

with less than 15 percent adversely impacted by invasive plant species.

Rationale

Invasive plant species are often introduced from other areas, typically Europe or Asia, and they 

rarely have adequate native biological controls in the United States. The plants are often early 

successional species adapted to disturbance that move in quickly. They are difficult to control 

and interfere with natural ecological processes. If the invasive plant species are not controlled

they can out-compete and displacing native flora, reducing the habitat’s biological integrity and 

benefit to native wildlife.

Strategies

1. Document the location and size of invasive populations on the refuges using GIS.

2. When available, use biological controls as a preferred strategy.

3. Where appropriate, use prescribed fire to control invasive plant species.

4. Use chemical and mechanical means to control infestations in cases where biological 

control techniques are not available, feasible, or practical.

5. Monitor invasive species infestations and the effectiveness of control measures taken.

6. Support and work with the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and refuge 

partners and neighbors to provide education and services (identification, mapping, and

control programs) related to invasive species within a 15-mile radius of the refuges.

Wildlife (2)

Wildlife Goal

Protect, maintain, and enhance a diversity of resident, migratory, and endangered species 

native to the Missouri River floodplain.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

Objective 2.1: Waterfowl

Both refuges: Over the life of the CCP, provide for the seasonal stopover needs of migratory 

waterfowl with a target of three million waterfowl use days per migration period, ensuring a 

thorough waterfowl monitoring program.

Rationale

First and foremost, DeSoto NWR’s primary establishment purpose is to provide an inviolate 

sanctuary for migratory waterfowl. In addition, conserving a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats, including threatened and endangered species is one of the fundamental 

goals of the Refuge System.

It is necessary to monitor outcomes to evaluate whether or not management actions are having 

the predicted outcomes. A representative sample of sites and conditions is used to ensure that, 

on average, the effects of a particular treatment match expectations. Information gained 

through monitoring that is clearly linked to refuge management actions helps the refuges learn 

and adapt, increasing the overall effectiveness in meeting conservation objectives.

Strategies:

1. Over the life of the CCP, continue weekly waterfowl counts during the fall (September to

January) and spring (March to May) migrations, and continue conducting the Mid-Winter 

Waterfowl Survey in collaboration with state partners.

2. Include all waterfowl species in surveys and monitoring efforts; focal species will include

Canada Geese and dabbling ducks (including Northern Pintails, Mallards, and Bluewinged Teal).

3. Further refine monitoring efforts for the refuges in an inventory and monitoring stepdown management plan within three years of CCP approval.

4. Annually manage refuge wetland habitats to provide enough food to support seasonal 

migration of waterfowl in excess of three million waterfowl use days.

5. Continue to provide refugia and areas of minimal disturbance for birds during critical 

migration periods, including wetland areas and DeSoto Lake.

6. Investigate the potential benefits of closing the west arm of DeSoto Lake for the 

migration one month earlier (September 14 instead of October 14).

Objective 2.2: Shorebirds

Both refuges: Increase shorebird use on both refuges by improving habitat management and 

refining monitoring efforts as described in the associated strategies.

Rationale

Conserving a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including threatened and 

endangered species is one of the fundamental goals of the Refuge System. Furthermore, one 

of the purposes of the refuge is to provide habitat for migratory birds. Migratory shorebird 

conservation is a priority for the refuges, and refuge management strives to support the goals 

identified in the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001). By providing quality 
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154

habitat, the refuges contribute to shorebird numbers at the local level, which helps maintain 

shorebird populations at the continental level.

To evaluate whether or not management actions are having the predicted outcomes, it is 

necessary to monitor outcomes. A representative sample of sites and conditions is used to 

ensure that, on average, the effects of a particular treatment match expectations. Information 

gained through monitoring that is clearly linked to refuge management actions helps the refuges 

learn and adapt, increasing the overall effectiveness in meeting conservation objectives.

Strategies

1. Establish baseline shorebird use on the refuges, set migratory stopover targets for the 

refuges, and complete an inventory and monitoring step-down management plan further 

defining shorebird monitoring and management within three years of CCP approval.

2. Conduct seasonal monitoring of migratory shorebirds on the refuges in three-year cycles 

(begin within three years of CCP approval). Annual monitoring recommended by the 

Service’s Midwest Division of Migratory Birds for the refuges includes three spring 

surveys (April 1–10, May 10–20, and May 20–30) and three fall surveys (July 15–30, 

August 15–30, and September 15–25).

3. All shorebird species will be included in surveys and monitoring; however, focal species 

will include Greater Yellowlegs, Lesser Yellowlegs, Pectoral Sandpiper, Short-billed 

Dowitcher (less common), and Hudsonian Godwit.

4. Provide 200 acres of shorebird habitat (i.e., mudflats) annually.

5. Within the life of the CCP, develop a research project to assess the potential benefits of 

providing sandbar habitat and the feasibility of restoring and maintaining sandbar habitat

on the refuges.

6. Continue to collaborate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to develop

shallow water and sandbar projects that provide shorebird habitat in support of the 2000 

“Missouri River Biological Opinion,” as amended.

Objective 2.3: Secretive Marshbirds

Both refuges: Increase secretive marshbird use on both refuges by improving habitat 

management and refining monitoring efforts as described in the associated strategies.

Rationale

Conserving a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including threatened and 

endangered species is one of the fundamental goals of the Refuge System. Furthermore, one 

of the purposes of the refuge is to provide habitat for migratory birds. Secretive marshbird

conservation is a priority for the refuges, because marshbird populations are declining across 

North American according to the Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2008). As a result, several 

species have acquired a federal, state, or local conservation status. Furthermore, secretive 

marshbirds are difficult to detect and adequately monitor because of their tendency to occupy 

dense vegetation and vocalize infrequently. Monitoring will allow the refuge staff to track 

population trends locally and improve our understanding of how the populations respond to 

habitat changes and associated management actions. Information gained through monitoring 
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

that is clearly linked to refuge management actions helps the refuges learn and adapt, 

increasing the overall effectiveness in meeting conservation objectives.

Strategies

1. Establish baseline secretive marshbird use on the refuges and complete an inventory 

and monitoring step-down management plan further defining secretive marshbird 

monitoring and management within three years of CCP approval.

2. Ensure that future habitat management step-down management plan considers fall 

migratory habitat for secretive marshbirds.

3. Use secretive marshbird monitoring data to establish population targets for the refuges.

4. Conduct seasonal monitoring of breeding secretive marshbirds on the refuges in threeyear cycles within three years of CCP approval. Annual monitoring recommended by 

the Service’s Midwest Division of Migratory Birds for the refuges includes two annual

surveys (May 15–31 and June 1–15).

5. All secretive marshbird species will be included in surveys and monitoring; however, 

focal species will include Sora, Virginia Rail, Black Rail (very rare), and King Rail (very 

rare).

6. Provide an additional 100 acres of wet meadow habitat in support of secretive marshbird

species.

Objective 2.4: Grassland Birds

Both refuges: Improve habitat management and refine monitoring efforts for grassland birds as 

described in the associated strategies.

Rationale

Conserving a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including threatened and 

endangered species is one of the fundamental goals of the Refuge System. Furthermore, one 

of the purposes of the refuge is to provide habitat for migratory birds. Grassland birds are 

uniquely adapted to a specific suite of habitat features (grass heights and densities) that were 

historically created by disturbance mechanisms such as large-scale herbivory and prairie fires. 

The loss of these disturbance mechanisms and the overwhelming conversion of prairie habitat 

to agriculture have led to steeper, more consistent, and more widespread population declines 

over the past 25 years than any other avian guild in North America. Grassland bird species are 

increasingly dependent on land managers for the habitats they require. A diversity of grassland 

habitats were endemic to the Missouri River floodplain, and a large portion of both refuges is 

dedicated to providing these habitat types. 

Monitoring is a key aspect of grassland bird management. To evaluate whether or not 

management actions on habitat conditions are having the predicted outcomes, it is necessary to 

monitor outcomes in the bird populations. A representative sample of sites and conditions is 

used to ensure that, on average, the effects of a particular treatment match expectations. 

Information gained through monitoring that is clearly linked to refuge management actions helps 

the refuges learn and adapt, increasing the overall effectiveness in meeting conservation 

objectives.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

156

Strategies

1. Establish baseline grassland bird use on the refuges and complete an inventory and 

monitoring step-down management plan further defining grassland bird monitoring and 

management within three years of CCP approval.

2. Use grassland bird monitoring data to establish population targets for the refuges.

3. Begin conducting seasonal monitoring of breeding grassland birds on the refuges in 

three-year cycles within three years of CCP approval. Annual monitoring recommended 

by the Service’s Midwest Division of Migratory Birds for the refuges consists of one 

survey (June 1–15).

4. All secretive marshbird species will be included in survey and monitoring efforts;

however, focal species will include Eastern Kingbird and Western Meadowlark during dry 

years and Sedge Wren and Henslow’s Sparrow (rare) during wet years.

5. Provide a combined grassland habitat acreage of approximately 3,350 on the refuges.

6. Provide for the migratory habitat needs of grassland birds by creating diverse 

successional habitat through periodic disturbance (fire, herbivory, mowing, and 

agriculture).

7. Use diverse, local-ecotype seed sources for grassland plantings.

Objective 2.5: Fish and Aquatic Species

Both refuges: Over the life of the CCP, support the viability and health of riverine fish and 

aquatic threatened and endangered species populations through collaborative monitoring and 

habitat management programs as described in the associated strategies.

Rationale

Conserving a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including threatened and 

endangered species is one of the fundamental goals of the Refuge System. While the majority 

of waters within the authorized refuges’ boundaries are managed by Service, the Corps

maintains jurisdiction over the Missouri River. The vast majority of federally and state listed fish, 

aquatic invertebrates, and other aquatic species occur within the Missouri River and its 

associated riverine habitats. The refuges can provide benefits to these species by working 

collaboratively with the its partners including the Corps and by supporting the restoration of 

river-associated habitats.

Strategies

1. Completing an inventory and monitoring step-down management plan further defining 

fish and aquatic species monitoring and management within three years of CCP 

approval.

2. Improve connectivity of DeSoto Lake and the Missouri River so that lake can better 

support endemic riverine fishes.

3. Continue to assist and partner with other agencies to monitor trends of aquatic 

threatened and endangered species and other native riverine species.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

4. Continue collaborating with the Corps to develop shallow water habitat projects in

support of the 2000 “Missouri River Biological Opinion,” as amended. 

5. Assess DeSoto Lake for breeding and over-wintering habitat on a five-year cycle.

6. All fish species will be included in survey and monitoring efforts; however, focal species 

will include pallid sturgeon, paddlefish, shovelnose sturgeon, and lake sturgeon.

Objective 2.6: Game Species

Both refuges: Over the life of the CCP, maintain a target post-hunt deer population of 17 deer 

per square mile on both refuges; continue deer monitoring surveys conducted once every 2–5 

years; and increase management and monitoring of quail populations.

Rationale

Hunting is one of the six compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Careful monitoring 

and management of game species can help prevent negative impacts to associated habitats 

and wildlife, including overgrazing, disease, and starvation. Overgrazing by deer can lead to 

changes in plant community composition and structure, which can result in negative impacts to

other plant and animal species. In addition to impacts on biological resources, game species 

populations can have impacts on neighboring properties, area businesses, and the local 

economy. Game management decisions are based on a firm understanding of the size and 

trends of local populations, which is dependent on regular monitoring. It is important to 

understand the dynamics of local emigration and immigration, which impacts the population size 

and density, making game species populations variable from year-to-year.

Strategies

1. Continue deer monitoring surveys conducted once every 2–5 years, over the life of the 

CCP.

2. DeSoto NWR’s acreage (non-water surface) of approximately 7,166 acres (11.19 sq. 

mi.) should support 190 deer, and Boyer Chute NWR’s acreage of 4,040 land acres

(6.31 sq. mi.) should support 107 deer.

3. Within five years begin monitoring quail populations on the refuges in partnership with 

state agencies.

4. Further refine game species monitoring by completing an inventory and monitoring stepdown management plan within three years of CCP approval.

5. Manage for grassland bird migratory habitat with diverse successional stages and a high 

proportion of annuals to benefit refuge quail populations.

Objective 2.7: Federally Threatened and Endangered Species

Over the life of the CCP, continue to monitor federally listed species trends and manage for 

refuge conditions that benefit federally threatened and endangered species endemic to refuges, 

including the Piping Plover, Interior Least Tern, and pallid sturgeon.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

Rationale

It is a priority for the refuges to monitor and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species

because they are trust resources of the Service and it is a goal of the Refuge system. It is also 

required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, “that all Federal departments and agencies 

shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species . . .” All living things are part of a 

complex, often delicately balanced network within an ecosystem . It is difficult to predict how 

the extinction of organisms will affect other members of its ecosystem, but the removal of a 

single species can set off a chain reaction affecting many others (FWS 2005). It is important

that the refuges contribute, where possible, to the agency mission of protecting species from 

extinction.

Currently there are no federally listed endangered species inhabiting DeSoto and Boyer Chute 

Refuges, but the refuges support several state listed species and many Midwest Region 

Resources of Conservation Concern (RCC) species. Bald Eagles were once listed as a 

federally threatened species. They were delisted on August 9, 2007, moved to a protected

status, and remain an RCC species in the Midwest Region. Bald Eagles are commonly 

observed in the area during spring and fall migration, and DeSoto NWR currently supports one

nesting pair. Because of its recent delisting and its protected status in Region 3, Bald Eagles 

should be monitored and considered during management activities. Over time, and as 

additional research takes place, species may be added or removed from state and federal lists.

Thus, it is necessary for the refuge to maintain an adaptive management approach regarding 

individual species protection and monitoring.

Strategies

1. Maintain close coordination with the Service’s Division of Ecological Services and with 

partners to monitor the status of federally threatened and endangered species on the 

refuges.

2. Continue to partner with the state and federal agencies to restore habitats recommended 

by the 2000 “Missouri River Biological Opinion,” as amended, that benefit threatened 

and endangered species along the Missouri River corridor.

3. Investigate the feasibility and potential to create or improve sandbar habitat for terns and 

plovers on the refuges.

4. Include considerations for federally listed species in the development of the inventory 

and monitoring step-down management plan.

5. Monitor Bald Eagle nesting activities and adjust management to minimize disturbance in 

these areas during key periods of the year.

People (3)

People Goal 

Refuge visitors will understand and appreciate management of the refuges and the Refuge 

System through participation in diverse wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental education, 

and outreach opportunities and will understand the progression of change in the Missouri River 

Valley as reflected through the Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection and its history. (See 

figures 4-4 and 4-5.)
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

Figure 4-4: Future Visitor Services, DeSoto NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

Figure 4-5: Future Visitor Services, Boyer Chute NWR
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

Objective 3.1: Hunting

Both refuges: As compared to current conditions, increase upland (Wild Turkey and Ringnecked Pheasant) hunting opportunities, big game (deer archery) hunting opportunities, and 

consider increased waterfowl hunting opportunities on the refuges through the development of a 

hunting step-down management plan that will be completed within one year of CCP approval.

Rationale

Hunting is one of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Service policy directs us to provide hunting 

opportunities when compatible with refuge management. Increasing hunting opportunities was 

also identified as a need in the 2011 visitor survey conducted at DeSoto NWR (Sexton et al. 

2011). Managed hunting programs help promote an understanding and appreciation of natural 

resources and their management. Properly planned and managed hunts on the refuges provide 

a traditional recreational activity with negligible adverse impacts to the biological integrity or 

habitat sustainability of refuge resources. Due to the loss of large predators, hunting programs 

can be used to reduce game wildlife populations to local carrying capacities. Refuge staff can 

provide hunting opportunities in a regulated manner, direct these activities to specific audiences, 

and adaptively evaluate the hunting programs based on demand and program success.

Strategies

1. Further define refuge management of the hunt program through the development of a 

hunting step-down management plan (to be completed within one year of CCP approval) 

so that new hunting opportunities can be incorporated into the visitor services step-down 

management plan (to be completed within three years of CCP approval).

2. Use the visitor services step-down management plan to revise hunt program zoning and 

scheduling—ensuring a design that minimizes disturbance of bird migrations.

3. Prepare DeSoto NWR’s West Side Unit and additional Boyer Chute NWR units for 

managed hunts.

4. Prepare and submit all materials required to open or expand hunting on the refuges.

5. Partner with Iowa DNR and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, National Wild 

Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, local sportsmen’s clubs, and others to conduct 

managed hunts.

6. As additional land is acquired within the acquisition boundary at Boyer Chute NWR, 

reevaluate the areas that are available and safe for hunting with the long-term goal of 

opening additional areas to hunting.

7. Ensure that concerns over seasonal deer stand use on DeSoto NWR are addressed in 

the hunting step-down management plan.

Objective 3.2: Fishing 

Both refuges: Over the life of the CCP, increase fishing opportunities over current conditions by 

opening new areas, promoting the fishing program, and through infrastructure improvements 

described in the associated strategies.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

Rationale

Fishing is one of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and Service policy directs refuges to provide 

fishing opportunities when compatible. It is a goal of the Refuge System to provide the most 

appropriate and compatible, highest quality, and most sustainable wildlife-dependent recreation 

opportunities for the public. Fishing provides a traditional recreational activity on the refuges 

with no definable adverse impact to the biological integrity or habitat sustainability of the 

refuges’ resources. Furthermore, fishing programs help promote an understanding and 

appreciation of natural resources and their management on lands and waters in the Refuge 

System. Fishing is also a way to engage visitors in activities related to water resources and 

water-associated habitats. The refuges enjoy a high degree of satisfaction with their fishing 

programs and plan to maintain this trend. The visitor survey conducted in 2010–2011 on 

DeSoto NWR indicated that 71 percent of anglers were either somewhat satisfied or very 

satisfied with the fishing opportunities on the refuge, and only 6 percent were unsatisfied (23

percent responded as indifferent) (Sexton et al. 2011).

Strategies 

1. Increase fishing opportunities on both refuges, after CCP approval, by allowing bank 

fishing on the open waters of all refuge units that are open to the public (see figures 4-4

and 4-4).

2. Maintain two permanent boat launches on DeSoto Lake within 10 years of CCP 

approval. This includes the existing Middle Boat Ramp, and a new boat ramp and 

parking lot on the south end of DeSoto Lake (see figure 4-4).

3. Increase accessible fishing options on DeSoto Lake.

4. Continue to facilitate interagency partnerships that monitor and make management 

recommendations for the refuges’ recreational fishing opportunities.

5. Investigate the potential benefits of closing the west arm of DeSoto Lake for the 

migration one month earlier (September 14 instead of October 14).

Objective 3.3: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Both refuges: Over the life of the CCP, increase wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities on both refuges over current conditions by opening new areas of the refuges

allowing leashed dogs and improving infrastructure as described in the associated strategies.

Rationale

Wildlife observation and photography are priority wildlife-dependent recreation activities listed in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. They are important and

valuable activities that promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources and their 

management. If properly managed, these uses provide invaluable opportunities for interaction 

between people and the natural environment with little or no adverse effects to wildlife or 

habitat. By maintaining and developing trails, boardwalks, observation decks, and other 

infrastructure it is possible to enhance mobility and access to locations that offer premium 

wildlife viewing opportunities. The various modes of travel permitted on the refuge also help 

facilitate year round access to these opportunities and provide enjoyment of scenic views and a 
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

diversity of wildlife not available on adjacent private lands. Allowing leashed dogs on open 

areas of the refuge will improve the wildlife viewing experience for some visitors. Disturbance 

created by leashed dogs on average is no greater than other pedestrian activities traditionally 

permitted on the refuge.

Strategies

1. Open additional areas to the public during the nonmigratory season at DeSoto NWR, 

including the East Dike South and on the West Side Units; and at Boyer Chute NWR 

including the Boyer Island, Horseshoe, Yellowlegs, Rail, Northwest, and Wildflower Units

(see figure 3-2 for a map of management units).

2. Add a new trail near the DeSoto NWR Visitor Center, and a trail on the West Side Unit.

3. Offer wildlife observation opportunities at Nathan’s Lake and improve parking and 

viewing capabilities on the Horseshoe Lake Unit of Boyer Chute NWR.

4. Develop a visitor services step-down management plan within three years of CCP 

approval.

5. Monitor and respond to needs for signage, orientation, information, and facilities.

6. Provide basic signage, orientation, information, and facilities in newly opened or 

acquired areas.

7. Continue to offer wildlife observation and photography opportunities for portable blinds in 

open areas.

8. Allow leashed dogs on open areas of the refuges.

9. Continue to allow biking on the refuges on all roads that are open to the public.

10. Monitor the bridge to the Boyer Island Unit, plan for its removal within the life of the CCP, 

and consider replacement options that will avoid the current maintenance needs, safety 

risks, and chute habitat disturbance.

11. Maintain free access to Boyer Chute NWR, and the existing fee structure for DeSoto 

NWR.

Objective 3.4: Environmental Education

Both refuges: Over the life of the CCP, maintain current environmental education programs in 

area schools (7,500 student visits per year) with a special emphasis on increasing interaction 

with inner city schools.

Rationale

Environmental education is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Well-designed environmental 

education programs can be effective management tools and provide the opportunity to influence 

visitor attitudes about natural resources, refuges, the Refuge System, and the Service. They 

can help develop public awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation, and commitment to 

work cooperatively towards the conservation of our Nation’s natural resources. They can also 

influence visitor behavior when visiting units of the Refuge System. Environmental education 

efforts for students span a broad diversity of science and natural resource topics, help connect
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

the Nation’s youth with the natural world, and engage children in the outdoors. The educational 

partnership with the Blair Public School District (Nebraska) is nationally recognized, bringing

thousands of onsite student visits annually. Future growth in formal educational student visits 

will be targeted at Omaha–Council Bluffs inner city schools located approximately 30 miles 

south of the refuges.

Current environmental education programs and activities include:

• Staff-conducted formal environmental educational school programs

• Self-guided school educational, with pre-visit and post-visit materials

• Friends Group educational bookstore in the DeSoto NWR Visitor Center

Strategies

1. Continue coordinating existing environmental education program partnership with local 

schools in Blair, Edison, and Fort Calhoun Schools (Nebraska), and West Harrison 

Schools (Iowa).

2. Work with local educators, refuge environmental education staff, and others to increase 

inner city education efforts by identifying new inner city education audiences and topics 

for environmental education programs.

3. Continue to encourage self-directed learning on the refuge in addition to providing 

programs, activities, talks, publications, audio-visual media, signs, and exhibits.

4. Continue to serve as a local resource for environmental education related to area 

wildlife, habitats, water resources, and cultural history by providing curricula, workshops, 

outdoor classrooms, and teaching materials.

5. Because DeSoto NWR’s Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection offers a one-of-a-kind 

cultural history education resource, the refuges will continue to offer formal cultural 

history programs and resources highlighting cultural history aspects of environmental 

education.

6. Continue to work with local educators to develop environmental education curricula and 

conduct workshops.

7. Develop operational measures of success for the environmental education program.

Objective 3.5: Interpretation

Both refuges: Over the life of the CCP, improve interpretive facilities and services as described 

in the associated strategies to increase visitor appreciation and understanding of the refuge 

purposes and FWS mission.

Rationale

Interpretation is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Well-designed interpretation programs can provide 

the opportunity to influence visitor attitudes about natural resources, refuges, the Refuge 

System, and the Service. They can help develop public awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, 

motivation, and commitment to work cooperatively towards the conservation of our Nation’s 
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

natural resources. They can also influence visitor behavior when visiting units of the Refuge 

System.

Current interpretation programs and activities include:

• Junior Refuge Manager program

• Winter backyard bird feeding programs

• Wildlife observation walks and talks

• Wilson Island campfire talks

• Refuge-specific interpretive brochures and publications

• Wildlife and refuge orientation videos shown in the DeSoto NWR Visitor Center

• Wildlife observation stations with viewing scopes

• Family fishing clinics

• Interpretive wayside and kiosk panels

• Visitor Center exhibits

• Refuge website and Facebook pages

Strategies

1. Within the life of the CCP, as needed create new exhibit panels at DeSoto NWR’s main 

entrance, wetland viewing platforms, trails, Missouri River Overlook, Steamboat Bertrand 

Discovery Site, boat launch sites, and at new areas opened to the public at both refuges.

2. Increase information at viewing platforms within three years, introducing a wider range of 

interpretive media over the life of the CCP; and update interpretive products to better 

reflect biological topics.

3. Within three years of CCP approval, develop a visitor services plan that identifies target 

audiences, establishes interpretive themes, and identifies the best tools and techniques 

to strategically apply interpretive programs and products.

Objective 3.6: Welcoming and Orientation

Both refuges: Within 5 years of plan approval, improve welcoming, orienting, and associated 

information and infrastructure as described in the associated strategies.

Rationale

Successfully welcoming and orienting refuge visitors is an important part of the development of 

a quality wildlife-dependent recreation program as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 and defined in the Service Manual (605 FW 1). The ease with 

which the public can navigate to visitor use areas on the refuges, understand guidelines for 

appropriate conduct and safety, meet basic needs (i.e., parking, restrooms, orientation, etc.), 

and fully engage in wildlife-related activities directly translates to a quality recreational 

experience, a positive impression of the Service, and an identification with the mission and 

goals of the Service.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

On DeSoto NWR, the quantity of visitor services and resulting visitation have been sustained at 

high levels since the establishment of the refuge in 1958—and were further enhanced by the 

construction of the Visitor Center and Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection display in 1981. 

DeSoto NWR is a destination for visitors, attracting a mix of individuals with wildlife-dependent 

recreation interests as well as interest in the refuge’s historical and cultural history. Adequate 

way-finding, orientation, signage, and other refuge information continues to be essential to 

directing people to the refuge and providing a positive visitor experience across the broad 

spectrum of public uses.

Information, orientation, and signage needs are even greater at Boyer Chute NWR, which does 

not maintain a daily staff presence. Proper signage and other welcoming and orienting 

materials can reduce the need for direct interaction with refuge staff and allows a greater 

amount of self-guided use.

Strategies

1. Complete a visitor services step-down management plan within three years of CCP

approval to further evaluate and define refuge welcoming and orientation needs.

2. Establish a sign replacement plan, which will be revised/updated every three years 

during the life of the CCP. 

3. Update existing kiosk and wayside information and orientation exhibits according to the 

sign plan priorities at both refuges.

4. Create new exhibit panels, within the life of the CCP, at DeSoto NWR main entrance, 

wetland viewing platforms, trails, Missouri River Overlook, Steamboat Bertrand 

Discovery Site , boat launch sites, and at new areas opened to the public at both 

refuges. 

5. Work with the regional Departments of Transportation, within 10 years of CCP approval, 

to establish way-finding signage on U.S. 30 in Missouri Valley, Nebraska and Blair, Iowa;

and on I-29 and I-80 in Council Bluffs, Iowa and Omaha, Nebraska.

6. Inspect refuge signs annually, updating and rehabilitating where necessary.

7. Maintain and update visitor service information provided by social media, brochures, and 

refuge websites over the life of the CCP.

Objective 3.7: Outreach

Over the life of the CCP, maintain current levels of media engagement and the current annual 

number of onsite small events (10) and offsite events (nine) with review and revision as 

necessary at five-year intervals.

Rationale

The Service’s “National Outreach Strategy” (FWS 1997a) defines outreach as a two-way 

communication between the Service and the public to establish mutual understanding, promote 

involvement, and influence attitudes and actions, with the goal of improving joint stewardship of 

our natural resources.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

It is critical to the mission of the Refuge System and to DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges that 

neighbors, citizens, organizations, and agencies in the surrounding area know about the refuges 

and support them as valuable, contributing assets to area communities. Continued support is 

essential for the success of the refuges and their long-term viability. Developing relationships 

with other conservation agencies and organizations is of mutual benefit in meeting broader 

natural resource goals and objectives. Also, building support for land and water conservation 

among refuge neighbors is essential to the protection of natural resources over the long-term. It 

is important that the refuges continue efforts to build and maintain open lines of communication, 

informing partners and the public about the successes, opportunities, and challenges of

conservation and wildlife-dependent recreation.

Current activities include:

Onsite Offsite

National Public Lands Day Nebraska Fishing Clinic

Spring Earth Day Cleanup Family Nature Nights (4)

Boyer Butterfly Count Party for the Planet

Family Fishing Clinics (5) Gifford Farm Park

Spring Migration Weekend Durham Teachers Workshop

National Wildlife Refuge Week Omaha Public Schools Career Day

Fall Migration Weekend Nebraska Science Festival

Art-In-The Wild Wilson Island Campfire Talks (12)

Bertrand Days 

Teachers Workshop

Junior Refuge Manager (6)

Strategies

1. Evaluate visitor feedback and participation in annual onsite and offsite refuge events and 

programs for continuity, relevance, and changes.

2. Complete a visitor services step-down management plan within three years of CCP

approval to further evaluate and define refuge events and outreach efforts.

3. Continue to interact with public media outlets to promote and report refuge programs 

activities, accomplishments, and management.

4. Continue to develop periodic news articles and radio/TV programs on refuge-related 

topics.

5. Maintain active communication with community leaders, schools, agencies, and partner 

organizations.

6. Continue to develop good relations with landowners in, and immediately adjacent to 

refuge authorized boundaries.

7. Work cooperatively with local universities, colleges, and other organizations and 

agencies to promote research on the refuges.

8. Continue to use the refuge website and social media to communicate with off-site 

audiences.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

Objective 3.8: Gathering

Both refuges: After CCP approval, allow mushroom gathering in all areas and seasons that are 

open to the public.

Rationale

Access for gathering is not a wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge System. Refuge 

resources can support this activity, which can also provide enjoyment of scenic views and a 

diversity of wildlife not usually available on adjacent private lands. Access for gathering is a 

high priority for many refuge visitors. In addition, consistency in the management of public use 

across both refuges will ease visitor understanding and management considerations related to 

this use.

Strategies

1. Monitor impacts to new areas open to mushroom gathering.

2. Provide updated visitor use information related to mushroom gathering through the 

refuge website, brochures, and other media.

Objective 3.9: Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection and Discovery Site

Continue stewardship and display of the Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection over the life of 

the CCP and improve interpretation of the Steamboat Bertrand Discovery Site for visitors by

developing a new site interpretation proposal within 5 years of CCP approval.

Rationale

DeSoto NWR’s Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection and Discovery Site connect visitors to

an important story in our national heritage, and constitute an invaluable and irreplaceable 

national treasure. Relaying the entire story of the Steamboat Bertrand—its construction, use, 

loss, rediscovery, excavation, preservation, and eventual display—highlights the importance of 

safeguarding historic sites and protecting these antiquities from degradation, looting, and other 

adverse impacts. It also tells the story of how the Missouri River once migrated freely across 

the floodplain, continually altering habitats along its course. Stewardship of the collection is 

derived from numerous laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as 

amended (16 U.S.C.470 et seq.) and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 47011-mm).

Strategies

1. Develop and implement new interpretation around the Steamboat Bertrand Museum 

Collection and Discovery Site in coordination with the Nebraska State Historic 

Preservation Officer and Service Regional Historic Preservation Officer to ensure 

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, ARPA,

and NAGPRA.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

2. Ensure that the design and planning of the Steamboat Bertrand Museum Collection 

storage and interpretation includes updated considerations for disaster mitigation and 

evacuation procedures.

3. Ensure archaeological and cultural resources at the Steamboat Bertrand Discovery Site 

are better identified, interpreted, and accessible to the public.

4. Remove the existing overlook at the Steamboat Bertrand Discovery Site, and build a 

new interpretive kiosk within two years of CCP approval.

5. Ensure the Steamboat Bertrand Discovery Site story is connected to the resources 

displayed and interpreted at the Visitor Center. 

6. Complete and maintain a comprehensive inventory of the Steamboat Bertrand Museum 

Collection.

Objective 3.10: Refuge Support

Both refuges: Over the life of the CCP, maintain an average of at least 3,500 annual volunteer 

hours and existing levels of support for the refuges from the Friends Group, law enforcement 

partnerships with local police departments and state game officers, partner agencies, and nongovernment organizations.

Rationale

The human resource hours required to effectively manage a refuge often exceed that which can 

be provided by staff alone. The accomplishments of any refuge, especially the exemplary work 

above and beyond the day-to-day management needs, are often the result of joint public and 

private teamwork and the collective interests and enthusiasm of the multitude of individuals that

benefit from the refuge. As public servants, Service staff manage a public resource owned by 

the citizens of this Nation. The greater the involvement of the public, the more successfully the 

mission of the Service is met, “working with others . . . for the continuing benefit of the American 

people.”

The volunteer program over the past ten years for both refuges (combined) has averaged over 

300 individuals each year that have helped with refuge awareness, wildlife surveys, DeSoto 

NWRs Eagle Emporium bookstore, general maintenance, environmental education, seed 

collecting, and fundraising activities.

As an extension of refuge volunteerism, a refuge Friends Group is a grassroots organization 

formed by citizens who have a shared desire and vision to support their local refuge. They join 

with Service personnel in a partnership that seeks to accomplish mutually defined goals.

Maintaining a Friends Group helps build a constituency of support for the refuges, provides 

people with opportunities to assist in the accomplishment of the FWS mission, and enhances 

refuge performance through the creativity, innovations, labor, and expertise contributed by its 

members. 

Strategies:

1. Fill existing (five) vacancies in the staffing chart for the refuges with the associated 

priority order (highest to lowest): wildlife biologist, maintenance, administrative assistant, 

maintenance, and park ranger.
Chapter 4: Management Direction and Implementation 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

2. Actively recruit new volunteers in areas within, and adjacent to, the refuges authorized 

boundaries, and throughout the Omaha–Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area.

3. Partner with the Friends Group to provide six onsite and offsite events as opportunities 

to recruit new volunteers and promote the Friends Group.

4. Work with volunteer organizations and area service groups to increase volunteerism at 

the refuges.

5. Support the refuge Friends Group in refuge education and resource management.

6. Work cooperatively with local universities, colleges, and other agencies to promote 

research on the refuges.
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

Appendix B: Species Lists

In this appendix:

Introduction

Species List Legend

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles and Amphibians

Fishes

Butterflies

Introduction

A great deal of research, numerous surveys, and countless observations on the refuges were 

used over time to develop the bird list for the refuges included in this appendix.

The species lists for mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish were updated specifically for this 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) under contract with the U.S. Geologic Survey 

(USGS). The lists began with all species in each taxa for the states of Iowa and Nebraska, 

incorporating preexisting species lists for the refuges and lists of state or federal species of 

concern. These exhaustive species lists were then reduced using range information for each 

taxa derived from NatureServe (2011) and the sources below. A number of species that have 

not yet been documented on the refuges, but they are included in the species lists because of 

their potential to occur in the future.

• Mammals: American Society of Mammalogists (2012) and Iowa Gap Analysis Mammal 

List (Kane et al. 2003).

• Herptiles: Iowa Gap Analysis Herp List (Kane et al. 2003), Amphibians & Reptiles of 

Nebraska (Lemen et al. 2003), Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North 

America (Conant and Collins 1998), and Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians and 

Reptiles of Nebraska (Lynch 1985).

• Fish: Iowa Aquatic Gap Fish Atlas (Loan-Wilsey et al. 2005), and The Lower Missouri 

River Rare and Endangered Fishes Distribution, Relative Abundance, and Community 

Association (Grady 1996).

A more detailed database of species for the refuges highlighting the species of greatest 

conservation concern, and a metadata file explaining the methodology used to compile the 

database, is included in the administrative record for this CCP. This database of “Resources of 

Concern” was used to identify potential focal species for the refuges and will be used to develop 

future step-down management plans for the refuges.
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173

Species Lists Legend

Refuge Occurrence

R Confirmed on the refuge

C Confirmed in Washington County, Nebraska

E Expected range

– Potential range

Global Status

G1 Extremely rare and critically imperiled; five or fewer documented occurrences, or very 

few remaining individuals globally

G2 Very rare and imperiled; six to 20 documented occurrences, or few remaining 

individuals globally

G3 Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range; 

21 to 80 documented occurrences

G4 Common and apparently secure globally, although it may be rare in parts of its range, 

especially at the periphery; 81 to 300 occurrences 

G5 Very common and demonstrably secure, although it may be rare in parts of its range, 

especially at the periphery; over 300 occurrences

GNR Global not ranked

--- No data

? Element not yet ranked, or rank is undecided

National Status

E Endangered

T Threatened

C Candidate

S Special Concern

X Exotic

N Non-indigenous

State Status

S1 Extremely rare and critically imperiled; five or fewer documented occurrences, or very 

few remaining individuals within the state

S2 Very rare and imperiled; six to 20 documented occurrences, or few remaining 

individuals within the state

S3 Rare and uncommon in the state; 21 to 80 documented occurrences

S4 Common and apparently secure; 81 to 300 occurrences

S5 Very common and demonstrably secure; over 300 occurrences

SNR State not ranked

SNA State not applicable (species is not a suitable conservation target)

SE Considered exotic to the state

SX Believed extirpated; little likelihood of rediscovery

SH Historical occurrence; not documented within the past 20 years; may be rediscovered

SU Currently unrankable due to lack of information or substantially conflicting information 

about status or trends

--- No data

? Rank is undecided
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174

Birds

Common Name Family Name Scientific Name

Refuge OccurrenceGlobal StatusNational StatusNebraska StatusIowa StatusFWS Region 3 1FWS Region 6 1BCR 22 1 (Eastern Tallgrass Prairie)Nebraska Breeding Species 2Great Plains Endemic 2

Cooper's Hawk Accipitridae Accipiter cooperii R G5 ●

Northern Goshawk Accipitridae Accipiter gentilis R G5

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipitridae Accipiter striatus R G5 ●

Golden Eagle Accipitridae Aquila chrysaetos R G5 ● ●

Red-tailed Hawk Accipitridae Buteo jamaicensis R G5 ●

Rough-legged Hawk Accipitridae Buteo lagopus R G5 ●

Red-shouldered Hawk Accipitridae Buteo lineatus R G5 E

Broad-winged Hawk Accipitridae Buteo platypterus R G5

Swainson's Hawk Accipitridae Buteo swainsoni R G5 C ● ●

Northern Harrier Accipitridae Circus cyaneus R G5 E ●

Bald Eagle Accipitridae Haliaeetus leucocephalus R G4 S ● ● ● ●

Osprey Accipitridae Pandion haliaetus R G5

Horned Lark Alaudidae Eremophila alpestris R G5 ●

Belted Kingfisher Alcedinidae Ceryle alcyon R G5 ●

Wood Duck Anatidae Aix sponsa R G5 ●

Northern Pintail Anatidae Anas acuta R G5 ●

American Wigeon Anatidae Anas americana R G5 ●

Northern Shoveler Anatidae Anas clypeata R G5 ●

Green-winged Teal Anatidae Anas crecca R G5 ●

Blue-winged Teal Anatidae Anas discors R G5 ●

Mallard Anatidae Anas platyrhynchos R G5 ●

American Black Duck Anatidae Anas rubripes R G5

Gadwall Anatidae Anas strepera R G5 ●

Greater White-fronted Goose Anatidae Anser albifrons R G5

Lesser Scaup Anatidae Aythya affinis R G5 ●

Redhead Anatidae Aythya americana R G5 ●

Ring-necked Duck Anatidae Aythya collaris R G5 ●

Greater Scaup Anatidae Aythya marila R G5

Canvasback Anatidae Aythya valisineria R G5 ●

Canada Goose Anatidae Branta canadensis R G5 ●

Cackling Goose Anatidae Branta hutchinsii R G5 ●

Bufflehead Anatidae Bucephala albeola R G5

Common Goldeneye Anatidae Bucephala clangula R G5
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175

Snow Goose Anatidae Chen caerulescens R G5

Ross's Goose Anatidae Chen rossii R G4

Trumpeter Swan Anatidae Cygnus buccinator R G4 ●

Hooded Merganser Anatidae Lophodytes cucullatus R G5 ●

Common Merganser Anatidae Mergus merganser R G5 ●

Red-breasted Merganser Anatidae Mergus serrator R G5

Ruddy Duck Anatidae Oxyura jamaicensis R G5 ●

Chimney Swift Apodidae Chaetura pelagica R G5 ●

Great Egret Ardeidae Ardea alba R G5 ●

Great Blue Heron Ardeidae Ardea herodias R G5 ●

American Bittern Ardeidae Botaurus lentigwinosus R G4 ● ●

Cattle Egret Ardeidae Bubulcus ibis R G5 ●

Green Heron Ardeidae Butorides virescens R G5 ●

Little Blue Heron Ardeidae Egretta caerulea R G5

Snowy Egret Ardeidae Egretta thula R G5 ●

Least Bittern Ardeidae Ixobrychus exilis R G5 ● ● ● ●

Black-crowned Night-Heron Ardeidae Nycticorax nycticorax R G5 ● ●

Cedar Waxwing Bombycillidae Bombycilla cedrorum R G5 ●

Smith's Longspur Calcariidae Calcarius pictus R G5 ● ● ●

Eastern Whip-poor-will Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus vociferus R G5 ● ● ●

Common Nighthawk Caprimulgidae Chordeiles minor R G5 ●

Northern Cardinal Cardinalidae Cardinalis cardinalis R G5 ●

Blue Grosbeak Cardinalidae Guiraca caerulea R G5 ●

Indigo Bunting Cardinalidae Passerina cyanea R G5 ●

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Cardinalidae Pheucticus ludovicianus R G5 ●

Scarlet Tanager Cardinalidae Piranga olivacea R G5 ●

Dickcissel Cardinalidae Spiza americana R G5 ● ● ● ●

Turkey Vulture Cathartidae Cathartes aura R G5

Brown Creeper Certhiidae Certhia americana R G5 ●

Piping Plover Charadriidae Charadrius melodus R G3 E E ●

Semipalmated Plover Charadriidae Charadrius semipalmatus R G5

Killdeer Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus R G5 ●

American Golden Plover Charadriidae Pluvialis dominica R G5

Black-bellied Plover Charadriidae Pluvialis squatarola R G5

Rock Pigeon Columbidae Columba livia R G5 ●

Eurasian Collared Dove Columbidae Streptopelia decaocto R G5

Mourning Dove Columbidae Zenaida macroura R G5 ●

American Crow Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos R G5 ●

Blue Jay Corvidae Cyanocitta cristata R G5 ●

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Cuculidae Coccyzus americanus R G5 ●

Black-billed Cuckoo Cuculidae Coccyzus erythropthalmus R G5 ● ● ● ●

Henslow’s Sparrow Emberizidae Ammodramus henslowii R G4 T ● ● ● ●

Le Conte’s Sparrow Emberizidae Ammodramus leconteii R G4 ● ● ●

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Emberizidae Ammodramus nelsoni R G5 ● ● ●

Grasshopper Sparrow Emberizidae Ammodramus savannarum R G5 ● ● ●

Lapland Longspur Emberizidae Calcarius lapponicus R G5

Chestnut-collared Longspur Emberizidae Calcarius ornatus R G5 ● ● ● ●

Lark Sparrow Emberizidae Chondestes grammacus R G5 ●
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

Dark-eyed Junco Emberizidae Junco hyemalis R G5 ●

Swamp Sparrow Emberizidae Melospiza georgiana R G5 ●

Lincoln's Sparrow Emberizidae Melospiza lincolnii R G5

Song Sparrow Emberizidae Melospiza melodia R G5 ●

Savannah Sparrow Emberizidae Passerculus sandwichensis R G5

Fox Sparrow Emberizidae Passerella iliaca R G5

Eastern Towhee Emberizidae Pipilo erythrophthalmus R G5 ●

Spotted Towhee Emberizidae Pipilo maculatus R G5 ●

Vesper Sparrow Emberizidae Pooecetes gramineus R G5 ●

American Tree Sparrow Emberizidae Spizella arborea R G5

Clay-colored Sparrow Emberizidae Spizella pallida R G5 ●

Chipping Sparrow Emberizidae Spizella passerina R G5 ●

Field Sparrow Emberizidae Spizella pusilla R G5 ● ●

White Throated Sparrow Emberizidae Zonotrichia albicollis R G5

White Crowned Sparrow Emberizidae Zonotrichia leucophrys R G5

Harris’ Sparrow Emberizidae Zonotrichia querula R G5

Merlin Falconidae Falco columbarius R G5 ●

Prairie Falcon Falconidae Falco mexicanus R G5 ● ●

Peregrine Falcon Falconidae Falco peregrinus R G4 S ● ● ● ●

American Kestrel Falconidae Falco sparverius R G5 ●

Pine Siskin Fringillidae Carduelis pinus R G5

American Goldfinch Fringillidae Carduelis tristis R G5 ●

House Finch Fringillidae Carpodacus mexicanus R G5 ●

Purple Finch Fringillidae Carpodacus purpureus R G5

Red Crossbill Fringillidae Loxia curvirostra R G5 ●

Common Loon Gaviidae Gavia immer R G5

Whooping Crane Gruidae Grus americana R G1 E E E

Sandhill Crane Gruidae Grus canadensis R G5 ●

Barn Swallow Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica R G5 ●

Cliff Swallow Hirundinidae Petrochelidon pyrrhonota R G5 ●

Purple Martin Hirundinidae Progne subis R G5 ●

Bank Swallow Hirundinidae Riparia riparia R G5 ●

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow Hirundinidae Stelgidopteryx serripennis R G5 ●

Tree Swallow Hirundinidae Tachycineta bicolor R G5 ●

Red-winged Blackbird Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus R G5 ●

Bobolink Icteridae Dolichonyx oryzivorus R G5 ●

Rusty Blackbird Icteridae Euphagus carolinus R G5 ● ●

Brewer’s Blackbird Icteridae Euphagus cyanocephalus R G5 ●

Baltimore Oriole Icteridae Icterus galbula R G5 ●

Orchard Oriole Icteridae Icterus spurius R G5 ●

Brown-headed Cowbird Icteridae Molothrus ater R G5 ●

Great-tailed Grackle Icteridae Quiscalus mexicanus R G5 ●

Common Grackle Icteridae Quiscalus quiscula R G5 ●

Eastern Meadowlark Icteridae Sturnella magna R G5 ●

Western Meadowlark Icteridae Sturnella neglecta R G5 ●

Yellow-headed Blackbird Icteridae Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus R G5 ●

Northern Shrike Laniidae Lanius excubitor R G5

Loggerhead Shrike Laniidae Lanius ludovicianus R G4 ● ● ● ●
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

177

Black Tern Laridae Chlidonias niger R G4 S ● ● ●

Herring Gull Laridae Larus argentatus R G5

Ring-billed Gull Laridae Larus delawarensis R G5

Bonaparte’s Gull Laridae Larus philadelphia R G5

Franklin's Gull Laridae Larus pipixcan R G4

G5 ●

Least Tern Laridae Sterna antillarum R G4 E E E ●

Caspian Tern Laridae Sterna caspia R G5

Forster’s Tern Laridae Sterna forsteri R G5 S ●

Common Tern Laridae Sterna hirundo R G5 ● ●

Gray Catbird Mimidae Dumetella carolinensis R G5 ●

Northern Mockingbird Mimidae Mimus polyglottos R G5 ●

Brown Thrasher Mimidae Toxostoma rufum R G5 ●

American Pipit Motacillidae Anthus rubescens R G5

Northern Bobwhite Odontophoridae Colinus virginianus R G5 ●

Tufted Titmouse Paridae Baeolophus bicolor R G5 ●

Black-capped Chickadee Paridae Poecile atricapilla R G5 ●

Black-throated Green Warbler Parulidae Dendroica caerulescens R G5

Yellow Rumped Warbler Parulidae Dendroica coronata R G5 ●

Palm Warbler Parulidae Dendroica palmarum R G5

Chestnut-sided Warbler Parulidae Dendroica pensylvanica R G5

Yellow Warbler Parulidae Dendroica petechia R G5 ●

Blackpoll Warbler Parulidae Dendroica striata R G5

Common Yellowthroat Parulidae Geothlypis trichas R G5 ●

Yellow-breasted Chat Parulidae Icteria virens R G5 ●

Black and White Warbler Parulidae Mniotilta varia R G5 ●

Mourning Warbler Parulidae Oporornis philadelphia R G5

Louisiana Waterthrush Parulidae Parkesia motacilla R G5

Northern Parula Parulidae Parula americana R G5

Ovenbird Parulidae Seiurus aurocapillus R G5 ●

Northern Water Thrush Parulidae Seiurus noveboracensis R G5

Bay-breasted Warbler Parulidae Setophaga castanea R G5

Blackburnian Warbler Parulidae Setophaga fusca R G5

Magnolia Warbler Parulidae Setophaga magnolia R G5

American Redstart Parulidae Setophaga ruticilla R G5 ●

Orange-crowned Warbler Parulidae Vermivora celata R G5

Tennessee Warbler Parulidae Vermivora peregrina R G5

Nashville Warbler Parulidae Vermivora ruficapilla R G5

Wilsons Warbler Parulidae Wilsonia pusilla R G5

House Sparrow Passeridae Passer domesticus R G5 ●

American White Pelican Pelecanidae Pelecanus erythrorhynchos R G3

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax auritus R G5 ●

Wild Turkey Phasianidae Meleagris gallopavo R G5 ●

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianidae Phasianus colchicus R G5 ●

Greater Prairie Chicken Phasianidae Tympanuchus cupido R G4 ●

Northern Flicker Picidae Colaptes auratus R G5 ● ●

Pileated Woodpecker Picidae Dryocopus pileatus R G5

Red-bellied Woodpecker Picidae Melanerpes carolinus R G5 ●

Red-headed Woodpecker Picidae Melanerpes erythrocephalus R G5 ● ● ● ●
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178

Downy Woodpecker Picidae Picoides pubescens R G5 ●

Hairy Woodpecker Picidae Picoides villosus R G5 ●

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Picidae Sphyrapicus varius R G5

Western Grebe Podicipedidae Aechmophorus occidentalis R G5 ●

Horned Grebe Podicipedidae Podiceps auritus R G5 ● ●

Eared Grebe Podicipedidae Podiceps nigricollis R G5 ●

Pied-billed Grebe Podicipedidae Podilymbus podiceps R G5 ● ● ●

American Coot Rallidae Fulica americana R G5 ●

Sora Rallidae Porzana carolina R G5 ●

Virginia Rail Rallidae Rallus limicola R G5 ●

American Avocet Recurvirostridae Recurvirostra americana R G5 ●

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulidae Regulus calendula R G5

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulidae Regulus satrapa R G5

Spotted Sandpiper Scolopacidae Actitis macularia R G5 ●

Ruddy Turnstone Scolopacidae Arenaria interpres R G5

Upland Sandpiper Scolopacidae Bartramia longicauda R G5 ● ● ● ● ●

Sanderling Scolopacidae Calidris alba R G5

Dunlin Scolopacidae Calidris alpina R G5

Baird’s Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris bairdii R G5

Red Knot Scolopacidae Calidris canutus R G4 ●

White-rumped Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris fuscicollis R G5

Stilt Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris himantopus R G5

Western Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris mauri R G5

Pectoral Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris melanotos R G5

Least Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris minutilla R G5

Semipalmated Sandpiper Scolopacidae Calidris pusilla R G5

Willet Scolopacidae Catoptrophorus semipalmatus R G5

Wilson's Snipe Scolopacidae Gallinago gallinago R G5 ●

Short-billed Dowitcher Scolopacidae Limnodromus griseus R G5 ● ●

Long-billed Dowitcher Scolopacidae Limnodromus scolopaceus R G5

Marbled Godwit Scolopacidae Limosa fedoa R G5 ● ● ● ●

Hudsonian Godwit Scolopacidae Limosa haemastica R G4 ● ● ●

Red-necked Phalarope Scolopacidae Phalaropus lobatus R G4

G5

Wilson's Phalarope Scolopacidae Phalaropus tricolor R G5 ● ●

American Woodcock Scolopacidae Scolopax minor R G5 ●

Lesser Yellowlegs Scolopacidae Tringa flavipes R G5

Greater Yellowlegs Scolopacidae Tringa melanoleuca R G5

Solitary Sandpiper Scolopacidae Tringa solitaria R G5 ● ●

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sittidae Sitta canadensis R G5 ●

White-breasted Nuthatch Sittidae Sitta carolinensis R G5 ●

Short-eared Owl Strigidae Asio flammeus R G5 E ● ● ● ●

Long-eared Owl Strigidae Asio otus R G5 T ●

Great Horned Owl Strigidae Bubo virginianus R G5 ●

Snowy Owl Strigidae Nyctea scandiaca R G5

Eastern Screech Owl Strigidae Otus asio R G5 ●

Barred Owl Strigidae Strix varia R G5 ●

European Starling Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris R G5 ●

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Sylviidae Polioptila caerulea R G5
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

179

White-faced Ibis Threskiornithidae Plegadis chihi R G5 ●

Ruby Throated Hummingbird Trochilidae Archilochus colubris R G5 ●

Marsh Wren Troglodytidae Cistothorus palustris R G5 ●

Sedge Wren Troglodytidae Cistothorus platensis R G5 ●

Carolina Wren Troglodytidae Thryothorus ludovicianus R G5 ●

House Wren Troglodytidae Troglodytes aedon R G5 ●

Winter Wren Troglodytidae Troglodytes troglodytes R G5

Hermit Thrush Turdidae Catharus guttatus R G5

Gray-cheeked Thrush Turdidae Catharus minimus R G5

Swainson's Thrush Turdidae Catharus ustulatus R G5

Wood Thrush Turdidae Hylocichla mustelina R G5 ● ● ●

Townsend’s Solitaire Turdidae Myadestes townsendi R G5 ●

Eastern Bluebird Turdidae Sialia sialis R G5 ●

American Robin Turdidae Turdus migratorius R G5 ●

Eastern Wood-Pewee Tyrannidae Contopus virens R G5 ●

Alder Flycatcher Tyrannidae Empidonax alnorum R G5

Least Flycatcher Tyrannidae Empidonax minimus R G5 ●

Willow Flycatcher Tyrannidae Empidonax traillii R G5 ● ●

Acadian Flycatcher Tyrannidae Empidonax virescens R G5 ● ●

Great Crested Flycatcher Tyrannidae Myiarchus crinitus R G5 ●

Eastern Phoebe Tyrannidae Sayornis phoebe R G5 ●

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus tyrannus R G5 ●

Western Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus verticalis R G5 ●

Barn Owl Tytonidae Tyto alba R G5 E ●

Bell's Vireo Vireonidae Vireo bellii R G5 ● ● ● ●

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireonidae Vireo flavifrons R G5 ●

Warbling Vireo Vireonidae Vireo gilvus R G5 ●

White-eyed Vireo Vireonidae Vireo griseus R G5 ●

Red-eyed Vireo Vireonidae Vireo olivaceus R G5 ●

Philadelphia Vireo Vireonidae Vireo philadelphicus R G5

Blue-headed Vireo Vireonidae Vireo solitarius R G5

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Birds of Conservation Concern (2002, 2008a, 2011d) 2 Johnsgard, Nebraska Bird Review (1979, 1998, 2009)
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

180

Mammals

Common Name Family Scientific Name

Refuge OccurrenceGlobal StatusNational StatusNebraska StatusIowa Status

Coyote Canidae Canis latrans R G5 S5 S5

Gray fox Canidae Urocyon cinereoargenteus E G5 S4 S4

Red fox Canidae Vulpes vulpes R G5 S5 S4

Beaver Castoridae Castor canadensis R G5 S5 S5

White-tailed deer Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus R G5 S5 S5

Mule deer Cervidae Odocoileus hemionus – G5 S5 ---

Prairie vole Cricetidae Microtus ochrogaster R G5 S5 S3

Meadow vole Cricetidae Microtus pennsylvanicus R G5 S5 S5

Woodland Vole Cricetidae Microtus pinetorum – G5 S1 S3

Common muskrat Cricetidae Ondatra zibethicus R G5 S5 S5

Northern grasshopper mouse Cricetidae Onychomys leucogaster R G5 S5 S3

White-footed deermouse Cricetidae Peromyscus leucopus R G5 S5 S5

North American deermouse Cricetidae Peromyscus maniculatus R G5 S5 S5

Western harvest mouse Cricetidae Reithrodontomys megalotis R G5 S4 S4

Hispid cotton rat Cricetidae Sigmodon hispidus – G5 S3 SU

Southern bog lemming Cricetidae Synaptomys cooperi – G5 S4 S3

Virginia opossum Didelphidae Didelphis marsupialis R G5 S5 S5

Meadow jumping mouse Dipodidae Zapus hudsonius R G5 S5 S4

Nine-banded armadillo Dasypodidae Dasypus novemcinctus – G5 --- ---

Porcupine Erethizontidae Erethizon dorsatum – G5 S4 SX

Feral Cat Felidae Felis catus R GNA X SNA SNA

Bobcat Felidae Lynx rufus R G5 S5 S3

Plains pocket gopher Geomyidae Geomys bursarius R G5 S5 S5

Hispid pocket mouse Heteromyidae Chaetodipus hispidus – G5 S5 ---

Plains pocket mouse Heteromyidae Perognathus flavescens E G5 S5 S2

Black-tailed jackrabbit Leporidae Lepus californicus – G5 S5 ---

White-tailed jackrabbit Leporidae Lepus townsendii R G5 S4 S3

Eastern cottontail Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus R G5 S5 S5

House mouse Muridae Mus musculus R G5 SNA SNA

Norway rat Muridae Rattus norvegicus R G5 SNA SNA

River otter Mustelidae Lontra canadensis – G5 S2 S3

Striped skunk Mustelidae Mephitis mephitis R G5 S5 S5

Long-tailed weasel Mustelidae Mustela frenata R G5 S5 S4

Least weasel Mustelidae Mustela rixosa – G5 S5 S3

Mink Mustelidae Mustela vison R G5 S5 S4

Eastern spotted skunk Mustelidae Spilogale putorius R G5 S1 S1

Badger Mustelidae Taxidea taxus R G5 S5 S4

Nutria Myocastoridae Myocastor coypus – G5 X SNA SNA
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

181

Raccoon Procyonidae Procyon lotor R G5 S5 S5

Franklin ground squirrel Sciuridae Citellus franklinii R G5 S5 S3

Southern flying squirrel Sciuridae Glaucomys volans – G5 S1 S4

Woodchuck Sciuridae Marmota monax R G5 S4 S5

Eastern gray squirrel Sciuridae Sciurus carolinensis R G5 S3 S5

Eastern fox squirrel Sciuridae Sciurus niger R G5 S5 S5

Richardson’s ground squirrel Sciuridae Spermophilus richardsonii – G5 --- S3

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Sciuridae Spermophilus tridecemlineatus R G5 S5 S5

Eastern chipmunk Sciuridae Tamias striatus – G5 S1 S5

Northern short-tailed shrew Soricidae Blarina brevicauda R G5 S3 S5

Least shrew Soricidae Cryptotis parva – G5 S4 S2

Cinereus shrew Soricidae Sorex cinereus – G5 --- SNR

Hayden's shrew Soricidae Sorex haydeni – G4 S4 ---

Eastern mole Talpidae Scalopus aquaticus R G5 S5 S5

Big brown bat Vespertilionidae Eptesicus fuscus E G5 S5 S4

Silver-haired bat Vespertilionidae Lasionycteris noctivagans E G5 S5 S4

Eastern red bat Vespertilionidae Lasiurus borealis E G5 S5 S4

Hoary bat Vespertilionidae Lasiurus cinereus E G5 S5 S4

Western small-footed myotis Vespertilionidae Myotis ciliolabrum – G5 S4 ---

Little brown myotis Vespertilionidae Myotis lucifugus R G5 S4 S4

Northern myotis Vespertilionidae Myotis septentrionalis – G4 S4 S4

Indiana bat Vespertilionidae Myotis sodalis – G2 E --- S1

Evening bat Vespertilionidae Nycticeius humeralis – G5 S4 S3

Eastern pipestrelle Vespertilionidae Perimyotis subflavus – G5 S1 S4
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

182

Reptiles and Amphibians

Common Name Order Family Scientific Name

Refuge OccurrenceGlobal StatusNational StatusNebraska StatusIowa Status

Common American toad Anura Bufonidae Bufo americanus R G5 S1 S5

Great plains toad Anura Bufonidae Bufo cognatus R G5 S5 S4

Fowler’s toad Anura Bufonidae Bufo fowleri – G5 --- S3

Woodhouse's toad Anura Bufonidae Bufo woodhouseii R G5 S5 S3

Blanchard’s cricket frog Anura Hylidae Acris blanchardi R G5 S5 S3?

Northern cricket frog Anura Hylidae Acris crepitans R G5 --- ---

Cope’s gray treefrog Anura Hylidae Hyla chrysoscelis R G5 S5 S4

Gray treefrog Anura Hylidae Hyla versicolor C G5 --- S4

Spring peeper Anura Hylidae Pseudacris crucifer – G5 --- S4

Chorus frog Anura Hylidae Pseudacris maculata R G5 S5 S4

Western chorus frog Anura Hylidae Pseudacris triseriata triseriata R G5 --- ---

Plains narrow-mouthed toad Anura Microhylidae Gastrophryne olivacea – G5 S3S4 ---

Crawfish frog Anura Ranidae Rana areolata – G4 --- S1

Plains leopard frog Anura Ranidae Rana blairi R G5 S5 S5

American bullfrog Anura Ranidae Rana catesbeiana R G5 S5 S5

Green frog Anura Ranidae Rana clamitans R G5 --- S4

Pickerel frog Anura Ranidae Rana palustris – G5 --- S4

Northern leopard frog Anura Ranidae Rana pipiens R G5 S5 S5

Southern leopard frog Anura Ranidae Rana sphenocephala R G5 --- S4

Plains spadefoot toad Anura Scaphiopodidae Scaphiopus bombifrons R G5 S5 S4

Smallmouth salamander Caudata Ambystomatidae Ambystoma texanum E G5 S1 S3

Eastern tiger salamander Caudata Ambystomatidae Ambystoma tigrinum C G5 S5 S5

Mudpuppy Caudata Proteidae Necturus maculosus – G5 --- S2

Common snapping turtle Testudines Chelydridae Chelydra serpentina R G5 S5 S5

Northern painted turtle Testudines Emydidae Chrysemys picta R G5 S5 S5

Blanding’s turtle Testudines Emydidae Emydoidea blandingii – G4 S5 S3

Map turtle Testudines Emydidae Graptemys geographica – G5 --- S4

False map turtle Testudines Emydidae Graptemys pseudogeographica R G5 S4 S4

Missouri river cooter Testudines Emydidae Pseudemys concinna metteri – G5 --- ---

Ornate box turtle Testudines Emydidae Terrapene ornata R G5 S5 S2

Slider Testudines Emydidae Trachemys scripta – G5 --- S3

Yellow mud turtle Testudines Kinosternidae Kinosternon flavescens – G5 S3 S1

Common musk turtle Testudines Kinosternidae Sternotherus odoratus – G5 --- S2

Smooth softshell Testudines Trionychidae Apalone mutica R G5 S5 S4

Spiny softshell Testudines Trionychidae Apalone spinifera R G5 S5 SNR

Western wormsnake Squamata Colubridae Carphophis vermis E G5 S5 S3

Racer Squamata Colubridae Coluber constrictor R G5 S5 S5

Ring-neck snake Squamata Colubridae Diadophis punctatus R G5 S5 S5
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

183

Western hog-nose snake Squamata Colubridae Heterodon nasicus E G5 S5 S1

Eastern hog-nose snake Squamata Colubridae Heterodon platirhinos R G5 S4 S4

Yellow-bellied kingsnake Squamata Colubridae Lampropeltis calligaster E G5 S2 S3

Common kingsnake Squamata Colubridae Lampropeltis getulus E G5 S1 S1

Milksnake Squamata Colubridae Lampropeltis triangulum C G5 S5 S4

Diamond-backed watersnake Squamata Colubridae Nerodia rhombifer – G5 --- S4

Northern watersnake Squamata Colubridae Nerodia sipedon E G5 S5 S5

Smooth greensnake Squamata Colubridae Opheodrys vernalis E G5 S1 S3

Western ratsnake Squamata Colubridae Pantherophis obsoleta E G5 S4 S4

Western foxsnake Squamata Colubridae Pantherophis vulpinus R G5 S5 S4

Bullsnake / gophersnake Squamata Colubridae Pituophis catenifer R G5 S5 S4

Graham's crayfish snake Squamata Colubridae Regina grahamii E G5 S2 S4

Brownsnake Squamata Colubridae Storeria dekayi R G5 S3 S5

Red-bellied snake Squamata Colubridae Storeria occipitomaculata C G5 S2 S3

Western ribbonsnake Squamata Colubridae Thamnophis proximus R G5 S2 S5

Plains gartersnake Squamata Colubridae Thamnophis radix R G5 S5 S4

Common gartersnake Squamata Colubridae Thamnophis sirtalis R G5 S5 S5

Lined snake Squamata Colubridae Tropidoclonion lineatum E G5 S5 S4

Copperhead Squamata Viperidae Agkistrodon contortrix – G5 S2 S1

Timber rattlesnake Squamata Viperidae Crotalus horridus E G4 S1 S3

Prairie rattlesnake Squamata Viperidae Crotalus viridis E G5 S4 S1

Massasauga rattlesnake Squamata Viperidae Sistrurus catenatus E G3G4 C S1 S1

Five-lined skink Squamata -

Lacertilia Scincidae Plestiodon fasciatus E G5 S1 S4

Prairie skink Squamata -

Lacertilia Scincidae Plestiodon septentrionalis R G5 S5 S3

Six-lined racerunner Squamata -

Lacertilia Teiidae Aspidoscelis sexlineata E G5 S5 S3
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

184

Fishes

Common Name Family Scientific Name

Refuge OccurrenceGlobal StatusNational Status Nebraska StatusIowa Status

Pallid sturgeon Acipenseridae Scaphirhynchus albus R G2 E S1 S1

Shovelnose sturgeon Acipenseridae Scaphirhynchus platorynchus R G4 S4 S4

Bowfin Amiidae Amia calva – G5 SH S3

American eel Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata R G4 SNR S3

River carpsucker Catostomidae Carpiodes carpio R G5 S5 S5

Quillback Catostomidae Carpiodes cyprinus R G5 S4 S5

Highfin carpsucker Catostomidae Carpiodes velifer – G4G5 SX S4

White sucker Catostomidae Catostomus commersoni R G5 S4 S5

Blue sucker Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus R G3G4 S S1 S3

Smallmouth buffalo Catostomidae Ictiobus bubalus R G5 S3 S5

Bigmouth buffalo Catostomidae Ictiobus cyprinellus R G5 S4 S5

Black buffalo Catostomidae Ictiobus niger R G5 S2 S3

River redhorse Catostomidae Moxostoma carinatum R G4 --- S3

Golden redhorse Catostomidae Moxostoma erythrurum – G5 --- SNR

Shorthead redhorse Catostomidae Moxostoma macrolepidotum – G5 S5 S5

Green sunfish Centrarchidae Lepomis cyanellus R G5 S5 S5

Orange-spotted sunfish Centrarchidae Lepomis humilis R G5 S5 S5

Bluegill Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus R G5 S5 S5

Long-ear sunfish Centrarchidae Lepomis megalotis – G5 --- SX

Largemouth bass Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides R G5 S5 S5

White crappie Centrarchidae Pomoxis annularis R G5 S5 S5

Black crappie Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus R G5 S5 S5

Alabama shad Clupeidae Alosa alabamae – G3 --- SH

Skipjack herring Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris R G5 SNR S3

Gizzard shad Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum R G5 S5 S5

Central stone-roIler Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum – G5 S5 S5

Goldfish Cyprinidae Carassius auratus R G5 X SNA SNA

Grass carp Cyprinidae Ctenopharyngodon idella R G5 X SX SX

Brook stickleback Cyprinidae Culaea inconstans R G5 S3 S4

Common carp Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio R G5 X SNA SNA

Western silvery minnow Cyprinidae Hybognathus argyritis R G4 S S5 S1

Brassy minnow Cyprinidae Hybognathus hankinsoni R G5 S4 S5

Central silvery minnow Cyprinidae Hybognathus nuchalis – G5 --- S3?

Plains minnow Cyprinidae Hybognathus placitus R G4 S S4 S4

Speckled chub Cyprinidae Hybopsis aestivalis – G3G4 --- ---

Flathead chub Cyprinidae Hybopsis gracilis R G5 S S5 S3

Silver chub Cyprinidae Hybopsis storeriana R G5 S4 SNR

Silver carp Cyprinidae Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – G5 X --- ---
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

185

Bighead carp Cyprinidae Hypophthalmichthys nobilis R G5 X SX SX

Sturgeon chub Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis gelida R G3 C S1 SH

Shoal chub Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis hyostoma R G5 S4 SNR

Sicklefin chub Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis meeki R G3 C S1 S1?

Golden shiner Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas R G5 S5 S4

Emerald shiner Cyprinidae Notropis atherinoides R G5 S4 S5

River shiner Cyprinidae Notropis blennius R G5 S4 SNR

Ghost shiner Cyprinidae Notropis buchanani – G5 --- S3

Striped shiner Cyprinidae Notropis chrysocephalus – G5 --- ---

Bigmouth shiner Cyprinidae Notropis dorsalis R G5 S4 S5

Spottail shiner Cyprinidae Notropis hudsonius R G5 SNA SNR

Red shiner Cyprinidae Notropis lutrensis R G5 S5 S5

Rosyface shiner Cyprinidae Notropis rubellus – G5 --- ---

Silverband shiner Cyprinidae Notropis shumardi – G5 SU SX

Spotfin shiner Cyprinidae Notropis spilopterus – G5 S2S3 S5

Sand shiner Cyprinidae Notropis stramineus R G5 S5 S5

Redfin shiner Cyprinidae Notropis umbratilis – G5 --- S4

Mimic shiner Cyprinidae Notropis volucellus – G5 --- S4

Channel shiner Cyprinidae Notropis wickliffi – G5 --- SNR

Suckermouth minnow Cyprinidae Phenacobius mirabilis – G5 S4 S4

Blunt-nose minnow Cyprinidae Pimephales notatus R G5 S3 S5

Fathead minnow Cyprinidae Pimephales promelas – G5 S5 S5

Creek chub Cyprinidae Semotilus atromaculatus R G5 S5 S5

Northern pike Esocidae Esox lucius R G5 S4 S5

Plains killifish Fundulidae Fundulus kansae – GNR S4 ---

Burbot Gadidae Lota lota R G5 SH S3

Goldeye Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides R G5 S5 SNR

Mooneye Hiodontidae Hiodon tergisus – G5 SNR SNR

Blue catfish Ictaluridae Ictalurus furcatus R G5 S3 S4

Black bullhead Ictaluridae Ictalurus melas R G5 S5 S5

Yellow bullhead Ictaluridae Ictalurus natalis R G5 S4 S4

Channel catfish Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus R G5 S5 S5

Stonecat Ictaluridae Noturus flavus R G5 S5 S5

Tadpole madtom Ictaluridae Noturus gyrinus R G5 S3 S3

Freckled madtom Ictaluridae Noturus nocturnus – G5 - S2

Flathead catfish Ictaluridae Pylodictis olivaris – G5 S4 S4

Long-nose gar Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus R G5 S4 S3

Short-nose gar Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus platostomus R G5 S5 S4

White perch Moronidae Morone americana R G5 SNA ---

White bass Moronidae Morone chrysops R G5 S4 S4

Hybrid striped bass Moronidae Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis R GNR N SNR SNR

Striped bass Moronidae Morone saxatilis – G5 N SNA ---

Rainbow smelt Osmeridae Osmerus mordax – G5 N SE ---

Johnny darter Percidae Etheostoma nigrum R G5 S3 S5

Orange-throat darter Percidae Etheostoma spectabile – G5 S3 S2

Yellow perch Percidae Perca flavescens R G5 S5 S5

Logperch Percidae Percina caprodes – G5 --- S3

Trout perch Percidae Percopsis omiscomaycus R G5 S1 S3

Sauger Percidae Stizostedion canadense R G5 S5 S4
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

186

Walleye Percidae Stizostedion vitreum R G5 S5 S5

Chestnut lamprey Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon castaneus – G4 S1 S2

Mosquitofish Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis – G5 X SNA SNA

Paddlefish Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula R G4 S S2 S3

Freshwater drum Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens R G5 S5 S5
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

187

Butterflies

Common Name Family Scientific Name

Refuge OccurrenceGlobal StatusNational StatusNebraska StatusIowa Status

Delaware skipper Hesperiidae Anatrytone logan – G5 S3 S5

Sachem Hesperiidae Atalopedes campestris – G5 S5 SNA

Silver-spotted skipper Hesperidae Epargyreus clarus R G5 S4 S4

Pawnee skipper Hesperidae Hesperia leonardus pawnee R G4 SNR ---

Ottoe skipper Hesperidae Hesperia ottoe R G3G4 S2 S2

Fiery skipper Hesperidae Hylephila phyleus R G5 S3 SNA

Common sootywing Hesperidae Pholisora catullus R G5 S5 S5

Peck's skipper Hesperidae Polites peckius R G5 S5 S5

Tawny-edged skipper Hesperidae Polites themistocles R G5 S5 S5

White checkered skipper Hesperidae Pyrgus albescens – G5 --- ---

Common checkered skipper Hesperidae Pyrgus communis R G5 SNR SNR

Northern cloudywing Hesperidae Thorybes pylades R G5 S4 S4

Juniper hairstreak Lycaenidae Callophrys gryneus – G5 S3 S3

Spring azure Lycaenidae Celastrina ladon R G4G5 S5 S5

Eastern tailed blue Lycaenidae Everes comyntas R G5 S5 S5

Harvester Lycaenidae Feniseca tarquinius R G4 S2 S2

Reakirt's blue Lycaenidae Hemiargus isola R G5 SNR SNR

Gray copper Lycaenidae Lycaena dione R G5 S3 S4

Purplish copper Lycaenidae Lycaena helloides R G5 S3 S3

Bronze copper Lycaenidae Lycaena hyllus R G4G5 S4 S5

Little copper Lycaenidae Lycaena phlaeas – G5 SNR S4

Gray hairstreak Lycaenidae Strymon melinus R G5 S5 S4

Goatweed leafwing Nymphalidae Anaea andria R G4G5 SNA ---

Hackberry emperor Nymphalidae Asterocampa celtis R G5 S3 S5

Tawny emperor Nymphalidae Asterocampa clyton R G5 S3 S4

Common wood-nymph Nymphalidae Cercyonis pegala R G5 S5 S5

Gorgone checkerspot Nymphalidae Chlosyne gorgone R G5 S4 S4

Silvery checkerspot Nymphalidae Chlosyne nycteis R G5 S3 S4

Queen Nymphalidae Danaus gilippus R G5 --- ---

Monarch Nymphalidae Danaus plexippus R G5 S5 S5

Northern pearly eye Nymphalidae Enodia anthedon R G4 S3 S3

Variegated fritillary Nymphalidae Euptoieta claudia R G5 S5 SNA

Common buckeye Nymphalidae Junonia coenia R G5 S4 SNA

American snout Nymphalidae Libytheana carinenta R G5 --- SNR

Viceroy Nymphalidae Limenitis archippus R G5 S4 S4

Red spotted purple Nymphalidae Limenitis arthemis astyanax R G5 SNR ---

Little wood-satyr Nymphalidae Megisto cymela R G5 S4 S4

Mourning cloak Nymphalidae Nymphalis antiopa R G5 S5 S4
Appendix B: Species Lists

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

188

Milbert's tortoiseshell Nymphalidae Nymphalis milberti R G5 S3 SNR

Pearl crescent Nymphalidae Phyciodes tharos R G5 S5 S5

Eastern comma Nymphalidae Polygonia comma R G5 S4 S5

Question mark Nymphalidae Polygonia interrogationis R G5 S5 S5

Great spangled fritillary Nymphalidae Speyeria cybele – G5 S3 S4

Regal fritillary Nymphalidae Speyeria idalia R G3 S3 S2

Red admiral Nymphalidae Vanessa atalanta R G5 S5 S5

Painted lady Nymphalidae Vanessa cardui R G5 S5 SNR

American lady Nymphalidae Vanessa virginiensis – G5 S4 S5

Pipevine swallowtail Papilionidae Battus philenor R G5 --- S3

Giant swallowtaiI Papilionidae Papilio cresphontes R G5 S4 S4

Tiger swallowtail Papilionidae Papilio glaucus R G5 S5 S5

Black swallowtail Papilionidae Papilio polyxenes R G5 S5 S5

Spicebush swallowtail Papilionidae Papilio troilus R G4? --- ---

Orange sulphur Pieridae Colias eurytheme R G5 S5 S5

Clouded sulphur Pieridae Colias philodice R G5 S5 S5

Little yellow Pieridae Eurema lisa R G5 S4 SNR

Sleepy orange Pieridae Eurema nicippe R G5 S2 ---

Cloudless sulphur Pieridae Phoebis sennae R G5 S4 SNR

Cabbage white Pieridae Pieris rapae R G5 SNA SNA

Checkered white Pieridae Pontia protodice R G4 S4 S4

Dogface sulphur Pieridae Zerene cesonia R G5 S3 SNR
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

189

Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

Abbreviations

The following is a list of the most frequently used abbreviations in this document. More detail 

for some of the abbreviations is included in the Glossary.

NOTE: “Abbreviations” is used generically to refer to abbreviations (shortened version of a term 

or series of words), acronyms (word formed from letters or parts of a series of words), and 

initialisms (initial letters pronounced separately).

BCA: Bird Conservation Areas

BCC: Birds of Conservation Concern

BCR: Bird Conservation Region

CD: Compatibility Determination

CCP: Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CRP: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program

DNR: Department of Natural Resources (often preceded by state abbreviation)

DOI: U.S. Department of the Interior

DU: Ducks Unlimited

EA: Environmental Assessment

EAS: Environmental Action Statement

EE: Environmental Education

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

EO: Executive Order

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA: Endangered Species Act

FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact

FR: Federal Register

FTE: Full-time Equivalent

FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also USFWS and Service)

FY: Fiscal Year

GAP: Gap Analysis Program

GIS: Geographic Information System

HAPET: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

IBA: Audubon Society’s Important Bird Area

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LCC: Landscape Conservation Cooperative

LCD: Landscape Conservation Design

MOA: Memorandum of Agreement

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding

NABCI: North American Bird Conservation Initiative

NAI: Natural Areas Inventory

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NRHP: National Register of Historic Places

NWR: National Wildlife Refuge (also refuge)

NWRS: National Wildlife Refuge System (also Refuge System)

PFT: Permanent Full-time

PPJV: Prairie Pothole Joint Venture
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

190

PPR: Prairie Pothole Region

R3: Region 3 (Midwest) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin)

ROD: Record of Decision

SGCN: Species of Greatest Conservation Need

SHC: Strategic Habitat Conservation

TFT: Temporary Full-time

UMR/GLR JV: Upper Mississippi River & Great Lakes Region Joint Venture

USC: United States Code

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS: U.S. Geologic Survey

WMA: Wildlife Management Area

WMD: Wetland Management District (also district)

WPA: Waterfowl Production Area

WRP: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wetland Reserve Program

WSA: Wilderness Study Areas

Glossary

Adaptation: Adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment. 

Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in response to 

actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial 

opportunities. Various types of adaptation can be distinguished, including anticipatory and 

reactive adaptation, private and public adaptation, and autonomous and planned adaptation.

Adaptive Management: The 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 refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of 

management actions to support or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels (FWS, 

602 FW 1.6(A)).

Alternatives: Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes 

and goals, helping fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and resolving issues 

(FWS, 602 FW 1.6(B)). 

Appropriate Use: A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the 

following four conditions (FWS, 603 FW 1.6):

• The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Fish and Wildlife 

Improvement Act of 1978.

• The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan 

approved after October 9, 1997, the date the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 was signed into law.

• The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations.

• The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11.
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

191

Approved Acquisition Boundary: A project boundary that the Director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance 

process. An approved acquisition boundary only designates those lands that the Service has 

authority to acquire and/or manage through various agreements. Approval of an acquisition 

boundary does not grant the Service jurisdiction or control over lands within the boundary, and it 

does not make lands within the refuge boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Lands do not become part of the Refuge System until they are purchased or are placed under 

an agreement that provides for management as part of the Refuge System. 

Biological Control: The use of organisms or viruses to control weeds or other pests.

Biological Diversity: The variety of life, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities in which they occur (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(C)).

Biological Integrity: Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at the genetic, organism, 

and community levels consistent with natural conditions, including the natural biological 

processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(D)).

Candidate Species: Plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 

sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, but for which development of a 

proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities.

Carbon Sequestration: The uptake and storage of carbon. Trees and plants, for example, 

absorb carbon dioxide, release the oxygen, and store the carbon. Fossil fuels were at one time 

biomass and continue to store the carbon until burned.

Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such 

as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). 

Climate change may result from (1) natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or 

slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun; (2) natural processes within the climate 

system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); (3) human activities that change the atmosphere's 

composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, 

reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.).

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the federal government. It 

is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. The 50 subject 

matter titles contain one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar 

year, on a staggered basis. 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of 

a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the 

purposes of the national wildlife refuge (FWS, 603 FW 2.6(B)). 

Compatibility Determination (CD): A written determination signed and dated by the refuge 

manager and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional chief signifying that a proposed or 

existing use of a national wildlife refuge is a compatible use or is not a compatible use. The 

director of the Service makes this delegation through the regional director (FWS, 603 FW 

2.6(A)).
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

192

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP): A document that describes the desired future 

conditions of a refuge or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

maintains and, where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System; and meets other mandates (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(E)).

Consumptive Use: Use of a refuge resource that removes the resource from the refuge (e.g., 

killing an animal to eat, catching and keeping fish, harvesting berries or plants, or removal of 

mineral or other specimens).

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An executive office of the president whose 

members are appointed by the president. CEQ recommends national policies to promote the 

improvement of the quality of the environment.

Cultural Resource Inventory: A professionally conducted study designed to locate and 

evaluate evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories 

may involve various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field 

examination to identify all exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified 

cultural resources to determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places follows the 

criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4. 

Cultural Resources: “Those parts of the physical environment—natural and built—that have 

cultural value to some kind of sociocultural group . . . [and] those non-material human social 

institutions . . . .” Cultural resources include historic sites, archeological sites and associated 

artifacts, sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, cultural items (human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony), and buildings and structures.

Easement: A privilege or right that is held by one person or other entity in land owned by 

another. 

Ecological Integrity: The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, and 

environmental health; the replication of natural conditions (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(G)).

Ecosystem: A biological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit. For 

administrative purposes, 53 ecosystems covering the United States and its possessions have 

been designated. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, and their 

sizes and ecological complexity vary (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(H)). 

Effects (Impacts): Effects include:

• Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

• Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed 

in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growthinducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural 

systems, including ecosystems.
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

193

• Cumulative effects, which result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that, collectively, become significant over time.

Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects includes ecological 

(such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of 

affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, 

indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions that may have both 

beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be 

beneficial (40 CFR 1508.8).

Endangered Species: Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range 

and published in the Federal Register.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): Through federal action and by encouraging the establishment 

of state programs, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 provided for the conservation of 

ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend. 

The act authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 

prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; provides 

authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water 

conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to 

states that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for 

violating the act or regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing 

information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the act or any regulation issued 

thereunder. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires federal agencies to ensure that any 

action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat. 

Environmental Action Statement (EAS): The decision document for an environmental 

assessment for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The EAS will consist of a one-page 

document indicating the proposal, the Service decision, references to supporting documents (if 

any), and a signature block. The purposes of the EAS are to establish a process for internal 

review of National Environmental Policy Act-related decision documents and to provide an 

appropriate administrative record of NEPA-related decisions at all management levels of the 

Service (FWS, 550 FW 3.3 (C)).

Environmental Analysis: The process associated with preparing documents such as 

environmental assessments and environmental impact statements and the decision whether to 

prepare an environmental impact statement. It is an analysis of alternative actions and their 

predictable short-term and long-term effects, which include physical, biological, economic, and 

social factors and their interactions.

Environmental Assessment (EA): A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions 

would result in a significant effect on the quality of the environment.

Environmental Consequences: The scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of 

alternatives. The environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any 
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

194

adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the 

relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented (40 CFR 1502.16). 

Environmental Health: Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment 

consistent with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(I)).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed written statement, required by section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, analyzing the environmental 

impacts of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative 

courses of action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11).

Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income.

Extirpation: The local extinction of a species that is no longer found in a locality or country but 

exists elsewhere in the world.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A document prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and supported by an environmental assessment that 

briefly presents why a federal action will have no significant effects on the human environment 

and for which an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13).

Global Warming: Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere 

near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global 

climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human 

induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a 

result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

Goal: A descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys purposes but does not define measurable units (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(J)).

Greenhouse Gas (GHG): Any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. 

Greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 

(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), 

ozone (O3), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6).

Habitat: The physical and biological resources required by an organism for its survival and 

reproduction; these requirements are species-specific. Food and cover are major components 

of habitat and must extend beyond the requirements of the individual to include a sufficient area 

capable of supporting a viable population.

Incompatible: Any use (recreational or nonrecreational) of a refuge that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will materially 
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

195

interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

or the purposes of the refuge. Incompatible uses are not allowed to occur on Service areas.

Indicator: In effects analysis, a way for measuring effects from management alternatives on a 

particular resource or issue.

Interjurisdictional Fish: Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of one or more states, 

for which there is an interstate fishery management plan or which migrates between the waters 

under the jurisdiction of two or more states bordering on the Great Lakes.

Invasive Species: Invasive species are organisms that are introduced into a non-native 

ecosystem and that cause, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, environment, or human 

health.

Inventory: Accepted biological methods to determine the presence, relative abundance, and/or 

distribution of species (FWS, 701 FW 2.6(A)).

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision—that is, a U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, a threat to the resources 

of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition 

(FWS, 602 FW 1.6(K)).

Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC): A national network of public-private 

partnerships that provide shared science to ensure the sustainability of America’s land, water, 

wildlife, and cultural resources.

Landscape Conservation Design (LCD): A partnership-driven activity that results in an 

assessment of current and anticipated future resource patterns and processes, and a spatially 

explicit depiction of a desired future condition. These products guide partners’ identification of 

broad management, restoration, and protection strategies that could be implemented on the 

ground to address identified resource concerns, attain desired future conditions, sustain 

ecosystem function, and achieve the missions, mandates, and goals of partner agencies, 

organizations, and tribes.

Major Federal Action: Includes action with effects that may be major and that are potentially 

subject to federal control and responsibility. “Major” reinforces but does not have a meaning 

independent of significantly. “Actions” include new and continuing activities. Federal actions 

include adoption of official policy, formal plans, programs, and approval of specific projects (40 

CFR 1508.18).

Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement (MOU or MOA): A legal document outlining 

the terms and details of an agreement between parties (often U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

a state natural resource agency), including each party’s requirements and responsibilities. It 

sets forth the basic principles and guidelines under which the parties will work together to 

accomplish their goals. A memorandum of understanding or agreement are generally 

recognized as binding, even if no legal claim could be based on the rights and obligations laid 

down in them. 

Migratory Birds: Birds that follow a seasonal movement from their breeding grounds to their 

wintering grounds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and songbirds are all migratory birds.
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

196

Monitoring: Accepted biological methods to determine the status and/or demographics of 

species over time (FWS, 701 FW 2.6(B)). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): This act, promulgated in 1969, requires 

all federal agencies to disclose the environmental effects of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all 

actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements and must 

prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision making (40 

CFR 1500). The law also established the Council on Environmental Quality to implement the 

law and to monitor compliance with the law.

National Wilderness Preservation System: A network of federally owned areas designated by 

Congress as wilderness and managed by one of four federal agencies: the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or the U.S. Forest 

Service. Includes over 600 areas and more than 105 million acres. The National Wildlife 

Refuge System includes over 20 million acres of wilderness in more than 60 refuges (FWS, 610 

FW 1.9).

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge): A 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 located in the current Report of 

Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(L)).

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System): All lands, waters, and interests 

therein administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, 

wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the protection and 

conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (improvement act): Sets the 

mission and administrative policy for all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Clearly

defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal process for 

determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for each refuge by the year 2012. This act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.

Native Species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that occurs within its natural 

range or natural zone of potential dispersal (i.e., the geographic area the species occupies 

naturally or would occupy in the absence of direct or indirect human activity or an environmental 

catastrophe). 

No Action Alternative: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this refers to the 

current management direction. With this alternative, no change from the current CCP would be 

implemented.

Non-consumptive Uses: Recreational activities (e.g., hiking, photography, and wildlife 

observation) that do not involve the taking or catching of fish, wildlife, or other natural resources.
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

197

Non-native Species: A species, subspecies, or distinct population that has been introduced by 

humans (intentionally or unintentionally) outside its natural range or natural zone of potential 

dispersal.

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, 

when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive 

from goals and provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of strategies. Objectives are to be attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(N)).

Ozone (O3): Ozone, the triatomic form of oxygen (O3), is a gaseous atmospheric constituent. In 

the troposphere, it is created both naturally and by photochemical reactions involving gases 

resulting from human activities (photochemical smog). In high concentrations, tropospheric 

ozone can be harmful to a wide range of living organisms. Tropospheric ozone acts as a 

greenhouse gas. In the stratosphere, ozone is created by the interaction between solar 

ultraviolet radiation and molecular oxygen (O2). Stratospheric ozone plays a decisive role in the 

stratospheric radiative balance. Depletion of stratospheric ozone, due to chemical reactions that 

may be enhanced by climate change, results in an increased ground-level flux of ultraviolet (UV) 

B radiation. 

Planning Area: The area upon which the planning effort will focus. A planning area may include 

lands outside existing planning unit boundaries currently studied for inclusion in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and/or partnership planning efforts. It also may include watersheds or 

ecosystems outside of our jurisdiction that affect the planning unit. At a minimum, the planning 

area includes all lands within the authorized boundary of the refuge (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(O)).

Planning Team: A planning team is interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team 

generally consist of a planning team leader, refuge manager, staff biologists, a state natural

resource agency representative, and other appropriate program specialists (e.g., social 

scientist, ecologist, recreation specialist). Other federal and tribal natural resource agencies 

may also be asked to provide team members, as appropriate. The planning team prepares the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and appropriate National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

documentation (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(P)).

Prescribed Burning: Controlled application of fire to the landscape that allows the fire to be 

confined to a predetermined area while producing the intensity of heat and rate of spread 

required to achieve planned management objectives.

Preferred Alternative: A proposed action in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

document for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifying the alternative that the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service believes best achieves planning unit purposes, vision, and goals; 

helps fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System mission; maintains and, where appropriate, 

restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; addresses the 

significant issues and mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management.

Priority Public Uses: Six uses authorized by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 to have priority and are found to be compatible with the refuge purposes. This 

includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation.
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

198

Proposed Action: In the context of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, this is the same as 

the Preferred Alternative.

Public Involvement: A process that offers affected and interested individuals and organizations 

opportunities to become informed about, and to express their opinions on, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service actions and policies. In the process, these public views are studied thoroughly and are 

thoughtfully considered in shaping decisions for refuge management.

Purposes of the Refuge: The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative 

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

For refuges that encompass congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the 

Wilderness Act are additional purposes of the refuge (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(S)).

Record of Decision (ROD): A concise public record of a decision prepared by the federal 

agency, pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, that contains a statement of the 

decision, identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, a statement whether all practical means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were 

not), and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any mitigation (40 

CFR 1505.2). 

Resident Species: A nonmigratory species inhabiting a given locality throughout the year. 

Examples include white-tailed deer, muskrat, raccoon, mink, and fox.

Scoping: A process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and for identifying the significant issues. Involved in the scoping process are 

federal, state, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals.

Shorebird: Long-legged birds, also known as waders, belonging to the order Charadriiformes 

that use shallow wetlands and mud flats for foraging and nesting. 

Significant Issue: A significant issue is typically: within Service jurisdiction, suggests different 

actions or alternatives, and will influence the decision (FWS, 602 FW 3.4 (3)(b)). 

Species: A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that 

can interbreed and produce young. A category of biological classification.

Sound Professional Judgment: A finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and 

resources, and adherence to the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 and other applicable laws. 

Stakeholder: A person or group who has an interest in activities within the Planning Area.

Step-down Management Plan: A plan that provides specific guidance on management 

subjects (e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes 

strategies and implementation schedules for meeting Comprehensive Conservation Plan goals 

and objectives (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(U)).
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

199

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC): A structured, science-driven approach for making 

efficient, transparent decisions about where and how to expend Service resources for species, 

or groups of species, that are limited by the amount or quality of habitat. It is an adaptive 

management framework integrating planning, design, delivery, and evaluation.

Strategy: A specific action, tool or technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques 

used to meet unit objectives (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(V)).

Surrogate Species: Species that are used to represent other species or aspects of the 

environment.

Threatened Species: Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species 

throughout all of or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future. A plant or 

animal identified and defined in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and 

published in the Federal Register.

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be or hope to do, 

based primarily upon the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, specific refuge purposes, 

and other mandates. The vision statement for the refuge should be tied to the mission of the 

Refuge System; the purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological 

integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other mandates (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(Z)).

Waterfowl: A group of birds that include ducks, geese, and swans (belonging to the order 

Anseriformes). 

Waterfowl Production Area (WPA): Prairie wetlands with associated uplands managed to 

provide nesting areas for waterfowl and owned in fee title by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

These lands are purchased from willing sellers with funds from federal Duck Stamp sales. They 

are open to public hunting, fishing, and trapping according to state and federal regulations.

Watershed: The entire land area that collects and drains water into a river/stream or 

river/stream system.

Wetland: A wetland is land transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water 

table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For the purposes 

of this classification a wetland must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at 

least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is 

predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water 

or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Cowardin et 

al. 1979).

Wetland Management District (WMD, district): An area covering several counties that 

acquires (with federal Duck Stamp funds), restores, and manages prairie wetland habitat critical 

to waterfowl and other wetland birds. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use: A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. These are the six 

priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System as established in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, 

other than the six priority public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. These 
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Glossary

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

200

other uses will also be considered in the preparation of refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plans; however, the six priority public uses always will take precedence (FWS, 602 FW 1.6(Y)).

Wildlife Diversity: A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and their relative 

abundance.

Water Birds: This general category includes all birds that inhabit lakes, marshes, streams and 

other wetlands at some point during the year. The group includes all waterfowl such as ducks, 

geese, and swans and other birds such as loons, rails, cranes, herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, 

pelicans, shorebirds, and passerines that nest and rely on wetland vegetation. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

201

Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal agencies with respect to 

identification of information to be made public; publication of material in the Federal Register; 

maintenance of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific meetings and 

hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency actions. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

Establishes as policy of the United States the protection and preservation for American Indians 

of their inherent right to freedom to believe, express, and practice their traditional religions. The 

act directs federal agencies to evaluate their policies and procedures, in consultation with native 

traditional religious leaders, in order to determine changes required to protect and preserve 

Native American religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 

2008

Prohibits discrimination of individuals based on disability. It requires that public transportation 

services be accessible to individuals with disabilities and prohibits discrimination in employment 

of qualified individuals with disabilities. It requires the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission to issue regulations relating to discrimination of disabled individuals, and requires 

the National Council on Disability to conduct a study of areas designated as wilderness to 

determine the effect of the designation on the ability of individuals to enjoy such areas. The ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008 restored the intent and protections of the original act.

Antiquities Act of 1906

Authorizes the president to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interest on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The act 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 provides penalties for violations.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological 

items. This act established detailed requirements for issuance of permits for any excavation for 

or removal of archaeological resources from federal or Indian lands. It also established civil and 

criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of any such resources; 

for any trafficking in such resources removed from federal or Indian land in violation of any 

provision of federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such resources acquired, 

transported or received in violation of any state or local law. This act also required the land 

managing agencies to establish public awareness programs regarding the value of 

archaeological resources to the Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960, as amended

This act carries out the policy established by the Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 

1935 (known as the Historic Sites Act). It directs federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the 

Interior whenever they find a federal or federally assisted, licensed, or permitted project may 

cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological data. The act

authorizes use of appropriated, donated, and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection,

and preservation of such data. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

202

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1969 

Ensures that certain buildings financed or leased by federal agencies are constructed (or 

renovated) so that they will be accessible to the physically handicapped.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale, or transport of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, or part, 

nest, or egg except as permitted by the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition 

purposes or for the religious purposes of Indians.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and utilization in 

order to correct maladjustments in land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil 

erosion, reforestation, preservation of natural resources, and protection of fish and wildlife. 

Some early refuges and hatcheries were established under authority of this act.

Clean Air Act of 1970 

Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. The act and its amendments 

charge federal land managers with direct responsibility to protect the “air quality and related 

values” of land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and their habitats.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986

Authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water Conservation Fund moneys, 

removing a prior prohibition on such acquisitions. Requires the Secretary of the Interior 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 amounts equal to import duties on arms and ammunition. It established 

entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. It also extended the Wetlands Loan Act authorization 

through 1988 and required the Secretary to report to Congress on wetlands loss. 

In addition, it directed the Secretary, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to continue the 

National Wetlands Inventory; to complete mapping of the contiguous United States; and to 

produce at ten-year intervals reports to update and improve in the September 1982 "Status and 

Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat in the Coterminous United States, 1950s to 1970s." 

This act also increased the price of Duck Stamps.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

Directs federal agencies to take actions that would further the purposes of the act and to ensure 

that actions they carry out, authorize, or fund do not jeopardize endangered species or their 

critical habitat. The act also provides authority for land acquisition. Conservation of threatened 

and endangered species has become a major objective of both land acquisition and refuge 

management programs. 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969

This act expanded the provisions of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 to 

include the listing of species in danger world-wide and added mollusks and crustaceans to the 

animals that could be listed.
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

203

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966

This act was the predecessor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and directed the 

Secretary of the Interior to produce a list of native U.S. vertebrate species in danger of 

extinction for the limited protection of those animals. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990

Established the Office of Environmental Education within the Environmental Protection Agency 

to develop and administer a federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971)

States that if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes any development activities that may 

affect the archaeological or historic sites, the Service will consult with federal and state Historic 

Preservation Officers to comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended.

Executive Order 11644: Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands (1972)

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands 

will be controlled and directed to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of 

all users of those lands, and minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. EO 

11989 (1977) amends section 2 of EO 11644 and directs agencies to close areas negatively 

impacted by off-road vehicles.

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management (1977)

Prevents federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy 

and modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” In 

the course of fulfilling their respective authorities, federal agencies “shall take action to reduce 

the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands (1977)

Directs federal agencies to: (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands; and (2) 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative 

exists.

Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (1982)

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by requiring federal agencies to use the state 

process to determine and address concerns of state and local elected officials with proposed 

federal assistance and development programs.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994)

Mandates that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations. This order also creates an Interagency Working Group on Environmental 

Justice to provide guidance to federal agencies in overcoming these issues. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

204

Executive Order 12906: Coordinating Geographical Data Acquisition and Access: The 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure (1994), as amended by Executive Order 13286:

Amendment of Executive Orders, and Other Actions, in Connection With the Transfer of 

Certain Functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security (2003)

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in cooperation with state, local, and tribal 

governments, and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial Data Infrastructure to 

support public and private sector applications of geospatial data. Of particular importance to 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans is the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS), 

which is the adopted standard for vegetation mapping. Using NVCS facilitates the compilation of 

regional and national summaries, which, in turn, can provide an ecosystem context for individual 

refuges.

Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fisheries (1995)

Directs federal agencies to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and 

distribution of United States aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities in 

cooperation with states and tribes.

Executive Order 12996: Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (1996)

Defines a conservation mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System, six compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities, and four guiding principles for management of the Refuge 

System. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake several actions in support of 

management and public use and to ensure the maintenance of the biological integrity and 

environmental health of the Refuge System. It also provides for the identification of existing 

wildlife-dependent uses that will continue to occur as lands are added to the Refuge System.

Executive Order 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 confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13061: Federal Support of Community Efforts Along American Heritage 

Rivers (1997)

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for the purpose of natural resource and 

environmental protection, economic revitalization, and historic and cultural preservation. The act

directs federal agencies to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their associated resources 

important to our history, culture, and natural heritage.

Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 

(2000)

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration 

with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications.

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species (1999)

Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost effective and environmentally sound 

manner, accurately monitor invasive species, provide for restoration of native species and 

habitat conditions, conduct research to prevent introductions, to control invasive species, and to 

promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them. This EO 

replaces and rescinds EO 11987: Exotic Organisms (1977).
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

205

Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

(2001)

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds by several means, including the 

incorporation of strategies and recommendations found in Partners in Flight Bird Conservation 

plans, the North American Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, 

and the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, into agency management plans and 

guidance documents.

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (2007)

Directs federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on 

public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the 

Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and 

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of 

farmland to nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction projects and the 

management of federal lands.

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, as amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that provide advice to the federal 

government. Advisory committees may be established only if they will serve a necessary, 

nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory unless otherwise specified and 

meetings must be open to the public.

Federal-Aid Highways Act of 1968

Establishes requirements for approval of federal highways through wildlife refuges and other 

designated areas to preserve the natural beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation 

is directed to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other federal agencies before 

approving any program or project requiring the use of land under their jurisdiction.

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act) of 1950

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for state fish restoration 

and management plans and projects. It is financed by excise taxes paid by manufacturers of 

rods, reels, and other fishing tackle. 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) of 1937

Taxes the purchase of ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds to be distributed to 

the states for wildlife restoration. 

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988

Established requirements for the management and protection of caves and their resources on 

federal lands, including allowing the land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves 

from the public and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities in caves on federal 

lands.

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) of 2004

Allows the government to charge a fee for recreational use of public lands managed by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies. The recreation fee program is a program by which 

fees paid by visitors to certain federal recreation sites are retained by the collecting site and 

used to improve the quality of the visitor experiences at those sites. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

206

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975, as amended

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate plants as noxious weeds and 

to cooperate with other federal, state, and local agencies; farmers associations, and private 

individuals in measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of such weeds. The 

act requires each federal land-managing agency, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to 

designate an office or person to coordinate a program to control such plants on the agency’s 

land and implement cooperative agreements with the states, including integrated management 

systems to control undesirable plants.

Federal Records Act of 1950

Directs 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 1948, as frequently amended particularly by the 

Clean Water Act of 1977 

This act and its amendments have as their objectives the restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters and, therefore, regulates the 

discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. The act protects fish and wildlife, 

establishes operation permits for all major sources of water pollution, limits the discharge of 

pollutants or toxins into water, and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant 

from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under the Clean Water 

Act. Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with regulating discharge of dredge 

or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The "Clean Water Act" 

became the common name with amendments in 1977.

Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, as amended

Declares the intent of Congress that recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement be given full 

consideration as purposes of federal water development projects. The act also authorizes the 

use of federal water project funds for land acquisition in order to establish refuges for migratory 

waterfowl when recommended by the Secretary of the Interior, and authorizes the Secretary to 

provide facilities for outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife at all reservoirs under his control, 

except those within national wildlife refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as frequently amended 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources policy with emphasis 

on the commercial fishing industry but also with a direction to administer the act with regard to 

the inherent right of every citizen and resident to fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment 

and to maintain and increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. The 1998 amendments to the act modified the powers of the Secretary of the Interior 

in regard to volunteer service, community partnerships, and education programs. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, as amended

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify species of management 

concern, and implement conservation measures to preclude the need for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water 

resource development programs by requiring consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or other body of 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

207

water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted . . . or 

otherwise controlled or modified” by any agency under federal permit or license. This act also 

authorized use of surplus federal property for wildlife conservation purposes and authorized the 

Secretary of the Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept donations of lands and funds. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

Improves the administration of fish and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws 

including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept 

gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. It also 

authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a volunteer 

program.

Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill), as amended

Known as the Farm Bill, this act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who convert wetlands for the 

purpose of planting after enactment of the law are ineligible for most farm program subsidies. 

The act also established the Wetlands Reserve Program to restore and protect wetlands 

through easements and restoration of the functions and values of wetlands on such easement 

areas.

Freedom of Information Act of 1966

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for inspection and copying 

administrative staff manuals and staff instructions; official, published and unpublished policy 

statements; final orders deciding case adjudication; and other documents. Special exemptions 

have been reserved for nine categories of privileged material. The act requires the party seeking 

the information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs.

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related resources on public lands. 

Section 15(c) of the act prohibits issuing geothermal leases on virtually all U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service-administered lands.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935 

Popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended in 1965, declared it a national policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. It 

provided procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. 

Among other things, National Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of 

this act. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as amended

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals and to safeguard U.S. crop 

production from harmful foreign species. The act prohibits interstate and international transport 

and commerce of fish, wildlife, or plants taken in violation of domestic or foreign laws. It 

regulates the introduction to the United States of foreign species into new locations.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

Provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, appropriations from oil 

and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for matching grants to states for 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

208

outdoor recreation projects and for land acquisition by various federal agencies including the 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929

Establishes a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve areas recommended by the 

Secretary of the Interior for acquisition with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. Authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with local authorities in wildlife conservation and to 

conduct investigations, to publish documents related to North American birds, and to maintain 

and develop refuges. The act provides for cooperation with states in enforcement. It establishes 

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Commission for 

migratory birds. This act includes acquisition authority for purchase or rental of a partial interest 

in land or waters and requires the Secretary of the Interior to consult with the appropriate units 

of local government and with the governor of the state concerned, or the appropriate state 

agency, before recommending an area for purchase or rental. This provision was subsequently 

amended in 1983, 1984, and 1986 to require that either the governor or the state agency 

approve each proposed acquisition. The role of the Commission was expanded by the North 

American Wetland Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, restoration, and 

enhancement proposals recommended by the North American Wetlands Conservation Council.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934

Known as the Duck Stamp Act, this act requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older 

to carry a stamp, and earmarks proceeds of Duck Stamps to buy or lease waterfowl habitat. A 

1958 amendment authorizes the acquisition of small wetland and pothole areas to be 

designated as “Waterfowl Production Areas,” which may be acquired without the limitations and 

requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

Implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, 

Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by 

special regulations, the act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, possess, buy, sell, 

purchase, barter, export, or import any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands.

Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as amended

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of deposits of coal, oil, gas, and 

other hydrocarbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Section 185 of this act

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-way over federal lands for pipelines.

Mining Act of 1872, as amended

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called “hardrock” minerals (such as 

gold and silver) on public lands.

National and Community Service Act of 1990

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the United States in full and/or part-time 

projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, 

and fulfill environmental needs. Among other things, this law established the American 

Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young adults in approved human and natural 

resource projects, which will benefit the public or are carried out on federal or tribal lands.
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

209

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended

This act and the implementing regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality 

(40 CFR 1500–1508) require federal agencies to integrate the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) process with other planning at the earliest possible time to provide a 

systematic interdisciplinary approach to decision making; to identify and analyze the 

environmental effects of their actions; to describe appropriate alternatives to the proposed 

actions; and to involve the affected state and federal agencies, tribal governments, and public in 

the planning and decision making process. This act requires the disclosure of the 

environmental impacts of any major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Repeatedly amended, the act provides for preservation of significant historical features 

(buildings, objects, and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the states. It established a 

National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching grants under the existing 

National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468–468d). The act established an Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent independent agency in 1976 

(90 Stat. 1319). That act also created the Historic Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are 

directed to take into account the effects of their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a 

reasonable opportunity to comment. Section 110 requires federal agencies to manage historic 

properties, e.g., to document historic properties prior to destruction or damage; section 101 

requires federal agencies consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation programs and 

requires each federal agency to establish a program leading to inventory of all historic 

properties on its land.

National Trails System Act of 1968

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, scenic, and historic values of 

some important trails. National Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of the

Interior or Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with the consent of the 

involved state(s) and other land managing agencies, if any. National scenic and national historic 

trails may only be designated by an act of Congress. Several national trails cross units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

This act consolidates the authorities relating to the various categories of lands for the 

conservation of fish and wildlife administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the U.S 

Fish and Wildlife Service by designating all such areas part of a single National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Areas include wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and 

wildlife threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas,

and waterfowl production areas. The law also prohibits knowingly disturbing any area within the 

system or the take of Refuge System wildlife without a permit. The act addresses the growing 

need for recreational opportunities by providing a decision framework for allowing appropriate 

and compatible uses of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000

Establishes a commission to promote awareness by the public to develop a long-term plan to 

meet priority needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System, require an annual report on the 

needs, and improve public use programs and facilities. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

210

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

This act, which amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, serves 

as the "organic act" for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The act states first and foremost 

that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is focused singularly on wildlife 

conservation. It establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System, reinforces the importance 

of refuge purposes to guide management direction, articulates a process for determining 

compatible uses of refuges, identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation), 

and adds a requirement for preparing comprehensive conservation plans through a public 

planning process. The act requires the Secretary of the Interior to maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act of 1998 

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to encourage the use of volunteers to help in the 

management of refuges within the National Wildlife 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 the resources; 

and encourages donations and other contributions.

National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Improvement Act of 2010

Maintains the current funding authorization level for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

volunteer and community partnerships programs that are vital to national wildlife refuges but 

makes a number of important amendments. The law amends the National Wildlife Refuge 

Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998 to direct the Service to carry 

out a National Volunteer Coordination Program within the National Wildlife Refuge System. It 

also requires the Director of the Service to publish a national strategy for the coordination and 

utilization of volunteers within the Refuge System and provide at least one regional volunteer 

coordinator for each Service region to implement the strategy. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. This act imposes serious delays on a project 

when human remains or other cultural items are encountered in the absence of a plan.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that promote the conservation of 

neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on wetlands between the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. North American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to 

recommend projects to be funded under the act to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Available funds may be expended for up to 50 percent of the United States’ share cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the 

cost of projects on federal lands).

Partnerships for Wildlife Act of 1992

Established a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to receive appropriated funds and 

donations from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

211

state fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for conservation of non-game 

species. The funding formula is no more than 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 foundation funds, 

and at least 1/3 state funds. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended

Requires that any recreational use on areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System be 

"compatible" with the primary purpose(s) for which the area was acquired or established. This 

act also requires that sufficient funding be available for the development, operation and 

maintenance of recreational uses that are not directly related to the area's primary purpose(s). 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935

Provides for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of 

products from refuges. A major revision in 1964 requires all revenues received from refuge 

products be distributed to counties for public schools and roads (this stipulation later removed). 

Another revision in 1974 requires that any remaining funds be transferred to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund for land acquisition. A 1978 amendment stated payments to counties were 

established as: 

• on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75 cents per acre, 

three-fourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts 

produced from the land, and

• on land withdrawn from the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic 

payments.

This amendment also required counties to pass payments along to other units of local 

government within the county that suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment of U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service areas.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under any program or activity receiving federal 

financial assistance. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, as amended

Requires the authorization by the Chief of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under 

navigable waters of the United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides authority 

for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review and comment on the effects on fish and wildlife 

activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by the COE. Service concerns include 

contaminated sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable waters.

Secretarial Order 3289 Amendment 1: Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on 

America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources (2010)

Secretarial Order 3285, issued in March 2009, made production and transmission of renewable 

energy on public lands a priority for the Department of the Interior. This Secretarial Order, 

3289A1, issued in February 2010 establishes a Department-wide approach for applying 

scientific tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective 

response to its impacts on tribes and on the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural 

resources that the Department manages.
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

212

Sikes Act of 1960, as amended

Provides for the cooperation by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Defense with state 

agencies in planning, development, and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor 

recreation facilities on military reservations throughout the United States. It requires the 

Secretary of each military department to use trained professionals to manage the wildlife and 

fishery resource under his jurisdiction and requires federal and state fish and wildlife agencies 

be given priority in management of fish and wildlife activities on military reservations.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the 

coal industry by designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948

Provides that upon a 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.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation planning that includes public 

involvement, and provides funding for approved public use roads and trails and associated 

parking lots, comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000

In December 2002, Congress required federal agencies to publish their own guidelines for 

ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information that they 

disseminate to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The amended language is included in section 

515(a). The Office of Budget and Management directed agencies to develop their own 

guidelines to address the requirements of the law. The Department of the Interior instructed 

bureaus to prepare separate guidelines on how they would apply the act. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has developed “Information Quality Guidelines” to address the law.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, businesses, or 

farms to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The act requires that any purchase offer be no less 

than the fair market value of the property.

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

Established the Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet representatives, including 

the Secretary of the Interior. The Council reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, 

urban, energy, industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife needs. The act also established a 

grant program to assist states in participating in the development of related comprehensive 

water and land use plans.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

Established a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and prescribes the methods and 

standards through which additional rivers may be identified and added to the system. Section 

5(d)(1) requires that in all planning by federal agencies for the use and development of water 

and related land resources, consideration be given to potential wild, scenic, and recreation 

rivers. Rivers are added to the national system based on their free-flowing character and their 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

213

ecological, or other values. Rivers in the system are managed to maintain and protect these 

outstandingly remarkable values for present and future generations. 

Wilderness Act of 1964

Defined the Wilderness resource and established the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

It directed 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 National Wildlife Refuge and 

National Park Systems and to recommend to the president the suitability of each such area or 

island for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, with final decisions made 

by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study and recommend suitable areas 

in the National Forest System. This act also prescribes the management of new inclusions as 

wilderness. 

Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps program within the Departments of the

Interior and Agriculture. Within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, YCC participants perform 

many tasks on refuges, fish hatcheries, and research stations.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

214

Appendix E: Literature Cited

American Rivers. (1997). North America’s Most Endangered and Threatened Rivers of 1997. 

Available at: http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/protecting-rivers/endangeredrivers/background/past-reports.html

American Society of Mammalogists. (2012). Mammals of Nebraska. Available online at: 

http://www.mammalsociety.org/mammals-nebraska-0

Brown, S., Hickey, C., Harrington, B., and Gill, R. editors. (2001). United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, 2nd edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences: Manomet, 

MA, 61.

Burchett, R. R. (1959). Stratigraphy of the Upper Part of the Kansas City Group (Pennsylvanian) 

in Southeastern Nebraska and Adjacent Regions: Master’s Thesis. University of 

Nebraska Kansas. Geological Survey Open File Report 59-1.

Burchett, R. R. (1986). Geologic Bedrock Map of Nebraska: Nebraska Geological Survey. Scale 

1:1 Million.

Carver, E. and Caudill, J. (2007). Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Division of Economics. Washington D.C.

Caudill, J. and Henderson, E. (2005). Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Division of Economics. Washington D.C.

Chapman, S.; Omernik, J; Freeouf, J; Huggins, D; McCauley, J; Freeman, C; Steinauer, G; 

Angelo, R; and Schlepp, R. (2001). Ecoregions of Nebraska and Kansas (color poster 

with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. 

Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,950,000).

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (1997). Ecological Regions of North America: 

Toward a Common Perspective. Montreal, Canada.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2011). Ecoregions of North America-Level II 

(CEC). In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: 

Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). 

Accessed 13 June 2011, from: 

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ecoregions_of_North_America-Level_II_(CEC)

Conant, R. and Collins, J. T. (1998). A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and 

Central North America, Third Edition, Expanded. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Cox, C. (1991). Pesticides and Birds: From DDT to Today’s Poisons. Journal of Pesticide 

Reform 11(4): 2–6.

Dahl, T. E. (1990). Wetlands - Losses in the United States - 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 21 pp.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

215

Dixon, M. D.; Johnson, W. C.; Scott, M. L.; and Bowen D. (2010). Status and Trend of 

Cottonwood Forests along the Missouri River: Final Report of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Annual Report to the Army Corps of Engineers, Contract #W9912DQ-07-C0011.

Edwards, E. A. (1983). Habitat Suitability Index Models: Bigmouth Buffalo. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service: Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-82/10.34.

Elliott, C. M., Jacobson, R. B., and Chojnacki, K. A. (2006). Hydroacoustic mapping to define 

sedimentation rates and characterize lentic habitats in DeSoto Lake, DeSoto National 

Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report 2006-1254, 28p. Available 

online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1254/downloads/pdf/OF06-1254.pdf

Evelsizer, V. and Johnson, J. L. (2010). Wetland Action Plan for Iowa: Iowa Geological and 

Water Survey Special Report No. 4 (April 2010). Iowa DNR: Iowa City, Iowa.

Funk, J. L. and Robinson J. W. (1974). Changes in the Channel of the Lower Missouri River and 

Effects on Fish and Wildlife. Aquatic Series No. 11, Missouri Department of 

Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri, 52.

Grady, J. (1996). Lower Missouri River Rare and Endangered Fishes Distribution, Relative 

Abundance, and Community Association – 1998 Revision. USFWS, Columbia Fisheries 

Resources Office: Columbia, Missouri, 57.

Green, R., Harley, M., Spalding, M., and Zockler, C. (2000). Impacts of Climate Change on 

Wildlife. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Available online at: 

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/UserFiles/Files/cc1.pdf

Hesse, L. W.; Mestl, G. E.; and Robinson, J. W. (1993). Status of Selected fishes in the Missouri 

River in Nebraska with Recommendations for their Recovery. Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission – Staff Research Publications. University of Nebraska – Lincoln.

Hesse, L. W.; Schmulbach, J. C.; Carr, J. M.; Keenlyne, K. D.; Unkenholz, D. G.; Robinson, J.

W.; and Mestl, G. E. (1989). Missouri River Fishery Resources in Relation to Past, 

Present, and Future Stresses, 352–371. In D.P. Dodge (ed) Proceedings of the 

International Large River Symposium. Special Publication. Aquatic Science 106.

Homer, C.; Dewitz, J.; Fry, J.; Coan, M.; Hossain, N.; Larson, C.; Herold, N.; McKerrow, A.; 

VanDriel, J. N.; and Wickham, J. (2007). Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover 

Database for the Conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and 

Remote Sensing, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 337-341.

Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council (ICCAC). (2008). Iowa Climate Change Advisory 

Council Final Report. Available on-line: http://www.iaclimatechange.us/capag.cfm.

Iowa Climate Change Impacts Committee (ICCIC). (2011).Climate Change Impacts on Iowa: 

Report to the Governor and the Iowa General Assembly. Available on-line: 

http://www.iowadnr.gov/portals/idnr/uploads/air/environment/climatechange/complete_re

port.pdf?amp;tabid=1077.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

216

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. (2010). Iowa’s Draft 2010 Integrated Report. December 

23, 2010. Available at: http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/ImpairedWaters/303d.html

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. (2012). DeSoto Bend Lake. Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources - Iowa Geologic and Water Survey - Watershed Monitoring and 

Assessment. Website accessed 15 November 2012 at 

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/Lakes/LakeWatershedCharacteristics/desotobend.htm

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. (2013). Iowa Natural Areas Inventory. Website 

accessed 22 April 2013 at:

https://programs.iowadnr.gov/naturalareasinventory/pages/Query.aspx

Iowa Ornithologists’ Union. (1968). Iowa Bird Life. Vol.38, No. 3: page 88.

Iowa Ornithologists’ Union. (1973). Iowa Bird Life. Vol.43, No. 3: page 75.

Jacobson, R. B.; Chojnacki, K. A.; and Reuter, J. M. (2007). Land capability potential index 

(LCPI) for the Lower Missouri River Valley. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007-5256, 19.

Jensen, R. E. (1998). The Fontenelle and Cabanne Trading Posts: The History and 

Archaeology of Two Missouri River Sites, 1822–1838. Nebraska State Historical Society, 

Publications in Anthropology 11, 169.

Johnsgard, P. A. (1979). The Breeding Birds of Nebraska. Nebraska Bird Review 47:1 (March): 

3–16.

Johnsgard, P. A. (1998). Endemicity and Regional Biodiversity in Nebraska’s Breeding 

Avifauna. The Nebraska Bird Review 66:4 (December): 115–121.

Johnsgard, P. A. (2009). Birds of the Great Plains: Breeding Species and Their Distribution: 

New Expanded Edition. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries: Lincoln, Nebraska.

Johnson, W. C.; Werner, B.; Guntenspergen, R. A.; Voldseth, R. A.; Millett, B.; Naugle, D. E.; 

Tulbure, M.; Carroll, R. W. H.; Tracy, J.; and Olawsky, C. (2010). Prairie Wetland 

Complexes as Landscape Functional Units in a Changing Climate. BioScience. Vol. 60, 

No. 2. Available online at: 

http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/6192/1/prairie_wetland_complexes.pdf

Kallameyn, L . W. and Novotny, J. F. (1977). Fish and Fish Food Organisms in Various Habitats 

of the Missouri River in South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Office of Biological Services: Columbia, Missouri. FWS/OBS7-77-25, 100.

Kane, K. L.; Klaas, E. E.; Andersen, K. L.; Brown, P. D., and McNeely, R. L. (2003). The Iowa 

Gap Analysis Project Final Report. Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Available online at: http://www.gis.iastate.edu/gap/

Karl, T. R., Melillo, J. M., and Peterson, T. C. (2009). Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States: A State of Knowledge Report from the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY. Available at: 
Appendix E: Literature Cited

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

217

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/usimpacts/download-the-report

Kent, T. H. and Dinsmore J. J. (1996). Birds in Iowa. University of Iowa, Publications 

Department.

Kushlan, J. A.; Steinkamp, M. J.; Parsons, K. C.; Capp, J.; Cruz, M. A.; Erwin, M.; Hatch, S.; 

Kress, S.; Milko, R.; Miller, S.; Mills, K.; Paul, R.; Phillips, R.; Saliva, J. E.; Sydeman, B.; 

Trapp, J.; Wheeler, J.; and Wohl, K. (2002). Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan – Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for 

the Americas: Washington, D.C., 78.

Laird, C. A. and Page, L. M. (1996). Non-native fishes inhabiting the streams and lakes of 

Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 35(1), 1–51.

Lemen, C.; Johnson, R.; Siebert, T.; Ferraro, D.; and Lynch, J. (2003). Reptiles and Amphibians 

of Nebraska. Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Available online at: http://snr.unl.edu/herpneb/index.htm

Lewis, M.; Clark, W.; and Members of the Corps of Discovery. (2002). September 4, 1806. In G. 

Moulton (Ed.), The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Lincoln: University of 

Nebraska Press. Website accessed 14 June 2011 at: 

http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/journals.php?id=1806-09-04

Loan-Wilsey, A. K.; Pierce, C. L.; Kane, K. L.; Brown, P. D.; and McNeely, R. L. (2005). The 

Iowa Aquatic Gap Analysis Project Stream Fish Atlas. Iowa Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Available online at: 

http://maps.gis.iastate.edu/iris/fishatlas/

Lynch, J. D. (1985). Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians and Reptiles of Nebraska.

Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, XIII, 33–57.

Magness, D. R., Morton, J. M.; Huettmann, F.; Chapin, III, F. S.; and McGuire, A. D. (2011). A 

Climate-change Adaptation Framework to Reduce Continental-scale Vulnerability Across 

Conservation Reserves. Ecosphere 2(10):112. doi: 10.1890/ES11-00200.1

McCarty, J. P.; Wolfenbarger L. L.; Jones, S; and Unstad, K. (2003). Species Lists for USFWS: 

Version 2.1. Department of Biology, University of Nebraska at Omaha.

McCarty, J. P. and Wolfenbarger, L. L. (2009). Inventory and Monitoring of Grassland and 

Forest Birds at Boyer Chute and DeSoto National Wildlife Refuges from 2002–2007 –

Interim Report (April 2009). Department of Biology, University of Nebraska at Omaha: 

Omaha, Nebraska.

Missouri Department of Conservation. (2010). Zebra Mussels: Missouri's Most Unwanted. 

Website accessed 13 April 2010 at http://mdc.mo.gov/landwater-care/animalmanagement/invasive-animal-management/zebra-mussels-missouris-most-unwanted

Missouri River National Resource Committee. (1998). Missouri River Environmental 

Assessment Program. Downloaded 24 January 2011 from: 

http://infolink.cr.usgs.gov/Science/MoREAP/MoREAP.pdf
Appendix E: Literature Cited

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

218

National Assessment Synthesis Team. (2001). Climate Change Impacts on the United States: 

The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Cambridge University 

Press: Cambridge, U.K. Available at: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/

NatureServe. (2011). NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Website accessed 

8 February 2011 at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2011). Palmer Drought Severity

Index. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center: 

Asheville, NC. Website accessed 18 April 2011 at: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-andprecip/time-series/

National Research Council Panel. (2002). The Missouri River Ecosystem: Exploring the 

Prospects for Recovery. National Academy Press: Washington, DC., 175.

National Wilderness Institute. (1995). Public Land Ownership by State. Website accessed 26 

April 2011 at: http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. (2010). 2010 Water Quality Integrated Report. 

Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Quality – Water Quality Division. April 1, 2010. 

Available at: http://www.deq.state.ne.us/SurfaceW.nsf/pages/TMDL

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. (2008). Estimated Current Ranges of Threatened and 

Endangered Species: List of Species by County (November 2008). Nebraska Natural 

Heritage Program.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. (2010). Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 

Plan: A Guide to an Active Nebraska; 2011–2015. Nebraska Game and Parks 

Commission: Lincoln, Nebraska.

Olson, D. M.; Dinerstein, E; Wikramanayake, E. D.; Burgess, N. D.; Powell, G. V. N.; 

Underwood, E. C.; D’Amico, J. A.; Itoua, I.; Strand, H. E.; Morrison, J. C.; Loucks, C. J.; 

Allnutt, T. F.; Ricketts, T. H.; Kura, Y.; Lamoreux, J. F.; Wettengel, W. W.; Hedao, P.; 

and Kassem, K. R. (2001). Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on 

Earth. Bioscience 51:933–938.

Omernik, J. M. (1987). Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States (map supplement). 

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, 118–125, scale 

1:7,500,000.

Omernik, J. M. (1995). Ecoregions—A Spatial Framework for Environmental Management; in 

Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological Assessment and Criteria – Tools for Water 

Resource Planning and Decision Making. Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers, 49–62.

Palmer, W. C. (1965). Meteorological Drought. U.S. Weather Bureau, Office of Climatology: 

Washington D.C. Research Paper No. 45. Available on-line at: 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/docs/palmer.pdf

Petsche, J. E. (1974). The Steamboat Bertrand: History, Excavation, and Architecture. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington D.C.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

219

PRISM Climate Group. (2011). Climatology Normals and Monthly Products. Oregon State 

University. Data downloaded May 2011 from http://prism.oregonstate.edu/products/

Rainwater Basin Joint Venture. (2011). Rainwater Basin Fact Sheet. Downloaded 14 April 2011 

from: http://www.rwbjv.org/pdf/Rainwater_Basin_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Rich, T. D.; Beardmore, C. J.; Berlanga, H.; Blancher, P. J.; Bradstreet, M. S. W.; Butcher, G.

S.; Demarest, D. W.; Dunn, E. H.; Hunter, W. C.; Inigo-Elias, E. E.; Kennedy, J. A.; 

Martell, A. M.; Panjabi, A. O;. Pashley, D. N.; Rosenberg, K. V.; Rustay, C. M.; Wendt, J.

S.; and Will, T. C. (2004). Partners in Flight, North American Landbird Conservation 

Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY., 84.

Ringelman, J. K., Ed. (2005). Prairie Pothole Joint Venture: 2005 Implementation Plan.

Ryan, M. G.; Archer, S. R.; Birdsey, R.; Dahm, C.; Heath, L.; Hicke, J.; Hollinger, D.; Huxman, 

T.; Okin, G.; Oren, R.; Randerson, J.; and Schlesinger W. (2008). “Land Resources.” In: 

The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and 

Biodiversity in the United States [Backlund, P., A. Janetos, D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. 

Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B. A. Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. 

Polley, A. Thomson, D. Wolfe, M.G. Ryan, S.R. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, 

J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, W. Schlesinger, D. 

Lettenmaier, D. Major, L. Poff, S. Running, L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B. P. Kelly, L. 

Meyerson, B. Peterson, and R. Shaw (eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC., 75–120.

Sauer, J. R.; Hines J. E.; Thomas, I.; Fallon, J. and Gough, G. (2008). The North American 

Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2007. Version 5.15.2008, U.S.

Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD, USA.

Schneider, R. S.; Humpert, M.; Stoner, K.; Steinauer, G. (2005). The Nebraska Natural Legacy 

Project: A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. The Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission: Lincoln, Nebraska.

Schneider, S. H. and Root, T. L. (2002). Wildlife Responses to Climate Change: North American 

Case Studies. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Scott, M.; Griffith, B.; Adamcik, B.; Ashe, D.; Czech, B.; Fischman, R.; Gonzales, P.; and 

Pidgorna, A. (2009). Managing to Accommodate Change: Climate Change and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. A PowerPoint presentation given at the 2009 FWS 

National Planners Conference. 

Sexton, N. R.; Dietsch, A. M.; Don Carlos, A. W.; Koontz, L.; Solomon, A. N.; and Miller, H. M. 

(2011). National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey 2010/2011: Individual Refuge Results for 

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge. U. S. Geological Survey Data Series 643.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1995). Boyer Chute Restoration Section 1135 Project: 

Operation and Maintenance Manual. U.S. Army Engineer District, Corps of Engineers, 

Omaha District: Omaha, Nebraska.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

220

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2004). Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System: Missouri 

River Stage Trends. RCC Technical Report A-04. Northwestern Division, Reservoir 

Control Center: Omaha, Nebraska. Downloaded 3 June 2011 from: 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2

F%2Fwww.nwdmr.usace.army.mil%2Frcc%2Freports%2Fpdfs%2FMRTrendsA04.pdf&ei=I0rpTfGYI6bX

0QG50omIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHxUbAYZfkEdu8u3M9cSSdSNvfNKw

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2006). Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System Master 

Water Control Manual – Missouri River Basin. Northwestern Division, Reservoir Control 

Center: Omaha, Nebraska. Downloaded 24 January 2011 from: http://www.nwdmr.usace.army.mil/rcc/reports/mmanual/MasterManual.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American Fact Finder. Accessed 7 June 2011 at: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2011). Soil Survey 

Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Washington County, Nebraska; Pottawattamie

County, Iowa; and Harrison County, Iowa – Online Series Descriptions. Accessed 17 

June 2011 at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2005). Administrative and Enforcement Procedures for FWS 

Easements: Wetland, Grassland, Habitat, Tallgrass, and FmHA. Regions 3 & 6: Twin

Cities, MN & Denver, CO.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United 

States (revision of Omernik, 1987). Corvallis, Oregon: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency – National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Map M-1, 

various scales.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). National Emission Inventory Database. Website 

accessed 18 April 2011 at: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/repsst.html?st~NE~Nebraska

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1992). Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge: Decision 

Document for Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge Establishment. U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 6: Denver, CO.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1997). Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge: Decision 

Document for Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge Expansion. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 6: Denver, CO.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1997a). National Outreach Strategy: A Master Plan for 

Communicating the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/71

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2000a). Biological Opinion on the Operation of the Missouri 

River Mainstem Reservoir System, Operation and Maintenance of the Missouri River 

Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and Operation of the Kansas River Reservoir 

System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

221

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2000b). Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process. 602 

FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/602fw3.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2001). DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 3: Bloomington, MN.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. (2002). Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation 

Priorities, Version 2.0. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3: Bloomington, MN, 34.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003). Amendment to the 2000 Biological Opinion on the 

Operation of the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System, Operation and 

Maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and 

Operation of the Kansas River Reservoir System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2004). Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 3: Bloomington, MN.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2005). Why Save Endangered Species. Endangered Species 

Program, Arlington, VA. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/graphics/FWS_Pub/WhySaveEndangeredSpecies.pd

f

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2006). Strategic Habitat Conservation: Final Report of the 

National Ecological Assessment Team. (July): 45.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007). Iowa county distribution of federally endangered, 

threatened, proposed, and candidate species (September 2007). Rock Island Ecological 

Services Field Office: Moline, Illinois.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008a). Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management: Arlington, Virginia, 87.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008b). General Overview of Wilderness Stewardship Policy. 

610 FW 1. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/610fw1.html

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2008c). Strategic Habitat Conservation: An Operational Response 

to the Changing Conservation Landscape / A Summary Briefing Prepared for Ecological 

Services Assistant Regional Directors. PowerPoint presentation given October 21, 2008. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008d). Strategic Habitat Conservation Handbook: A Guide to 

Implementing the Technical Elements of Strategic Habitat Conservation, Version 1.0. 

National Technical Assistance Team. (February), 22.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009a). Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service – As of September 30. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Realty.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

222

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009b). Putting Science in the Right Places: National 

Geographic Framework for Landscape Conservation. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/climate/documents/SHCNationalGeographicFrameworkEmp

loyee090809nomaps.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010a). Endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate 

species in Nebraska counties (July 2010). Grand Island Ecological Services Field Office: 

Grand Island, Nebraska.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010b). Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Washington, D.C. (September).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011a). Iowa county distribution of federally endangered, 

threatened, proposed, and candidate species (January 2011). Rock Island Ecological 

Services Field Office: Moline, Illinois.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011b). Endangered Species Program – U.S. Species List. 

Website accessed 27 July 2011 at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/usspecies.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011c). Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next 

Generation. Available on-line: http://americaswildlife.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/Final-Document-Conserving-the-Future.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011d). Migratory Bird Program: Focal Species Strategy. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management: Arlington, Virginia. 

Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/FocalSpecies.html

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011e). Environmental Assessment: Use of row crop farming 

and genetically-modified glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans on National Wildlife 

Refuges and Wetland Management Districts. Bloomington, MN. Available on-line: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/farmingNEPA/eafinal.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. (1986). North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan: A Strategy for Cooperation.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Census Bureau. 

(2007). 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. 

Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey. (2003). National Land Cover Database (NLCD). Earth Science 

Information Center: Sioux Falls, SD.

U.S. Geological Survey. (2011). USGS Water Data for the Nation. Data downloaded May 2011 

from http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis
Appendix E: Literature Cited

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

223

University of Georgia – Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. (2011). Early 

Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS). Accessed 29 June 2011 at 

http://www.eddmaps.org/tools/choosecounty.cfm

Van Dyke, F.; Van Kley, S. E.; Page, C. E.; Van Beek, J. G. (2004). Restoration Efforts for Plant 

and Bird Communities in Tallgrass Prairies Using Prescribed Burning and Mowing. 

Restoration Ecology 12-4: 575–585.

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. (1999). Fundamentals of Deer Harvest 

Management. West Virginia Cooperative Extension, Bulletin No. 806 (March). 

Downloaded 13 April 2011 from http://anr.ext.wvu.edu/r/download/48142

Whitmore, S. B. and Keenlyne, K. D. (1990). Rare, threatened and endangered endemic 

species of the Missouri River floodplain. Missouri River Coordinator’s Office, Report 

MRC–90–1. Pierre, SD: United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 24.

Wiken, E.; Jiménez Nava, F.; and Griffith, G. (2011). North American Terrestrial Ecoregions—

Level III. Commission for Environmental Cooperation: Montreal, Canada.

Witzke, B.J.; Anderson, R.R.; and Pope, J.P. (2010). Bedrock Geologic Map of Iowa. 1:50,000. 

Iowa Geological and Water Survey, Iowa City, Iowa

Zohrer, J. J. (2006). Securing a Future for Fish and Wildlife: A Conservation Legacy for Iowans 

(May 2006 Revision). Iowa Department of Natural Resources: Des Moines, Iowa.
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

224

Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations

In this appendix:

Introduction

Mushroom Gathering

Research Programs

Wood Cutting

Introduction

National wildlife refuge (NWR, refuge) managers decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. This appendix provides copies of the appropriate use designations for 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) appropriate use policy (603 FW 1) explains 

the decision process that the refuge manager follows when first considering whether or not to 

allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must first find a use to be appropriate 

before undertaking a compatibility review of the use and outlining the stipulations of the use. 

The appropriate use policy clarifies and expands on the compatibility policy (603 FW 2 

2.10D(1)), which describes when the refuge manager should deny a proposed use without 

determining compatibility. If a proposed use is found “not appropriate,” the use will not be 

allowed and a compatibility determination will not be prepared. By screening out proposed uses 

not appropriate to the refuge, the refuge manager avoids unnecessary compatibility reviews. 

Although a use may be both appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager retains the 

authority to not allow the use or modify the use.

This policy does not generally apply to proposed public use of wetland and grassland easement 

areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System). The rights we have 

acquired on these areas generally do not extend to control over such public uses except where 

those uses would conflict with the conditions of the easement (603 FW 1 1.2A).

Background for this policy as it applies to DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges is found in the 

following statutory authorities:

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (administration act), as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Improvement Act) (16 U.S.C. § 668dd–668ee). This law provides the authority for 

establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to 

prohibit certain harmful activities. The administration act does not authorize any 

particular use, but rather authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when 

they are deemed compatible. The Improvement Act provides the Refuge System 

mission and includes specific directives and identifies six wildlife-dependent uses as 

priorities for the Refuge System. 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, (16 U.S.C. § 460k). This law authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use is an 

“appropriate incidental or secondary use.”
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

225

Refuge uses must meet at least one of the following four conditions to be deemed appropriate: 

1. It is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act.

2. It contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after the Improvement Act

was signed into law.

3. The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations.

4. The refuge has evaluated the use following the guidelines in this policy and found that it 

is appropriate. The criteria used by the manager to evaluate appropriateness can be 

found on each of the appropriate use forms included in this appendix.

Uses that have been administratively determined to be appropriate but still require compatibility 

determinations are:

• six wildlife-dependent recreational uses as defined by the Improvement Act as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation; and

• take of fish and wildlife under state regulations including hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Also covered under this policy are “specialized uses,” or uses that require specific authorization 

from the Refuge System, often in the form of a special use permit, letter of authorization, or 

other permit document. These uses do not include uses already granted by a prior existing 

right. Appropriateness findings for specialized uses are made on a case-by-case basis.

This policy does NOT apply to:

• situations where reserved rights or legal mandates provide certain uses must be 

allowed; and

• refuge management activities conducted by the Refuge System or a Refuge Systemauthorized agent designed to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. These 

activities fulfill refuge purpose(s) or the Refuge System mission and are based on sound

professional judgment.

Appropriate use findings are made without public review and comment. However, if a proposed 

use is found to be appropriate, we must still determine that the use is compatible. The 

compatibility determination includes an opportunity for public involvement (603 FW 1 1.9B).

The following uses are deemed appropriate:

• Farming and Haying

• Gathering

• Research Programs

• Wood Cutting
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

226

Refuges are national treasures for the conservation of wildlife. Through careful planning, 

consistent application of regulations and policies, diligent monitoring of the impacts of uses on 

wildlife resources, and preventing or eliminating uses not appropriate, the Refuge System 

conservation mission can be achieved while also providing the public with lasting opportunities 

to enjoy quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation. 
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

227

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges

Use: Mushroom Gathering

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence.

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Tom Cox/ Date: 08/01/2013 _ .

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: /Kevin Foerster/ Date: 08/01/2013_ .

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X

FWS Form 3-2319

02/06
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

228

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges

Use: Research Programs

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence.

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Tom Cox/ Date: 08/01/2013 _ .

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: /Kevin Foerster/ Date: 08/01/2013_ .

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X

FWS Form 3-2319

02/06
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Designations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

229

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges

Use: Wood Cutting

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence.

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Tom Cox/ Date: 08/01/2013 _ .

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: /Kevin Foerster/ Date: 08/01/2013_ .

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X

FWS Form 3-2319

02/06
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

230

Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

In this appendix:

Introduction

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

Upland and Big Game Hunting

Fishing

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Interpretation and Environmental Education

Gathering Mushrooms

Research Programs

Wood Cutting

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Upland and Big Game Hunting

Waterfowl Hunting (2008 version)

Fishing

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Interpretation and Environmental Education

Gathering Mushrooms

Research Programs

Wood Cutting

Introduction

Compatibility determinations are documents written, signed, and dated by the refuge manager 

and the regional chief of refuges that signify whether proposed or existing uses of the National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR, refuge) are compatible with its establishing purposes and the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System). This appendix provides copies 

of the compatibility determinations for DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges.

Before undertaking a compatibility review of a use, the refuge manager must first determine that 

the use is appropriate (see appendix F). A compatible use is any proposed or existing wildlifedependent recreational use or other use of a refuge by the public or entity other than the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) that, based on sound professional judgment, will not 

materially interfere with or detract from fulfilling the mission of the Refuge System or the 

purposes of the refuge. The final policy and regulations required by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 provide guidance for determining compatibility.

If a proposed use is not appropriate, the use will not be allowed, and a compatibility 

determination will not be prepared.

A compatibility determination is required for activities on a refuge by the public or entity other 

than the Service including:

• all refuge recreational and educational programs;

• construction or expansion of recreational and educational facilities such as boardwalks 

and boat ramps;

• management activities performed by private parties in return for a market commodity, 

such as cooperative farming to provide food for wildlife; and
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

231

• granting or modifying rights-of-way through refuges for pipelines, roads, or electrical 

transmission lines.

Activities when a compatible determination is NOT required include:

• refuge management activities such as prescribed burning, managing water levels, and 

controlling invasive species;

• routine scientific monitoring, studies, surveys, and censuses;

• conducting historic preservation;

• law enforcement activities; and

• maintaining or improving refuge facilities and structures.

Although a refuge use may be both appropriate and compatible, the refuge manager retains the 

authority to not allow the use or modify the use.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

232

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

Compatibility Determination

Use: Upland and Big Game Hunting

Refuge Name: DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C., 715d)

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C., 460k–460k-4)

Refuge Purposes:

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge was established March 12, 1958:

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929)

“. . . suitable for—(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . .” 16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962*)

*This purpose was applied post facto to DeSoto NWR.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Hunting of game is a public use granted under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 and is considered a priority public use of the Refuge System.

With lands in both Iowa and Nebraska, the refuge established a reciprocal agreement with the 

states in 2003. The agreement allows hunters with a license in either state to hunt in 

designated areas of the refuge. Reciprocity has enabled the refuge to conduct hunts with 

greater ease for both the hunters and management staff.

The refuge manages the deer herd by offering quality weekend (deer gun) hunt events. During 

the hunts the refuge is closed to other visitors. The number of hunt events conducted each year 

typically ranges from two to four and depends on the size of the deer herd. The hunts are 

generally held in October, December, and/or January. The hunts are scheduled in coordination 

with Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

233

Upland game hunting, specifically Ring-necked Pheasant and Wild Turkey, is also offered on 

the refuge. Special weekend (turkey gun) hunting events are held in the spring for persons with 

disabilities and for youth hunters. Hunt event dates are selected to fit within the seasons of both 

Iowa and Nebraska. Youth hunters are required to hunt under the supervision of a parent or a 

mentor chosen by their parent. Disabled hunters hunt with a companion. The refuge also 

provides a limited number of hunting blinds for disabled hunters that do not otherwise have 

access to blinds. Ring-necked Pheasant hunting in the fall is scheduled during the seasons of 

both states. The pheasant and turkey hunts are carefully scheduled, organized, and limited so 

that they can occur without closing the refuge to other visitor uses.

Archery deer hunting in the fall and archery turkey hunting in the spring are also offered. The 

seasons are set to fall within the two states’ seasons. The refuge is not closed to the public 

during these hunts.

Why is the use being proposed?

Hunting is a priority public use of the Refuge System and an important wildlife management 

tool. The Service recognizes hunting as a healthy, traditional outdoor activity, deeply rooted in 

American heritage. Hunting can instill a unique understanding and appreciation of wildlife, 

animal behavior, and habitat needs. Hunting programs can promote understanding and 

appreciation of natural resources and their management on the lands and waters of the Refuge 

System.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Hunting is an existing use of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Hunting is a priority public use of the Refuge System.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Road maintenance, mowing, and other grounds upkeep will be required, but these activities are

considered a part of routine refuge management and maintenance activities. There is also time 

spent by refuge staff on deer herd monitoring and hunt program planning. Administrative time is 

required for hunt program implementation, including answering questions, making maps, etc. 

Law enforcement is an essential tool for proper and safe administration of this use. The refuge 

has a full time officer dedicated to this function. Based on a review of the current refuge budget,

there is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer and manage this public use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Short-term impacts: Providing carefully planned and managed hunting events with restricted 

access to specified refuge hunting zones will generally minimize disturbance to wildlife

populations, the refuge environment, infrastructure, and non-consumptive users. Hunting 

causes mortality of target species with the intent of harvesting populations to the carrying 

capacity of existing habitat. By limiting take to harvestable surplus, the refuge can ensure the

long-term health and survival of game species, populations, and their associated ecosystem. 

The presence and activity of hunters may cause disturbance to other wildlife in the area, but 

these impacts are minor and temporary. There is the potential to impact non-target species that

are sensitive to disturbance, especially during spring turkey hunts when many animals are

breeding or nesting. For visitors, non-hunting public uses may be temporarily disrupted or 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

234

postponed during hunt events. Visitor safety is the highest priority when designing and planning 

all hunting activities on refuges. Vehicle traffic will increase slightly during hunting events, and 

the sound of gun shots will temporarily reduce the serenity for the non-hunting public. Loss of

vegetation from foot traffic is minor or temporary. Soil and plant disturbance may occur in 

ingress and egress routes but will be minor and temporary because of the limited and controlled 

use associated with the managed hunts.

Long-term impacts: No adverse long-term impacts from hunting are anticipated as long as

wildlife populations are monitored through the refuge biological program or by state officials. 

Long-term beneficial impacts of this use include the ability to manage targeted wildlife

populations to levels that fall within the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. When deer 

populations grow beyond a sustainable capacity herbivory can have profound negative impacts 

to the local environment, native plants, and other wildlife species.

Cumulative impacts: There are no anticipated cumulative impacts. Harvest on the refuge would

be limited by management and would fall within the state's population management goals,

which are based on the best available science. All hunts would follow all applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies including title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual, the mission and goals of the Refuge System, and the purposes, goals, 

and objectives of DeSoto NWR. Careful management of this public use maintains the safety of

the area's citizens, contributes to the refuge's wildlife and habitat goals, and supports several of

the primary objectives of the refuge.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with Refuge System and DeSoto NWR goals and objectives, hunting

activities can only occur under the following stipulations:

3. All hunting will adhere to the hunting section of the refuge’s visitor services step-down 

management plan.

4. All applicable state and federal regulations apply.

5. Hunting is prohibited on, across, or within 100 feet of refuge roads or parking lots.

6. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

7. During hunting activities, the refuge is open two hours before the legal shooting time and 

one hour after the legal shooting time.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

235

8. Refuge-specific authorization is required for all special hunts.

9. No motorized vehicles are allowed within the hunting units except at designated parking

areas or as specified by a special use permit.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

This use is being permitted because it is a priority public use and will not diminish the primary

purposes of the refuge. This use will meet the mission of the Refuge System by providing 

renewable resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources on refuge lands.

Hunting is one of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Service policy directs us to provide hunting

opportunities when compatible with refuge management. Managed hunting programs help 

promote an understanding and appreciation of natural resources and their management.

Additionally, managed hunts on the refuge provide a traditional recreational activity with minimal

adverse impacts to the biological integrity or sustainability of refuge resources.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

236

Compatibility Determination

Use: Fishing

Refuge Name: DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C., 715d)

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C., 460k–460k-4)

Refuge Purposes:

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge was established March 12, 1958:

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929)

“. . . suitable for—(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . .” 16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962*)

*This purpose was applied post facto to DeSoto NWR.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Allow general public access during specific times of the year to open areas of the refuge for

sport and commercial fishing. Archery and spearfishing are permitted (for rough fish only). An 

Iowa or Nebraska fishing license is required. State and federal regulations apply; refuge 

specific regulations also apply. 

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Fishing is an existing use of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997.

Where would the use be conducted?

Use consists of bank (shoreline and pier) and boat fishing on DeSoto Lake under state 

regulations, ice fishing on DeSoto Lake during appropriate conditions, bank fishing on the 

Missouri River, and bank fishing on all other refuge bodies of water (small ponds and scour 

holes) in open areas of the refuge unless specifically closed by refuge management. Fishing is 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

237

most active in DeSoto Lake and Bullhead Pond. Boat fishing is also allowed on the Missouri 

River, but this use is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Allowable forms of access on the refuge include hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, 

biking, motorized and nonmotorized boats, and motorized vehicles. Horses, all-terrain vehicles,

off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, and jet skis are not allowed on the refuge.

When would the use be conducted?

DeSoto NWR is open during daylight hours. Open water fishing is permitted during the 

nonmigration periods (April 15 through October 14); ice fishing is permitted when conditions 

allow—typically from January 2 to the end of February; and bank fishing on the Missouri River

has no seasonal restrictions.

Entry to any or all portions of the refuge may be suspended by refuge management in the case 

of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public 

safety. Any closures would be accompanied by appropriate signage and notifications.

How would the use be conducted?

Public and commercial fishing opportunities are articulated in an approved Fishery Management 

Plan. Refuge resources to facilitate fishing include boat-launching ramps, docks, fully 

accessible fishing piers, and pedestrian accessible fishing jetties. All motorized boating is no 

wake only.

Why is this use being proposed?

Access for fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge System, and 

available refuge resources can support this activity. Fishing activities provide enjoyment of 

scenic views and a variety of wildlife not usually available on adjacent private land.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Visitors coming to the refuge for fishing on refuge waters, including bank fishing on the Missouri 

River, need access via road. Once on the refuge, visitors might use parking lots, hiking trails, 

fishing jetties, piers, and boat launches. Appropriate refuge funding as well as visitor services, 

facility maintenance, and law enforcement staff are needed to provide and maintain facilities 

and ensure public safety.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

The refuge has been open for many years to this priority public use. Fishing often occurs in 

tandem with other public uses such as boating (both motorized and nonmotorized), hiking, and

auto touring. Fishing use often occurs as youth group or family related activities. Because 

fishing requires the same accommodations as other appropriate and compatible public uses,

refuge roads, parking lots, trails, boat launches, and other visitor services infrastructure are 

adequate to accommodate this public use. The refuge also has adequate staff to provide 

enjoyable and safe fishing opportunities to the public.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

238

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does the use affect refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and refuge goals 

and/or objectives?

Fishing is a priority public use, and those participating in this activity are exposed to the Refuge 

System and its mission. Fishing is a great way to introduce young people to the outdoors and to 

the values of our natural resources.

Regulated fishing poses no appreciable impact on the purposes for which the refuge was

established. Fishing and boating on DeSoto Lake is prohibited during spring and fall migrations

from October 15 through April 14—the period most likely to impact refuge purposes. Damage to 

habitat by foot traffic is limited to developed or designated fishing waterfront areas. Littering is 

one visible impact of fishing but is of minor consequence to wildlife and is attended to by staff 

and volunteers. There are minor wildlife impacts when anglers inadvertently disturb duck 

broods, shorebirds, or other wildlife in and around the water. Refuge access by motorized 

vehicles and bicycles is limited to established trails, public roads, and parking lots. Water 

access is typically by foot or boat, from individuals or small groups arriving via non-commercial 

vehicle at developed fishing access areas. Motorized boating is limited to slow speeds and no 

wake conditions to minimize impacts to wildlife. No other associated impacts from fishing are 

considered to be substantial constraints to achieving the refuge purpose and the mission of the 

Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Only day-use activities are permitted on DeSoto NWR. Fishing seasons are set to avoid 

conflicts with migratory bird concentrations and waterfowl hunting. All fishing is 

regulated by state and refuge-specific regulations.

2. Modes of access including motorized vehicle and bicycles are limited to designated 

trails, public roads, and parking lots.

3. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

4. Harassment of wildlife and excessive damage to vegetation are prohibited.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

239

Justification:

Fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge System.

Fishing has been determined to be a compatible use of DeSoto NWR because this use will not 

materially interfere with or detract from management objectives, refuge purposes, or the Refuge 

System mission. This activity introduces the public to fishing, wetland ecology, and the mission 

of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; it enhances their understanding of the natural environment 

and of the need for fish and wildlife conservation. The level of fishing use is moderate 

throughout the entire length of the permitted season (April 15 – October 14) and the associated 

disturbance to wildlife is temporary and minor.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

240

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography (including the means of access such as hiking, 

snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, motorized and nonmotorized boating, and motorized 

vehicles)

Refuge Name: DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C., 715d)

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C., 460k–460k-4)

Refuge Purposes:

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge was established March 12, 1958:

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929)

“. . . suitable for—(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . .” 16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962*)

*This purpose was applied post facto to DeSoto NWR.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Allow general public access during anytime of the year to open areas of the refuge for the 

observation and photographing of associated flora and fauna. DeSoto NWR is open during 

daylight hours. All of the refuge will be open to the public for photography unless specifically 

closed by refuge management. Allowable forms of access to the refuge include hiking, 

snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, biking, motorized and nonmotorized boats, and motorized 

vehicles. Access by motorized vehicles and bicycles is limited to established trails, public 

roads, and parking lots. Horses, all-terrain vehicles, off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, and jet skis

are not allowed on the refuge. Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses on 

Refuge System lands as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997. Entry to any or all portions of the refuge may be suspended by refuge management in 

the case of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or 

public safety. Any closures would be accompanied by appropriate signage and notifications. 

Access for wildlife observation and photography will allow public access for enjoyment of scenic 

views and an array of wildlife including waterfowl, other migratory birds, tallgrass prairie plants, 

and resident wildlife. Wildlife refuges provide opportunities for wildlife enjoyment not usually 

available on adjacent private land.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

241

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Wildlife observation and photography are existing uses.

Is the use a priority public use?

Wildlife observation and photography are priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses under the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Visitors that come to the refuge for wildlife photography and observation would need access via 

road. Once on the refuge, visitors might use parking lots, hiking trails, and boat launches. 

Visitor services staff and law enforcement are needed to provide safe facilities and security to 

the public.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

The refuge has been open for many years to these priority public uses. Wildlife photography 

and observation usually happen hand-in-hand with other public use such as hiking and auto 

touring. Thus, the facilities and services needed for wildlife observation and photography

overlap with numerous other public uses. The refuge has adequate roads, parking lots, trails, 

boat launches, etc., to accommodate photography and observation by the public. The Service 

has provided the facilities for the activities and staff to enforce regulations.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does the use affect refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and refuge goals 

and/or objectives?

Wildlife observation and photography pose minimal impacts on the purposes for which national 

wildlife refuges were established. Access is typically by individuals or small groups on foot or 

using snowshoes or skis along established trails. Access by motorized vehicles and bicycles is 

limited to established trails, public roads, and parking lots. Damage to vegetation from walking 

is minimal and temporary. Visitors typically use established foot trails with little impact on 

vegetation. There is some temporary disturbance to wildlife due to presence of humans, such 

as flushing a nesting bird. The most likely impact to wildlife, related to the refuge purposes,

would occur during spring and fall migrations, but the sporadic and limited use by the public 

should not create unreasonable impacts. Winter activities pose no impacts to waterfowl and 

little impact to vegetation. The winter disturbance to resident wildlife is also temporary and 

minor. Any unreasonable wildlife harassment would be grounds for law enforcement or for 

refuge management to restrict access or close an area to these uses.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

242

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Certain modes of access such as motorized vehicles and bicycles will be limited to 

designated trails, public roads, and parking lots.

2. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

3. No photo or viewing blinds may be left overnight.

4. Harassment of wildlife and excessive damage to vegetation are prohibited.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible, because wildlife viewing and photography will not 

materially interfere with or detract from refuge purposes. The level of use for wildlife 

observation and photography is moderate. The associated disturbance to wildlife is temporary 

and minor. Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses and inculcate visitors 

with an appreciation for wildlife and an enthusiasm for nature and the outdoors. These uses 

also help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

243

Compatibility Determination

Use: Interpretation and Environmental Education

Refuge Name: DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C., 715d)

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C., 460k–460k-4)

Refuge Purposes:

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge was established March 12, 1958:

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929)

“. . . suitable for—(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . .” 16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962*)

*This purpose was applied post facto to DeSoto NWR.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Interpretation and environmental education are existing uses of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Interpretation and environmental education are priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses under 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Where would the use be conducted?

The use would occur in all areas of the refuge open to the public and selected closed sites as 

warranted by the specific situation and staff judgment. Areas for environmental education 

activities and interpretive tours are scheduled and planned to avoid interference with wildlife 

management goals.

When would the use be conducted?

These uses occur year round.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

244

How would the use be conducted?

Environmental education activities are provided by the refuge staff, volunteers, teachers, or 

leaders of visiting groups. All environmental education visits are curriculum based, and lessons 

help students meet state educational standards. Interpretation includes staff-led or volunteerled services such as interpretive walks, talks, tours, and roving interpretation plus non-staffed

services such as exhibits, signs, and brochures.

Why is this use being proposed?

These uses are being proposed to continue and build on successful environmental education 

and interpretation programs already in place at the refuge. These uses are priority wildlifedependent recreational uses of the Refuge System.

Availability of Resources: 

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Staff time from a visitor services specialist is needed to properly and safely administer these

uses. 

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Existing refuge resources are adequate to maintain current level of environmental education 

and interpretive services. Increases or decreases in available resources require correlated 

changes in the interpretation and environmental education programs.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does the use affect refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and refuge goals 

and/or objectives?

Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. By providing for these uses on the refuge, the 

participant’s knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology are enhanced, leading to 

increased public awareness of the ways healthy wildlife populations and natural habitats benefit 

present and future generations. Increased public awareness of natural and cultural 

environments contributes to the achievement of the refuge’s purposes and the mission of the 

Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

245

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Environmental education and interpretation activities will be reviewed annually to ensure 

the quality of their contributions to visitors and students and that the associated impacts 

to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats are not detracting from biological management 

of the refuge.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible. Environmental education and interpretation will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the refuge purposes. The level of use for environmental 

education and interpretation is moderate. The associated disturbance to wildlife is temporary 

and minor. Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses that promote 

visitor understanding of, and increased appreciation for, America’s natural and cultural 

resources. All activities and programming are designed to provide safe, informative, enjoyable, 

and accessible interpretive opportunities, products, and facilities. These uses also aid in 

the development a sense of environmental stewardship leading to actions and attitudes that 

reflect interest and respect for wildlife resources, cultural resources, and the environment.

These uses also help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

246

Compatibility Determination

Use: Gathering Mushrooms

Refuge Name: DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C., 715d)

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C., 460k–460k-4)

Refuge Purposes:

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge was established March 12, 1958:

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929)

“. . . suitable for—(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . .” 16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962*)

*This purpose was applied post facto to DeSoto NWR.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Allow general public access in all open areas of the refuge to gather mushrooms.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Gathering is an existing use of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Gathering is not a priority use of the Refuge System.

Where would the use be conducted?

Access for gathering mushrooms is allowed in all areas of the refuge open to the public, 

including the Public Use, East Dike South, and West Side Units. Refuge kiosk maps, brochure 

map, and other handouts show the areas open to mushroom gathering (see also figure 4-4 in 

chapter 4 of the CCP for a map depicting future visitor services at DeSoto NWR).

Entry to any or all portions of the refuge may be suspended by refuge management in the case 

of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public 

safety. Any closures would be accompanied by appropriate signage and notifications.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

247

When would the use be conducted?

Mushroom gathering is allowed during daylight hours and within areas open to the public 

whenever the mushrooms are present. The actual season of mushroom growth varies from 

year-to-year depending on temperatures and moisture.

How would the use be conducted?

Refuge resources to facilitate gathering include refuge roads and hiking trails. Allowable forms 

of access to the refuge include hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, biking, motorized and

nonmotorized boats, and motorized vehicles. Horses, all-terrain vehicles, off-road vehicles, 

snowmobiles, and jet skis are not allowed on the refuge. Spot checks of gatherers are made to 

assess the harvest success and compliance with the rules.

Why is this use being proposed?

Access for gathering is a non-priority, wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge System. 

However, refuge resources can support this activity, which also provides enjoyment of natural 

scenery and a diversity of wildlife not usually available on adjacent private lands. Access for 

mushroom gathering is a high priority for many refuge visitors.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

The primary means of visitor access to the refuge for gathering is public and refuge roads. 

Once on refuge roads, visitors may also use existing parking lots and hiking trails. Visitor 

services, facility maintenance, and law enforcement staff are needed to provide and maintain 

safe facilities and security to the public.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

The refuge has been open to this non-priority public use for many years during which time the 

Service has provided the facilities and staff for this use. Gathering can occur in tandem with 

other public use such as hiking, wildlife observation, photography, and auto touring. This use 

requires the same services and infrastructure as other public uses on the refuge. The refuge

has adequate roads, parking lots, and trails to accommodate mushroom gathering by the public.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does the use affect refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and refuge goals 

and/or objectives?

The opportunity for mushroom gathering leads to the public enjoyment of outdoor activities and

nature. Gathering is a great way to introduce people to the refuge and to the values of local

natural resources. Although gathering is a non-priority public use, it offers participants exposure 

to the Refuge System and its mission. This activity also accompanies and supports a number of 

priority public uses including wildlife observation and photography, and it provides practical and 

applied environmental education.

Gathering poses no substantial adverse impacts on the purposes for which the refuge was

established. Some wildlife and habitat disturbance may occur during mushroom gathering, but 

the impacts are minimal, limited by designated areas and seasonal restrictions, and do not 

detract from the refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

248

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Mushroom gathering is only allowed in refuge areas open to the public. Refuge staff will 

monitor this activity to ensure that gathering is done in modest quantities for personal 

consumption only.

2. Certain modes of access including motorized vehicles and bicycles will be limited to 

designated trails, public roads, and parking lots.

3. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

4. Harassment of wildlife and excessive damage to vegetation are prohibited.

Justification:

Mushroom gathering is a non-priority recreational use of the Refuge System. This use has 

been determined compatible at DeSoto NWR, because gathering will not materially interfere 

with or detract from refuge purposes. This activity facilitates the public appreciation of nature 

and the outdoors, and provides opportunities to learn about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

It also reinforces and enhances the public’s understanding of the natural environment and of the 

need for fish and wildlife conservation.

The level of gathering activity is moderated through designated areas and seasons; the 

associated disturbance to wildlife is temporary and minor.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

249

Compatibility Determination

Use: Research Programs

Refuge Name: DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C., 715d)

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C., 460k–460k-4)

Refuge Purposes:

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge was established March 12, 1958:

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929)

“. . . suitable for—(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . .” 16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962*)

*This purpose was applied post facto to DeSoto NWR.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Research is the planned, organized, and systematic gathering of data to discover or verify facts. 

In principle, research conducted on the refuge by universities, cooperative units, nonprofit 

organizations, and other research entities furthers refuge management and serves the 

purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge. The refuge hosts research from a variety of research 

institutions, including various universities and private research groups. All research activities, 

whether conducted by governmental agencies, public research entities, universities, private 

research groups, or any other entity, shall be required to obtain special use permits from the 

refuge. Approved refuge special use permits will contain conditions under which researchers 

must operate to help minimize negative impacts to refuge resources. Refuge staff will oversee 

all research activities. Priority consideration will be given to projects that are fish and wildlife 

management-oriented and that provide needed information for refuge operation and 

management.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Research programs are an existing use of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Research programs are not a priority public use of the Refuge System.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

250

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Needed resources include the administration of associated special use permits and oversight by 

refuge staff.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does the use affect refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and refuge goals 

and/or objectives?

Disturbance is expected with some research activities, especially where researchers are 

entering sensitive habitats and/or working with species of concern. Researcher disturbance 

would include altering wildlife behavior, temporarily displacing wildlife, collecting soil and plant 

samples, or trapping and handling wildlife. However, most of these effects would be short-term,

and only the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, and

wildlife) required for identification, experimentation, and statistical analysis would be permitted; 

captured and marked wildlife would be released. It is possible that direct or indirect mortality 

could result as a by-product of research activities. Mist netting, for example, can cause 

mortality directly through the capture method, in trap predation, and indirectly through capture 

injury or stress caused to the organism. Overall, allowing well designed and properly reviewed 

research is likely to have very little impact on refuge wildlife populations. The refuge does not 

anticipate adverse impacts on non-target species or other resources from research activities as 

these activities are typically geared towards benefiting refuge management of trust resources.

Negative impacts to public use activities are not expected, and no adverse socioeconomic 

impacts are anticipated. The proposed use will cause only minor and short-term disturbances to 

some wildlife and little or no disturbance to refuge visitors. The continuance of research 

projects is an important management tool that can have considerable beneficial effects on 

refuge lands and waters. Research findings will assist refuge staff in providing quality wildlife 

and habitat management and enhance the primary purposes for which this refuge was acquired.

Furthermore, research can allow refuge staff to meet management goals at a modest cost to the 

refuge. This use should not result in short-term or long-term impacts that adversely affect the 

purpose for this refuge or the mission of the Refuge System. The cumulative impacts are minor, 

as evidenced by the durability of the terrain, the resiliency of vegetation, and the number and 

diversity of wildlife that remains in the area throughout years of high public use.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

251

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

All research conducted on the refuge must further the purposes of the refuge and the mission of 

the Refuge System. All research will adhere to established refuge policy on research and policy 

on collecting specimens (Directors Order Number 109). To ensure that research activities are 

compatible, the refuge requires that a special use permit be obtained before any research 

activity may occur. Research proposals and/or research special use permit applications must 

be submitted in advance of the activity to allow for review by refuge staff to ensure minimal 

impacts to the resources, staff, and programs of the refuge. Each special use permit may 

contain conditions under which the research will be conducted. Each special use permit holder 

will submit annual reports or updates to the refuge on research activities, progress, findings, and 

other information. Further, each special use permit holder will provide copies of findings, final 

reports, publications, and/or other documentation at the end of each project. The refuge may

deny permits for research proposals that are determined not to serve the purposes of the refuge

and the mission of the Refuge System. The refuge will also deny permits for research 

proposals that are determined to negatively impact resources, or that materially interfere with or 

detract from the purposes of the refuge. All research activities are subject to the conditions of 

their special use permits.

Justification: 

There is a continuing need for research for the conservation of federal trust and focal species 

that occur on DeSoto NWR. The Service encourages scientific research to further the 

understanding of refuge natural resources. Many research needs, if undertaken, would support 

refuge conservation and management efforts. Some of these research needs are to meet the 

objectives found in various plans and federal mandates. Priority will be given to research 

projects that can be applied to current wildlife management or conservation issues, thereby 

contributing to adaptive refuge management practices and management decisions that are 

based on the best available science. There will be no notable, permanent negative impacts to 

any refuge wildlife. This use will not diminish the primary purpose for the refuge and will help 

meet the mission of the Refuge System by sustaining natural resources for the benefit of the 

American public and conserving fish, wildlife, and plants on these lands. Scientific research on 

DeSoto NWR is consistent with the refuge and Refuge System objectives and thus compatible.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

252

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wood Cutting

Refuge Name: DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C., 715d)

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C., 460k–460k-4)

Refuge Purposes:

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge was established March 12, 1958:

“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory 

birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929)

“. . . suitable for—(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species . . .” 16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962*)

*This purpose was applied post facto to DeSoto NWR.

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

This compatibility determination is for the removal of fallen trees by private individuals and 

applies to all wood removal activities regardless of the ultimate use of the wood (e.g., firewood, 

pulp, etc.). Differences in the scope of the activities and the necessary equipment will occur 

depending on the amount and type of wood available for removal. This activity will only occur if

the Service has determined that a management need exists to remove wood from the refuge

consistent with DeSoto NWR’s CCP or other management purposes.

Wood cutting is not a priority public use of the Refuge System, as defined by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Wood removal may occur within former 

homesites, along existing windbreaks/shelter belts, and in other areas of the refuge where trees 

are dying or otherwise undesirable. Harvest sites will vary in size from a portion of an acre up to 

several hundred acres depending on the site and management objectives. Wood removal 

activities may be authorized throughout the year. Most often, wood removal activities occur 

during the winter months when frozen ground facilitates access and affords protection to 

underlying soils and vegetation. The main application of this use is the collection of firewood 

along refuge roads by individuals for personal use. Large trees fall along the roads and must be 

cleaned up by the staff. Allowing the public access to this wood saves time and money for the 

refuge.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

253

The scope of the activity will be determined by the management objective for the area and by 

the quantity and quality of available wood. Equipment used for harvest may range from 

chainsaws and axes to traditional logging equipment such as feller bunchers and log skidders. 

Access may be pickup truck, farm tractor, or larger traditional logging equipment.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Wood cutting is an existing use of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Wood cutting is not a priority public use of the Refuge System.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

A staff member will be responsible for writing special use permits when needed. Law 

enforcement during regular patrols will check for violations regarding refuge wood harvest.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

In permitting this type of activity, the potential exists to directly impact nesting birds both on the 

ground and in the trees. These impacts are easily avoided by careful timing of the activity.

Wood cutting will be done, if at all possible, during the winter months when birds are not 

nesting. Access for removing wood may impact habitat by rutting soils, destroying ground 

cover, creating weed seedbeds, and increasing runoff and sedimentation in nearby wetlands. 

These impacts can again be avoided by careful timing of the activity. Allowing access during 

the winter months when the ground is frozen will avoid these impacts.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. If at all possible, wood cutting will take place during winter months to avoid nesting birds 

and soil disturbance.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

254

2. A special use permit will be issued so that site-specific impacts can be reduced or

eliminated and Service management goals are met.

Justification:

Impacts to the habitat as a result of access to the refuge for wood removal purposes are

potentially substantial, but can be avoided. Access to and from these areas will need to be 

carefully controlled (via special use permit) to avoid impacts such as rutting and increased 

sedimentation in area wetlands. Areas that do not have roads will be protected by issuing 

special use permits only during winter months when the ground is frozen. Individuals 

participating in the wood harvest program will be under special use permit, and site-specific 

stipulations will ensure resource protection and achievement of management goals.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

255

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Compatibility Determination

Use: Upland and Big Game Hunting

Refuge Name: Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (U.S.C. 742a–742j)

Refuge Purposes:

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge was authorized in August of 1992, opened to the public 

via MOU in September of 1995, and was established in September of 1997:

“. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Hunting of game is a public use granted under the authority of the Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 and is considered a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The refuge manages the deer herd by offering quality weekend (deer gun) hunt events. During 

the hunts the refuge is closed to other visitors. The number of hunt events conducted each year 

typically ranges from one to three, and depends on the size of the deer herd. The hunts are 

generally held in October, December, and/or January. The hunts are scheduled in coordination 

with Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. No land within the authorized refuge boundary 

has been acquired in the State of Iowa.

Archery deer hunting in the fall is proposed for the refuge as a part of the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP). A season would be set according to the State of Nebraska’s season. 

Selected areas of the refuge would be open to archery hunting.

Upland game hunting, specifically Ring-necked Pheasant and Wild Turkey, is also proposed for 

the refuge in the CCP. Special turkey and pheasant gun hunting events could be held in the 

spring or fall. These hunt dates would be selected to fit within the state seasons.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

256

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Hunting is an existing use of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Hunting is a priority public use of the Refuge System and an important wildlife management 

tool. The Service recognizes hunting as a healthy, traditional outdoor activity, deeply rooted in 

American heritage. Hunting can instill a unique understanding and appreciation of wildlife, 

animal behavior, and habitat needs. Hunting programs can promote understanding and 

appreciation of natural resources and their management on the lands and waters of the Refuge 

System.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Road maintenance, mowing, and other grounds upkeep will be required, but these activities are

considered a part of routine refuge management and maintenance activities. There is also time 

spent by refuge staff on deer herd monitoring and hunt program planning. Administrative time is 

required for hunt program implementation, including answering questions, making maps, etc. 

Law enforcement is an essential tool for proper and safe administration of this use. The refuge 

has a full time officer dedicated to this function. Based on a review of the current refuge budget,

there is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer and manage this public use.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Short-term impacts: Providing carefully planned and managed hunting events with restricted 

access to specified refuge hunting zones will generally minimize disturbance to wildlife

populations, the refuge environment, infrastructure, and non-consumptive users. Hunting 

causes mortality of target species with the intent of harvesting populations to the carrying 

capacity of existing habitat. By limiting take to harvestable surplus, the refuge can ensure the

long-term health and survival of game species, populations, and their associated ecosystem. 

The presence and activity of hunters may cause disturbance to other wildlife in the area, but 

these impacts are minor and temporary. There is the potential to impact non-target species that

are sensitive to disturbance, especially during spring turkey hunts when many animals are

breeding or nesting. For visitors, non-hunting public uses may be temporarily disrupted or 

postponed during hunt events. Visitor safety is the highest priority when designing and planning 

all hunting activities on refuges. Vehicle traffic will increase slightly during hunting events, and 

the sound of gun shots will temporarily reduce the serenity for the non-hunting public. Loss of

vegetation from foot traffic is minor or temporary. Soil and plant disturbance may occur in 

ingress and egress routes but will be minor and temporary because of the limited and controlled 

use associated with the managed hunts.

Long-term impacts: No adverse long-term impacts from hunting are anticipated as long as

wildlife populations are monitored through the refuge biological program or by state officials. 

Long-term beneficial impacts of this use include the ability to manage targeted wildlife

populations to levels that fall within the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. When deer 

populations grow beyond a sustainable capacity herbivory can have profound negative impacts 

to the local environment, native plants, and other wildlife species.

Cumulative impacts: There are no anticipated cumulative impacts. Harvest on the refuge would

be limited by management and would fall within the state's population management goals,
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

257

which are based on the best available science. All hunts would follow all applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies including title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual, the mission and goals of the Refuge System, and the purposes, goals, 

and objectives of Boyer Chute NWR. Careful management of this public use maintains the 

safety of the area's citizens, contributes to the refuge's wildlife and habitat goals, and supports 

several of the primary objectives of the refuge.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with Refuge System and Boyer Chute NWR goals and objectives of the 

activity can only occur under the following stipulations:

1. Hunting will only occur during special, managed hunting events.

2. All hunting will adhere to the hunting section of the refuge's visitor services step-down 

management plan.

3. All applicable state and federal regulations apply.

4. Hunting is prohibited on, across, or within 100 feet of refuge roads or parking lots.

5. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

6. During hunting activities, the refuge is open two hours before the legal shooting time and 

one hour after the legal shooting time.

7. Refuge-specific authorization is required for all special hunts.

8. All personal property, including stands, must be removed at the end of each day.

9. No motorized vehicles are allowed within the hunting units except at designated parking 

areas or as specified by a special use permit.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

This use is being permitted because it is a priority public use and will not diminish the primary

purposes of the refuge. This use will meet the mission of the Refuge System by providing 

renewable resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources on refuge lands.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

258

Hunting is one of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Service policy directs us to provide hunting

opportunities when compatible with refuge management. Managed hunting programs help 

promote an understanding and appreciation of natural resources and their management. 

Additionally, managed hunts on the refuge provide a traditional recreational activity with minimal

adverse impacts to the biological integrity or sustainability of refuge resources.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

259

Compatibility Determination

Use: Waterfowl Hunting

Refuge Name: Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (U.S.C. 742a–742j)

Refuge Purposes:

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge was authorized in August of 1992, opened to the public 

via MOU in September of 1995, and was established in September of 1997:

“. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Allow public waterfowl hunting on the Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge. Hunting is a 

priority public use on National Wildlife Refuge system lands. Only a small portion of the refuge is 

open to waterfowl hunting, as to reduce wildlife disturbance and conflict with other refuge users. 

Hunting regulations are generally consistent with state regulations, with a few refuge-specific 

regulations.

Availability of Resources:

Adequate resources are available to manage the existing hunting program at the current level of

participation. 

The designated areas open to public hunting are open in accordance with state and refuge 

regulations and require no preparation and administration of special hunts.

A refuge waterfowl hunting regulations brochure and map is available from the refuge office to

inform the public of hunting opportunities and refuge regulations. Waterfowl hunting regulations 

and map are also posted in the informational kiosks.

Hunters utilize the existing network of walk-in trails or use a boat to access the area open to 

waterfowl hunting. Parking lots, restrooms, leaflets, information kiosks, and signs are provided 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

260

by the refuge for use by hunters. The refuge also provides staff to maintain these facilities and 

disseminate information to visitors. Refuge law enforcement officers, Service special agents, 

and state conservation officers enforce state and refuge hunting regulations.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Accommodating this wildlife-dependent use is expected to result in minimal impacts. Migratory 

birds currently hunted on the refuge include only ducks, geese, and coots. The refuge 

waterfowl hunting area is small in area as to reduce conflict with other refuge users. 

Additionally, under current regulations, conflicts between other refuge user groups have been 

few, largely because migratory bird hunting seasons occur in the fall or late winter when fewer 

people use the refuge. Populations of migratory waterfowl species are monitored by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and season dates and bag limits are set with the long-term health of 

populations in mind. Therefore, this activity will have insignificant cumulative impacts on 

waterfowl populations.

Disturbance to other wildlife may also result from hunting activity. This disturbance is expected 

to be limited in scope and duration. All motor vehicle use is restricted to designated roads, trails, 

and parking areas, which reduces disturbance to wildlife. Disturbance to habitat is minimal given 

the nature of this hunting and restriction of vehicle use.

Public Review and Comment:

A Draft Environmental Assessment, titled "Waterfowl Hunting at Boyer Chute National Wildlife

Refuge," was available for public comment from March 17–April 17, 2007.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

To ensure compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, managed waterfowl hunting can occur on the refuge if the following stipulations are 

met:

1. Hunts must be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations and special 

refuge regulations published in the refuge hunting regulations and public use regulations 

brochures.

2. To minimize potential conflicts between user groups, the waterfowl hunting area should 

be limited in size and located in areas of low public use.

3. Hunts are subject to modification if onsite monitoring by refuge personnel or other 

authorized personnel results in unanticipated negative impacts to natural communities, 

wildlife species, or their habitats.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

261

Justification:

Migratory bird hunting seasons and bag limits are established by the states within a framework 

set nationally by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These restrictions ensure the continued 

well-being of overall populations of migratory birds. Hunting does result in the taking of many 

individuals within the overall population, but restrictions are designed to safeguard an adequate 

breeding population from year to year. Most of the wetland habitat on Boyer Chute NWR is 

closed to hunting, and provides feeding and resting areas for migratory birds during the hunting 

season. Disturbance to other fish and wildlife does occur, but this disturbance is generally 

short-term and adequate habitat occurs in adjacent areas. Loss of plants through boat traffic or 

blind construction is minor or temporary since hunting occurs mainly after the growing season.

Conflicts between hunters are localized and are addressed through law enforcement, public 

education, and proposed changes to hunting regulations. Conflicts between other various user 

groups are minor given the season of the year for hunting, and the location of most hunting in 

marsh habitat and more remote shorelines.

Stipulations above will ensure proper control of the means of use and provide management 

flexibility should detrimental impacts develop. Allowing this use also furthers the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System by providing renewable resources for the benefit of the 

American public while conserving fish, wildlife, and plant resources on the refuge.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Larry Klimek/ 04/18/2008 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief (Acting) /Tom Worthington/ 05/21/2008 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

262

Compatibility Determination

Use: Fishing 

Refuge Name: Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (U.S.C. 742a–742j)

Refuge Purposes:

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge was authorized in August of 1992, opened to the public 

via MOU in September of 1995, and was established in September of 1997:

“. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Allow general public access during specific times of the year to open areas of the refuge for

sport and commercial fishing. Archery and spearfishing are permitted (for rough fish only). An

Iowa or Nebraska fishing license is required. State and federal regulations apply; refuge 

specific regulations also apply.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Fishing is an existing use of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997.

Where would the use be conducted?

Bank fishing is permitted on all open waters of refuge units open to the public, including the 

Missouri River, Boyer Chute, ponds, and scour holes unless specifically closed by refuge 

management. Bank fishing access consists of shorelines and fishing piers. Certain areas are 

closed during the migration period (September 14 to April 15). Bank fishing is allowed on all 

portions of the Boyer Chute during the warm season but is not permitted in the Chute when it is 

covered by ice. For safety reasons, all watercraft including kayaks and canoes are prohibited in 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

263

the Boyer Chute. Boat fishing is also allowed on the Missouri River, but this use is regulated by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Allowable forms of access to the refuge include hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, 

biking, and motorized vehicles. Horses, all-terrain vehicles, off-road vehicles, snowmobiles and 

jet skis are not allowed on the refuge.

When would the use be conducted?

Boyer Chute NWR is open during daylight hours. Year round use is permitted unless 

specifically closed by refuge management. Entry to any or all portions of the refuge may be 

suspended by refuge management in the case of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, 

water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety. Any closures would be accompanied by 

appropriate signage and notifications.

How would the use be conducted?

Refuge resources to facilitate fishing include fully accessible fishing piers and pedestrian 

accessible shorelines.

Why is this use being proposed?

Access for fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge System, and 

available refuge resources can support this activity. Fishing activities provide enjoyment of 

scenic views and a variety of wildlife not usually available on adjacent private land.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Visitors coming to the refuge for fishing on refuge waters, including from the banks of the Boyer 

Chute and Missouri River, need access via road. Once on the refuge, visitors might use parking 

lots, hiking trails, and piers. Appropriate refuge funding as well as visitor services, facility 

maintenance, and law enforcement staff are needed to provide and maintain facilities and 

ensure public safety.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

The refuge has been open for many years to this priority public use. Fishing often occurs in 

tandem with other public use such as hiking and auto touring. Fishing use often occurs as 

youth group or family related activities. Because fishing requires the same accommodations as 

other appropriate and compatible public uses, refuge roads, parking lots, trails, and other visitor 

services infrastructure are adequate to accommodate this public use. The refuge also has 

adequate staff to provide enjoyable and safe fishing opportunities to the public.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does the use affect refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and refuge goals 

and/or objectives?

Fishing is a priority public use, and those participating in this activity are exposed to the Refuge 

System and its mission. Fishing is a great way to introduce young people to the outdoors and to 

the values of our natural resources.

Regulated fishing poses no appreciable impact on the purposes for which the refuge was

established. Damage to habitat by foot traffic is limited to developed or designated fishing 

waterfront areas. Littering is one visible impact of fishing but is of minor consequence to wildlife 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

264

and is attended to by staff and volunteers. There are minor wildlife impacts when anglers

inadvertently disturb duck broods, shorebirds, or other wildlife in and around the water. No 

other associated impacts from fishing are considered to be substantial constraints to achieving 

the refuge purpose and the mission of the Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment: 

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Only day-use activities are permitted on Boyer Chute NWR. All fishing is regulated by 

state and refuge-specific regulations.

2. Modes of access including motorized vehicle and bicycles are limited to designated 

trails, public roads, and parking lots.

3. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

4. Harassment of wildlife and excessive damage to vegetation are prohibited.

Justification: 

Fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge System.

Fishing has been determined to be a compatible use of Boyer Chute NWR because the use will 

not materially interfere with or detract from management objectives, refuge purposes, or the 

Refuge System mission. This activity introduces the public to fishing, wetland ecology, and the 

mission of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; it enhances their understanding of the natural 

environment and of the need for fish and wildlife conservation. The level of fishing use is 

moderate throughout the year and the associated disturbance to wildlife is temporary and minor.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

265

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography (including the means of access such as hiking, 

snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, motorized and nonmotorized boating, and motorized 

vehicles)

Refuge Name: Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (U.S.C. 742a–742j)

Refuge Purposes:

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge was authorized in August of 1992, opened to the public 

via MOU in September of 1995, and was established in September of 1997:

“. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Allow general public access during anytime of the year to open areas of the refuge for the 

observation and photographing of associated flora and fauna. Boyer Chute NWR is open during 

daylight hours. All of the refuge will be open to the public for photography unless specifically 

closed by refuge management. Allowable forms of access to the refuge include hiking, 

snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, biking, motorized and nonmotorized boats, and motorized 

vehicles. Horses, all-terrain vehicles, off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, and jet skis are not 

allowed on the refuge. Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses on Refuge 

System lands as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Entry to any or all portions of the refuge may be suspended by refuge management in the case

of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public 

safety. Any closures would be accompanied by appropriate signage and notifications. Access 

for wildlife observation and photography will allow public access for enjoyment of scenic views 

and an array of wildlife including waterfowl, other migratory birds, tallgrass prairie plants, and 

resident wildlife. Wildlife refuges provide opportunities for wildlife enjoyment not usually 

available on adjacent private land.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Wildlife observation and photography are existing uses of the refuge.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

266

Is the use a priority public use?

Wildlife observation and photography are priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses under the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Visitors coming to the refuge for wildlife photography and observation would need access via 

road. Once on the refuge visitors might use parking lots and hiking trails. Visitor services staff 

and law enforcement are needed to provide safe facilities and security to the public.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

The refuge has been open for many years to these priority public uses. Wildlife photography 

and observation usually happen hand-in-hand with other public use such as hiking and auto 

touring. Thus, the facilities and services needed for wildlife observation and photography 

overlap with numerous other public uses. The refuge has adequate roads, parking lots, trails, 

boat launches, etc., to accommodate photography and observation by the public. The Service 

has provided the facilities for the activities and staff to enforce regulations.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does the use affect refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and refuge goals 

and/or objectives?

Wildlife observation and photography pose minimal impacts on the purposes for which national 

wildlife refuges were established. Access is typically by individuals or small groups on foot or 

using snowshoes or skis along established trails. Access by motorized vehicles and bicycles is 

limited to established trails, public roads, and parking lots. Damage to vegetation from walking 

is minimal and temporary. There is some temporary disturbance to wildlife due to the presence 

of humans, such as flushing a nesting bird. The most likely impact to wildlife, related to the 

refuge purposes, would occur during spring and fall migrations, but the sporadic and limited use 

by the public should not create unreasonable impacts. Winter activities pose no impacts to 

waterfowl and little impact to vegetation. The winter disturbance to resident wildlife is also

temporary and minor. Visitors typically use established foot trails with little impact on 

vegetation. Any unreasonable harassment would be grounds for law enforcement or for refuge 

management to restrict access or close an area to these uses.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

267

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

1. Certain modes of access such as motorized vehicles and bicycles will be limited to 

designated trails, public roads, and parking lots.

2. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

3. No photo or viewing blinds may be left overnight.

4. Harassment of wildlife and excessive damage to vegetation are prohibited.

Justification: 

This use has been determined compatible, because wildlife viewing and photography will not 

materially interfere with or detract from refuge purposes. The level of use for wildlife 

observation and photography is moderate. The associated disturbance to wildlife is temporary 

and minor. Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses and inculcate visitors 

with an appreciation for wildlife and an enthusiasm for nature and the outdoors. These uses 

also help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

268

Compatibility Determination

Use: Interpretation and Environmental Education

Refuge Name: Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (U.S.C. 742a–742j)

Refuge Purposes:

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge was authorized in August of 1992, opened to the public 

via MOU in September of 1995, and was established in September of 1997:

“. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Interpretation and environmental education are existing uses of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Interpretation and environmental education are priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses under 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Where would the use be conducted?

The use would occur in all areas of the refuge open to the public and selected closed sites as 

warranted by the specific situation and staff judgment. Areas for environmental education 

lesson and interpretive tours are scheduled and planned to avoid interference with wildlife 

management goals.

When would the use be conducted?

This use occurs year round.

How would the use be conducted?

Environmental education activities are provided by the refuge staff, volunteers, teachers, or 

leaders of the visiting group. All environmental education visits are curriculum based, and 

activities help students meet state educational standards. Interpretation includes staff-led or 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

269

volunteer-led services such as interpretive walks, talks, tours, and roving interpretation plus 

non-staffed services such as exhibits, signs, and brochures.

Why is this use being proposed?

These uses are being proposed to continue and build on successful environmental education 

and interpretation programs already in place at the refuge. These uses are priority wildlifedependent recreational uses of the Refuge System.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Staff time from a visitor services specialist is needed to properly and safely administer these 

uses.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Existing refuge resources are adequate to maintain current level of environmental education 

and interpretive services. Increases or decreases in available resources require correlated 

changes in the interpretation and environmental education programs.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does the use affect refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and refuge goals 

and/or objectives?

Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses listed in the National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. By providing for these uses on the refuge, the 

participant’s knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology are enhanced, leading to 

increased public awareness of the ways healthy wildlife populations and natural habitats benefit 

present and future generations. Increased public awareness of natural and cultural

environments contributes to the achievement of the refuge’s purposes and the mission of the 

Refuge System.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Environmental education and interpretation activities will be reviewed annually to ensure 

the quality of their contributions to visitors and students and that the associated impacts 

to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats are not detracting from biological management 

of the refuge.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

270

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible. Environmental education and interpretation will not 

materially interfere with or detract from the refuge purposes. The level of use for environmental 

education and interpretation is moderate. The associated disturbance to wildlife is temporary 

and minor. Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses that promote 

visitor understanding of, and increased appreciation for, America’s natural and cultural 

resources. All activities and programming are designed to provide safe, informative, enjoyable, 

and accessible interpretive opportunities, products, and facilities. These uses also aid in 

the development a sense of environmental stewardship leading to actions and attitudes that 

reflect interest and respect for wildlife resources, cultural resources, and the environment.

These uses also help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2028
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

271

Compatibility Determination

Use: Gathering of Mushrooms

Refuge Name: Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (U.S.C. 742a–742j)

Refuge Purposes:

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge was authorized in August of 1992, opened to the public 

via MOU in September of 1995, and was established in September of 1997:

“. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Allow general public access in open areas of the refuge to gather mushrooms.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Gathering is an existing use of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Gathering is not a priority use of the Refuge System. 

Where would the use be conducted?

Access for gathering mushrooms is allowed in all areas of the refuge open to the public, 

including the Northwest, Wildflower, Rail, West Chute, Island, Horseshoe, and Yellowlegs Units. 

Refuge kiosk maps, brochure map, and other handouts show the areas open to mushroom 

gathering (see also figure 4-5 in chapter 4 of the CCP for a map depicting future visitor services 

at Boyer Chute NWR).

Entry to any or all portions of the refuge may be suspended by refuge management in the case 

of unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public 

safety. Any closures would be accompanied by appropriate signage and notifications.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

272

When would the use be conducted?

Mushroom gathering is allowed during daylight hours and within areas open to the public 

whenever the mushrooms are present. The actual season of mushroom growth varies from 

year-to-year depending on temperatures and moisture.

How would the use be conducted?

Refuge resources to facilitate gathering include refuge roads and hiking trails. Allowable forms 

of access to the refuge include hiking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, biking, and motorized 

vehicles. Horses, all-terrain vehicles, off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, and jet skis are not 

allowed on the refuge. Spot checks of gatherers are made to assess the harvest success and 

compliance with the rules.

Why is this use being proposed?

Access for gathering is a non-priority, wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge System. 

However, refuge resources can support this activity, which also provides enjoyment of natural 

scenery and a diversity of wildlife not usually available on adjacent private lands. Access for 

mushroom gathering is a high priority for many refuge visitors.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

The primary means of visitor access to the refuge for gathering is public and refuge roads. 

Once on refuge roads, visitors may also use existing parking lots and hiking trails. Visitor 

services, facility maintenance, and law enforcement staff are needed to provide and maintain 

safe facilities and security to the public.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

The refuge has been open to this non-priority public use for many years during which time the 

Service has provided the facilities and staff for this use. Gathering can occur in tandem with 

other public use such as hiking, wildlife observation, photography, and auto touring. This use 

requires the same services and infrastructure as other public uses on the refuge. The refuge

has adequate roads, parking lots, and trails to accommodate mushroom gathering by the public.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does the use affect refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and refuge goals 

and/or objectives?

The opportunity for mushroom gathering leads to the public enjoyment of outdoor activities and 

nature. Gathering is a great way to introduce people to the refuge and to the values of local 

natural resources. Although gathering is a non-priority public use, it offers participants exposure 

to the Refuge System and its mission. This activity also accompanies and supports a number of 

priority public uses including wildlife observation and photography, and it provides practical and 

applied environmental education.

Gathering poses no substantial adverse impacts on the purposes for which the refuge was 

established. Some wildlife and habitat disturbance may occur during mushroom gathering, but 

the impacts are minimal, limited by designated areas and seasonal restrictions, and do not 

detract from the refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

273

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Mushroom gathering is only allowed in refuge areas and units of the refuge open to the 

public. Refuge staff will monitor this activity to ensure that gathering is done in modest 

quantities for personal consumption only.

2. Only day-use activities are permitted on Boyer Chute NWR.

3. Certain modes of access including motorized vehicles and bicycles will be limited to 

designated trails, public roads, and parking lots.

4. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohibited.

5. Harassment of wildlife and excessive damage to vegetation are prohibited.

Justification:

Mushroom gathering is a non-priority recreational use of the Refuge System. This use has 

been determined compatible at Boyer Chute NWR, because gathering will not materially 

interfere with or detract from refuge purposes. This activity facilitates the public appreciation of 

nature and the outdoors, and provides opportunities to learn about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. It also reinforces and enhances the public’s understanding of the natural environment 

and of the need for fish and wildlife conservation

The level of gathering activity is moderated through designated areas and seasons; the 

associated disturbance to wildlife is temporary and minor.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

274

Compatibility Determination

Use: Research Programs

Refuge Name: Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (U.S.C. 742a–742j)

Refuge Purposes:

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge was authorized in August of 1992, opened to the public 

via MOU in September of 1995, and was established in September of 1997:

“. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

Research is the planned, organized, and systematic gathering of data to discover or verify facts. 

In principle, research conducted on the refuge by universities, cooperative units, nonprofit 

organizations, and other research entities furthers refuge management and serves the 

purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge. The refuge hosts research from a variety of research 

institutions, including various universities and private research groups. All research activities, 

whether conducted by governmental agencies, public research entities, universities, private 

research groups, or any other entity, shall be required to obtain special use permits from the 

refuge. Approved refuge special use permits will contain conditions under which researchers 

must operate to help minimize negative impacts to refuge resources. Refuge staff will oversee 

all research activities. Priority consideration will be given to projects that are fish and wildlife 

management-oriented and that provide needed information for refuge operation and 

management.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Research programs are an existing use of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Research programs are not a priority public use of the Refuge System.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

275

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

Needed resources include the administration of associated special use permits and oversight by 

refuge staff.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

How does the use affect refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and refuge goals 

and/or objectives?

Disturbance is expected with some research activities, especially where researchers are 

entering sensitive habitats and/or working with species of concern. Researcher disturbance 

would include altering wildlife behavior, temporarily displacing wildlife, collecting soil and plant 

samples, or trapping and handling wildlife. However, most of these effects would be short-term,

and only the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, and 

wildlife) required for identification, experimentation, and statistical analysis would be permitted; 

captured and marked wildlife would be released. It is possible that direct or indirect mortality 

could result as a by-product of research activities. Mist netting, for example, can cause 

mortality directly through the capture method, in trap predation, and indirectly through capture 

injury or stress caused to the organism. Overall, allowing well designed and properly reviewed 

research is likely to have very little impact on refuge wildlife populations. The refuge does not 

anticipate adverse impacts on non-target species or other resources from research activities as 

these activities are typically geared towards benefiting refuge management of trust resources.

Negative impacts to public use activities are not expected, and no adverse socioeconomic 

impacts are anticipated. The proposed use will cause only minor and short-term disturbances to 

some wildlife and little or no disturbance to refuge visitors. The continuance of research 

projects is an important management tool that can have considerable beneficial effects on 

refuge lands and waters. Research findings will assist refuge staff in providing quality wildlife 

and habitat management and enhance the primary purposes for which this refuge was acquired. 

Furthermore, research can allow refuge staff to meet management goals at a modest cost to the

refuge. This use should not result in short-term or long-term impacts that adversely affect the 

purpose for this refuge or the mission of the Refuge System. The cumulative impacts are minor, 

as evidenced by the durability of the terrain, the resiliency of vegetation, and the number and 

diversity of wildlife that remains in the area throughout years of high public use.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

276

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

All research conducted on the refuge must further the purposes of the refuge and the mission of 

the Refuge System. All research will adhere to established refuge policy on research and policy 

on collecting specimens (Directors Order Number 109). To ensure that research activities are 

compatible, the refuge requires that a special use permit be obtained before any research 

activity may occur. Research proposals and/or research special use permit applications must 

be submitted in advance of the activity to allow for review by refuge staff to ensure minimal 

impacts to the resources, staff, and programs of the refuge. Each special use permit may 

contain conditions under which the research will be conducted. Each special use permit holder 

will submit annual reports or updates to the refuge on research activities, progress, findings, and 

other information. Further, each special use permit holder will provide copies of findings, final 

reports, publications, and/or other documentation at the end of each project. The refuge may 

deny permits for research proposals that are determined not to serve the purposes of the refuge

and the mission of the Refuge System. The refuge will also deny permits for research 

proposals that are determined to negatively impact resources, or that materially interfere with or 

detract from the purposes of the refuge. All research activities are subject to the conditions of 

their special use permits.

Justification: 

There is a continuing need for research for the conservation of federal trust and focal species 

that occur on Boyer Chute NWR. The Service encourages scientific research to further the 

understanding of refuge natural resources. Many research needs, if undertaken, would support 

refuge conservation and management efforts. Some of these research needs are to meet the 

objectives found in various plans and federal mandates. Priority will be given to research 

projects that can be applied to current wildlife management or conservation issues, thereby 

contributing to adaptive refuge management practices and management decisions that are 

based on the best available science. There will be no notable, permanent negative impacts to 

any refuge wildlife. This use will not diminish the primary purpose for the refuge and will help 

meet the mission of the Refuge System by sustaining natural resources for the benefit of the 

American public and conserving fish, wildlife, and plants on these lands. Scientific research on 

Boyer Chute NWR is consistent with the refuge and Refuge System objectives and thus 

compatible.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

277

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wood Cutting

Refuge Name: Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (U.S.C. 742a–742j)

Refuge Purposes:

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge was authorized in August of 1992, opened to the public 

via MOU in September of 1995, and was established in September of 1997:

“. . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

“. . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative 

covenant, or condition of servitude . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Description of Use:

This compatibility determination is for the removal of fallen trees by private individuals and 

applies to all wood removal activities regardless of the ultimate use of the wood (e.g., firewood, 

pulp, etc.). Differences in the scope of the activities and the necessary equipment will occur 

depending on the amount and type of wood available for removal. This activity will only occur if 

the Service has determined that a management need exists to remove wood from the refuge

consistent with Boyer Chute NWR’s CCP or other management purposes.

Wood cutting is not a priority public use of the Refuge System, as defined by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Wood removal may occur within former 

homesites, along existing windbreaks/shelter belts, and in other areas of the refuge where trees 

are dying or otherwise undesirable. Harvest sites will vary in size from a portion of an acre up to 

several hundred acres depending on the site and management objectives. Wood removal 

activities may be authorized throughout the year. Most often, wood removal activities occur 

during the winter months when frozen ground facilitates access and affords protection to 

underlying soils and vegetation. The main application of this use is the collection of firewood 

along refuge roads by individuals for personal use. Large trees fall along the roads and must be 

cleaned up by the staff. Allowing the public access to this wood saves time and money for the 

refuge.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

278

The scope of the activity will be determined by the management objective for the area and by 

the quantity and quality of available wood. Equipment used for harvest may range from 

chainsaws and axes to traditional logging equipment such as feller bunchers and log skidders. 

Access may be pickup truck, farm tractor, or larger traditional logging equipment.

Is the use a proposed new use or an existing use?

Wood cutting is an existing use of the refuge.

Is the use a priority public use?

Wood cutting is not a priority public use of the Refuge System.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer use?

A staff member will be responsible for writing special use permits when needed. Law 

enforcement during regular patrols will check for violations regarding refuge wood harvest.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

In permitting this type of activity, the potential exists to directly impact nesting birds both on the 

ground and in the trees. These impacts are easily avoided by careful timing of the activity.

Wood cutting will be done, if at all possible, during the winter months when birds are not 

nesting. Access for removing wood may impact habitat by rutting soils, destroying ground 

cover, creating weed seedbeds, and increasing runoff and sedimentation in nearby wetlands. 

These impacts can again be avoided by careful timing of the activity. Allowing access during 

the winter months when the ground is frozen will avoid these impacts.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was made available for public review as part of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from September 19 to November 8, 2013. Comments received and agency responses are 

included in the final version of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. If at all possible, wood cutting will take place during winter months to avoid nesting birds 

and soil disturbance.

2. A special use permit will be issued so that site-specific impacts can be reduced or

eliminated and Service management goals are met.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

279

Justification:

Impacts to the habitat as a result of access to the refuge for wood removal purposes are 

potentially substantial, but can be avoided. Access to and from these areas will need to be 

carefully controlled (via special use permit) to avoid impacts such as rutting and increased 

sedimentation in area wetlands. Areas that do not have roads will be protected by issuing 

special use permits only during winter months when the ground is frozen. Individuals 

participating in the wood harvest program will be under special use permit, and site-specific 

stipulations will ensure resource protection and achievement of management goals.

Signature: Refuge Manager /Tom Cox/ 12/06/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief /Charlie Blair/ 12/12/2013 >

 (Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10-year or 15-year Re-Evaluation Date: 2023
Appendix H: List of Preparers and Contributors

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

280

Appendix H: List of Preparers and Contributors

Preparers

The following individuals were members of the core planning team, instrumental in the 

development of this document, and/or made major contributions throughout the planning 

process. 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges Staff

• Tom Cox – Refuge Manager

• Mindy Sheets – Deputy Refuge Manager

• Kenneth Block – Visitor Services Manager

• Michael Ellis – Wildlife Refuge Specialist

• Ashley Danielson – Visitor Services Specialist

• Matt Freis – Biological Technician (active through December 2010)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Regional Office, Division of 

Conservation Planning

• Jared Bowman – Refuge Planner/Wildlife Biologist

• Mark Hogeboom – Writer/Editor

Contributors

Guidance, contributions, and support of the comprehensive conservation plan were also made 

by the following individuals:

• Luke Wallace – Biologist (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

• Don Doty – Wetland Restoration Specialist (U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural 

Resource Conservation Service)

• Scott Peterson – District Supervisor, SW District (Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources)

• Tom Welstead – District Manager, Norfolk District (Nebraska Game and Parks

Commission)

• Jim Becic – Environmental Coordinator (Papio–Missouri Natural Resources District)

• John McCarty, Ph.D. – Professor (University of Nebraska, Omaha)

• Matt Sprenger – Refuge Supervisor, Area 2 (USFWS, Midwest Regional Office, National 

Wildlife Refuge System)
Appendix H: List of Preparers and Contributors

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

281

• Kevin Foerster – Refuge Supervisor (USFWS, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife 

and Fish Refuge)

• Bob Russell – Wildlife Biologist (USFWS, Midwest Regional Office, Division of Migratory 

Birds)

• Pat Heglund – Regional Chief, Division of Biological Resources (USFWS, Midwest 

Regional Office, NWRS)

• Maggie O’Connell – Regional Chief, Division of Visitor Services (USFWS, Midwest 

Regional Office, NWRS)

• Josh Eash – Regional Hydrologist (USFWS, Midwest Regional Office, NWRS)

• Rick Speer – Assistant Refuge Supervisor (USFWS, Midwest Regional Office, NWRS)

• James Myster – Regional Archaeologist (USFWS, Midwest Regional Office, NWRS)

• Kathy Carlyle – Biologist (USFWS, Midwest Division of Biological Resources, NWRS)

• Tom Larson – Chief, Division of Conservation Planning (USFWS, Midwest Regional 

Office, NWRS)

• Mary Balogh – Biologist/GIS Specialist, Division of Conservation Planning (USFWS, 

Midwest Regional Office, NWRS)

• Gabe DeAlessio – Biologist/GIS Specialist, Division of Conservation Planning (USFWS, 

Midwest Regional Office, NWRS)

• Vince Capeder – Survey Technician (USFWS, Midwest Regional Office, NWRS)

• Brian Newman – Hydrologist (USFWS, Midwest Regional Office, NWRS)

A special thank you for the support provided by all of the staff at DeSoto and Boyer Chute 

Refuges, all personnel in the Midwest Region’s Division of Conservation Planning, and all 

members of the public who participated in the planning process.
Appendix I: Communications List

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

282

Appendix I: Communications List

The following groups and individuals were contacted throughout the planning process:

Federal Officials – Iowa 

• Senator Chuck Grassley

• Senator Tom Harkin

• Congressman Tom Latham (District 3)

• Congressman Steve King (District 4)

Federal Officials – Nebraska 

• Senator Deb Fischer

• Senator Mike Johanns

• Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (District 1)

• Congressman Lee Terry (District 2)

State Officials – Iowa

• Governor Terry Branstad

• Lieutenant Governor Kimberly Reynolds

State Officials – Nebraska

• Governor Dave Heineman

• Lieutenant Governor Rick Sheehy

Native American Tribes

• Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe

• Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska

• Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma

• Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas

• Omaha Tribe of Nebraska

• Otoe–Missouria Tribe of Oklahoma

• Ponca Tribe of Nebraska

• Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation

• Sac & Fox Nation of Oklahoma
Appendix I: Communications List

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

283

• Sac & Fox Tribe of Missouri

• Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi

• Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska

• Sisseton–Wahpeton Oyate

• Three Affiliated Tribes

• Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

• Yankton Sioux Tribe

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Offices

• Divisions of Conservation Planning, Regions 1–8

• Big Muddy NWR (Missouri)

• Squaw Creek NWR (Missouri)

• Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office

• Rock Island Ecological Services Field Office (Illinois)

• Columbia Ecological Services Field Office (Missouri)

• Columbia Fisheries Office (Missouri)

• Gavins Point National Fish Hatchery (South Dakota)

Federal Agencies

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District

• National Park Service, Midwest Office

• National Park Service, Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail

• USDA, Natural Resources Conservation District, Iowa State Office

• USDA, Natural Resources Conservation District, West Pottawattamie County District

• USDA, Natural Resources Conservation District, Nebraska State Office

• USDA, Natural Resources Conservation District, Blair Service Center

• U.S. Geological Survey

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Midwest Region

State Agencies

• Iowa Department of Natural Resources

• Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wilson Island State Recreation Area

• Iowa Department of Public Safety
Appendix I: Communications List

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

284

• Iowa Department of Economic Development

• State Historical Society of Iowa

• Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

• Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commission

• Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Fort Atkinson State Historical Park

• Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

• Nebraska State Historical Society

• Nebraska State Patrol

• Nebraska Division of Travel and Tourism

• Papio–Missouri River Natural Resources District (Nebraska)

Counties (Washington, Nebraska; Harrison and Pottawattamie, Iowa)

• Washington County Historical Society

• Washington County Board of Supervisors

• Washington County Sheriff’s Office

• Washington County Planning and Zoning

• Harrison County Board of Supervisors

• Harrison County Sheriff’s Office

• Harrison County Conservation Board

• Harrison–Pottawattamie Drainage District

• Pottawattamie County Conservation Board

• Pottawattamie County Conservation Board, Hitchcock Nature Center

• Pottawattamie County Office of Planning and Development

• Pottawattamie County Board of Supervisors

• Pottawattamie County Sheriff’s Office

• Historical Society of Pottawattamie County

Cities (Missouri Valley, Iowa; Blair, Nebraska; Fort Calhoun, Nebraska; Omaha, 

Nebraska)

• Missouri Valley Mayor’s Office

• Missouri Valley Chamber of Commerce

• Missouri Valley Fire Department

• Blair Mayor’s Office

• Blair Chamber of Commerce
Appendix I: Communications List

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

285

• Fort Calhoun City Council

• Fort Calhoun Planning Commission

• Fort Calhoun Drainage District

• Omaha Chamber of Commerce

Schools

• University of Nebraska – Omaha

• University of Nebraska – Lincoln

• Northwestern University, Environmental Policy and Culture Program

• Blair Community Schools

• Fort Calhoun Community Schools

• Missouri Valley Schools

• Edison Schools

• CAM Schools

Public Libraries

• Omaha Public Library

• Council Bluffs Public Library

• Missouri Valley Public Library

• Blair Public Library

Organizations – National, Regional, and Local

• Humane Society of the United States

• The Wilderness Society

• National Trappers Association

• Wilderness Watch

• Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Refuge Keeper

• The Conservation Fund

• National Wildlife Federation

• National Wildlife Refuge Association

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

• Sierra Club, Midwest Office

• Sierra Club, Nebraska Chapter
Appendix I: Communications List

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

286

• National Audubon Society

• National Audubon Society, Omaha Chapter

• Environmental Defense Fund

• The Nature Conservancy

• The Nature Conservancy, Nebraska Field Office

• The Nature Conservancy, Iowa Loess Hills Program Office

• Animal Protection Institute

• Defenders of Wildlife

• Ducks Unlimited

• Isaak Walton League of America

• Missouri Valley Waterfowlers Association

• Duck Callers Association of Nebraska

• Fontenelle Nature Association

• Nebraska Wildlife Federation

• Friends of Boyer Chute and DeSoto National Wildlife Refuges

Media

• Blair Enterprise Publishing, Inc.

• Columbus Telegram

• Daily Fremont Tribune

• Douglas County Post-Gazette

• Gretna Breeze

• Home & Away Magazine

• Iowa Travel & Tourism

• KFAB Radio

• KVNO Radio

• Logan Herald Observer

• Missouri Valley Times

• Nebraska Public Radio Network

• Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

• Nonpareil Newspaper

• Omaha Events – American City Calendar

• Omaha World Herald
Appendix I: Communications List

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

287

• Rustler Sentinel

Businesses and Individuals

• Henry Doorly Zoo

• Durham Western Heritage Museum

• Rockford Farms, Inc.

• All refuge neighbors

• All individuals who submitted comments, participated in open houses, attended planning 

meetings, or otherwise participated in the planning process
Appendix J: Research Conducted on the Refuges

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

288

Appendix J: Research Conducted on the Refuges

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

Becker, T. A. (1997). A Survey of Frogs and Toads and Other Herpetofauna at Schramm Park 

State Recreation Area, Mahoney State Park, and DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge. M.A. 

thesis, University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Berkeley, L. I. (2004). The Postfledgling Ecology of Dickcissels (Spiza americana). M.S. thesis, 

University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Brand, C. J. (1984). Avian Cholera in the Central and Mississippi Flyways during 1979–80. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 48: 399–406.

Brotherton, T. S. (1984). The Pollination Ecology of Asclepias incarnata L. subsp. incarnata. 

M.A. thesis, University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Dunlap, D. G. and Kruse, K.C. (1976). Frogs of the Rana pipiens Complex in the Northern and 

Central Plains States. Southwestern Naturalist 20: 559–571.

Engberg, S. E. (2004). Landscape and Habitat Effects on Grassland Birds. M.A. thesis, 

University of Nebraska, Omaha.

Frederick, R. B. (1979). Resource Utilization and Behavior of Migrating Snow Geese at DeSoto 

NWR. M.S. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames.

Frederick, R. B.; Clark, W. R.; and Klaas, E. E. (1987). Behavior, Energetics, and Management 

of Refuging Waterfowl: A Simulation Model. Wildlife Monographs 96: 1–35.

Frederick, R. B. and Johnson, R. R. (1983). Ross’ Geese Increasing in Central North America. 

Condor 85: 257–258.

Frederick, R. B. and Klaas, E. E. (1982). Resource Use and Behavior of Migrating Snow Geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 46: 601–614.

Frederick, R. B. and Klaas, E. E. (1984). A Method for Sampling Waste Corn. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48: 298–303.

Gilsdorf, J. M. (2002). Effectiveness of Frightening Devices for Reducing Deer Damage in 

Cornfields. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Gilsdorf, J. M.; Hygnstrom, S. E.; VerCauteren, K. C.; Blankenship, E. E.; and Engeman, R. M.

(2004). Propane Exploders and Electronic Guards were Ineffective at Reducing Deer 

Damage in Cornfields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 524–531.

Gilsdorf, J. M., Hygnstrom, S. E.; VerCauteren, K. C.; Clements, G. M.; Blankenship, E. E.; and 

Engeman, R. M. (2004). Evaluation of a Deer-activated Bio-acoustic Frightening Device 

for Reducing Deer Damage in Cornfields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 515–523.
Appendix J: Research Conducted on the Refuges

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

289

Hansen, M. D. (1972). The Seasonal Diversity of Microorganisms in Channelized and 

Unchannelized Portions of the Missouri River. M.A. thesis, University of South Dakota, 

Vermillion.

Haugen, A. O. (1975). Reproductive Performance of White-Tailed Deer in Iowa. Journal of 

Mammalogy 56: 151–159.

Huggins, D. G. (1968). Limnology of DeSoto Bend Lake. M.S. thesis, Iowa State University, 

Ames.

Huggins, D. G. (1971). Scaphiopus bombifrons Cope, a Species New to Iowa. Journal of 

Herpetology 5: 216.

Klug, P. (2005). The Effects of Local Grassland Habitat and Surrounding Landscape 

Composition on the Predators of Grassland Bird Nests. M.S. thesis, University of 

Nebraska, Omaha.

Johnson, M. R. (1979). The Limnological Characteristics and Management of Four Western 

Iowa Oxbow Lakes (including DeSoto). M.S. thesis, Iowa State University, Ames.

Lovallo, M. J. and Vercauteren, K. C. (1994). An Evaluation of Electronic Versus Hand-Held 

Compasses for Telemetry Studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22: 662–667.

Mellott, L. (1983). A Survey of Small Mammal Species at DeSoto NWR.

Miller, W. J.; Haugen, A. O.; and Roslien, D. J. (1965). Natural Variation in the Blood Proteins of 

White-tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 29: 717–723.

Prevett, J. P. and MacInnes, C. D. (1972). The Number of Ross’ geese in Central North 

America. Condor 74: 431–438.

Van Dyke, F.; Van Kley, S. E.; Page, C. E.; and Van Beek, J. G. (2004). Restoration Efforts for 

Plant and Bird Communities in Tallgrass Prairies Using Prescribed Burning and Mowing. 

Restoration Ecology 12-4: 575–585.

Van Dyke, F.; Schmeling, J. D.; Starkenburg, S.; Yoo, S. H.; and Stewart, P.W. (2007).

Responses of Plant and Bird Communities to Prescribed Burning in Tallgrass Prairies. 

Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 827–839.

VerCauteren, K. C.; Gilsdorf, J. M.; Hygnstrom, S. E.; Fioranelli, P. B.; Wilson, J. A.; and Barras, 

S. (2006). Green and Blue Lasers are Ineffective for Dispersing Deer at Night. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 34: 371–374.

VerCauteren, K. C. and Hygnstrom, S. E. (1998). Effects of Agricultural Activities and Hunting 

on Home Ranges of Female White-tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 280–

285.

ZooknRider, N. L. (2006). The Cumulative Effects of Using Transgenic Herbicide-tolerant (Ht) 

Soybeans on Plant and Butterfly Diversity in Marginal Field Habitat. M.S. thesis, 

University of Nebraska, Omaha.
Appendix J: Research Conducted on the Refuges

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

290

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

Berkeley, L. (2004). The Postfledging Ecology of Dickcissels (Spiza americana). M.S. Thesis, 

Department of Biology, University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Clements, G.; Hygnstrom, S.; and VerCauteren, K. (2003–Present). White-tailed Deer at Boyer 

Chute National Wildlife Refuge: Home Range, Movements, and Survival of Male Deer in 

the Missouri River Valley. University of Nebraska at Lincoln and USDA/APHIS National 

Wildlife Research Center: Fort Collins, Colorado.

Delucchi, C. (2008–2009). Survey of Native Fields at Boyer Chute NWR (Fire Effects 

Monitoring). Department of Biology, Dana College: Blair, Nebraska.

Engberg, S. (2004). Landscape and Habitat Effects on Grassland Birds. M.S. Thesis, 

Department of Biology, University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Hesse, L. W. (1994). “The Morphometry, Macroinvertebrates, and Ichthyofauna of the Restored 

Boyer Chute: Missouri River, Nebraska.” Final report for Contract DACW45-94-D-0036, 

and Summary Report (1996). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Project Development 

Branch, Omaha District.

Klug, P. (2005). The Effects of Local Grassland Habitat and Surrounding Landscape 

Composition on the Predators of Grassland Bird Nests. M.S. Thesis, Department of 

Biology, University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Latella, I. (2004). Herpetological Survey of Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge. Department of 

Biology, Dana College: Blair, Nebraska.

McCarty, J. and Wolfenbarger, L. (2002–Present). Study of Grassland Bird Ecology: Grassland 

Bird Community Survey/Census, Reproductive Success Monitoring, Vegetation 

Structure and Insect Biomass Sampling. Department of Biology, University of Nebraska 

at Omaha.

O’Connell, K. A. and Ferraro, D. M. (2008). A Herpetological Survey of Boyer Chute National 

Wildlife Refuge: Washington County, Nebraska. School of Natural Resources, University 

of Nebraska at Lincoln.

Schwarz, M. and Lydick, C. (2007). Laboratory and Field Evaluation of Atrazine and Selenium 

Exposure and Effects to Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus): Implications for 

Recovery Actions within the Platte River Section of Recovery Priority Management Area 

4 and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge. Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office: 

Grand Island, Nebraska.

Sexton, N. R.; Dietsch, A. M.; Don Carlos, A. W.; Koontz, L.; Solomon, A. N.; and Miller, H. M. 

(2011). National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey 2010/2011: Individual Refuge Results for 

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge. U. S. Geological Survey Data Series 643.

Simmons, K.; McCarty, J.; and Wolfenbarger, L. (2005–2007). Impacts of Visitors to Natural 

Areas on Forest Birds. Department of Biology, University of Nebraska at Omaha.
Appendix J: Research Conducted on the Refuges

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

291

Toll, G. (2000). Grassland Breeding Bird Study of Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge: Nongame Bird Survey. USFWS, Region 3: Minneapolis, Minnesota.

ZooknRider, N. (2006). The Cumulative Effects of Using Transgenic Herbicide-Tolerant (Ht) 

Soybeans on Plant and Butterfly Diversity in Marginal Field Habitat. M.S. Thesis, 

Department of Biology, University of Nebraska at Omaha.
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

292

Appendix K: Response to Comments on the EA and 

Draft CCP

In this appendix:

Biological Management

Visitor Services

Planning Process

Planning Document Structure and Content

The Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (EA/Draft CCP)

was released to stakeholders and the public with a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal 

Register, through local media outlets, and with mail and e-mail communications on September 

20, 2013. The 30-day review and comment period was interrupted by the federal government 

shutdown from October 1–16, 2013, and was therefore extended for an additional three weeks, 

ending November 8, 2013. Following the federal government shutdown the public open houses 

originally scheduled for October 2 (DeSoto NWR) and October 3 (Fort Calhoun Library) were 

rescheduled to November 5 (Fort Calhoun Library) and November 7 (DeSoto NWR). Ten 

individuals or groups submitted comments containing over 25 individual comment topics. Some 

comments were received from members of the general public, but comments were also 

submitted by the Izaak Walton League of America, Missouri Valley Waterfowlers, Safari Club 

International, and the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Comments both supported and opposed a number of management actions proposed in the 

environmental assessment’s range of alternatives. The comments spanned a wide variety of 

subjects including thoughts on a diversity of refuge habitats and wildlife; mixed reviews on the 

future of the refuge agriculture program; questions regarding the use of management tools like 

prescribed fire and chemicals; concerns about the control of invasive species; interest in land 

acquisition, floodplain conservation, and water rights; both pro and con reviews of public uses 

like hunting, mushroom gathering, and allowing leashed dogs; a number of questions and 

thoughts on overall public access and the development of visitor infrastructure; and a few 

comments on the refuge planning process. Overall, public comments were positive, 

constructive, and supportive of the proposed future direction of management on the refuges.

Each comment was carefully considered and, where appropriate, changes were made to the 

CCP in response to the thoughts and concerns expressed. The full range of comment 

submissions is represented in the sections below, but similar or duplicate comments were

grouped or eliminated to reduce redundancy. Comments are grouped by subject, and a 

response has been provided to each by staff from the refuges.

The refuges thank all of the individuals who submitted comments and feedback during the CCP 

process.

Biological Management

Comment 1: Agriculture

Maintain agricultural acres around seasonally flooded wetlands so that they can provide 

supplemental migratory habitat and attract larger concentrations of migratory waterfowl.
Appendix K:Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

293

No farming should occur on the refuges.

Maintaining farming on managed lands would provide income from rent and would help retain 

wildlife and migratory birds.

Response: Limited agricultural practices will be used to further native habitat goals. 

Agriculture as a management tool is valuable for the preparation of seed beds and the ability 

to set back succession. Crops will be planted by refuge staff and will be non-GMO (nongenetically modified organism) with no pesticide or herbicide treatment. Crops will provide 

supplemental food for wildlife, and no crops will be harvested for profit.

Comment 2: Wetland Habitat

How many acres of wetlands will be created on DeSoto NWR? Are there plans to create 

wetlands on the west (Nebraska) side of the Missouri River at DeSoto NWR?

I am glad to see waterfowl numbers increasing on DeSoto NWR, keep restoring wetlands and 

pumping water to create new waterfowl habitat.

Response: Under the preferred alternative, up to 1,900 acres of wetlands may occur 

seasonally on DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges during wet periods and high water events. 

Three wetland sites on the West Side Unit of DeSoto NWR are included in the Final CCP

(see figure 4-2, Future Land Cover) and these areas will be considered for improvements in 

the habitat step-down management plan. The preferred alternative (D) of the EA calls for 

aggressive wetland restoration and management on the refuges to provide a diversity of 

bottomland habitats that have largely disappeared from the Missouri River floodplain.

Comment 3: Forest Habitat

The preferred alternative (D) may be a little aggressive in creating forest habitat.

Response: Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring refuge habitats to historic 

conditions if doing so is feasible and does not conflict with refuge purposes. The forest 

habitat objective in Alternative D of the EA reflects what we believe was historically forested 

habitat along the Missouri River floodplain. In addition, there are many natural resource 

benefits to providing forested buffers along waterways including wildlife habitat, soil 

stabilization during rain and flood events, canopy interception of rain, thermal protection of

water surfaces, and carbon sequestration.

Comment 4: Grassland Habitat

The grassland objectives for the ‘no action’ (alternative A) and the proposed action (alternative 

D) as expressed in Table 3-3 do not identify that grassland management priority is reduced.

Response: Table 3-3 of the EA and Draft CCP provides a direct comparison of the 

objectives across all four alternatives. The grassland objective (1.3) for Alternative A 

maintains a combined 5,950 acres of grasslands, and Alternative D proposes a combined 

3,850 acres. The 35 percent decrease in grassland acres illustrates the shift from grassland 

habitats to other habitat types on the refuges.
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

294

Comment 5: Prescribed Fire Program

Prescribed fire should not be used on the refuges because of the air pollution created, human 

health concerns, and cost to management.

Response: Chapter 4 of the EA and Draft CCP contains an evaluation of the effects of 

prescribed fire on air quality (pages 126–127). Prescribed fire is an important mechanism, 

both historically and presently, for maintaining healthy and diverse prairies and grasslands. 

All tools for habitat management and restoration involve trade-offs. The adverse impacts

and cost of herbicide use and heavy machinery required to maintain this habitat type without 

burning would exceed the adverse impacts of prescribed fire.

Comment 6: Invasive Species Control Methods

The Service should not use chemical methods (i.e., Glyphosate) for controlling invasive plant 

species.

We encourage the use of aggressive control measures to constrain the spread of invasive plant 

and animals species, especially Asian carp and zebra mussels.

Response: As indicated in the EA and Draft CCP (page 150) the refuges use a variety of 

methods to control invasive species including herbicides. The type of invasive species in 

combination with site conditions help determine control methods. In general, the refuges 

minimize the use of herbicides, and their use and application must follow the Service’s 

pesticide use policies. The refuges also maintain active partnerships with the Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources, Nebraska Game & Parks, and the Columbia (Missouri)

Fisheries Office to find new and successful ways to control invasive species that affect the 

refuges. The use of chemical controls for non-native and invasive species is only used in 

situations where other means are not available or practical.

Comment 7: Management of DeSoto Lake

More detail should be included about changes to DeSoto Lake over the next 15 years under 

Alternative B (i.e., geomorphology changes due to sedimentation and degree of sustainability 

under present Corps management).

There is too much latitude provided for management of DeSoto Lake under the proposed action 

(alternative D); instead, one management condition should be specified.

The expected impacts to the abundance and distribution of sport fish in DeSoto Lake from its 

managed connectivity to the Missouri River should be further explained. Are the expected 

impacts justified? What are the expected benefits to endemic riverine fishes? How will success 

be measured?

Response: The best available science was used to model a range of future conditions in 

DeSoto Lake under Alternative B, including high resolution LiDAR data and extrapolated

seasonal flow conditions based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) management of 

the Missouri River. The future sedimentation rate within DeSoto Lake has a high degree of 

variability based on factors such as the design of the inlet and outlet water control 

structures, refuge management of flows, erosion and runoff in the surrounding watershed, 

and Missouri River sediment loads.
Appendix K:Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

295

The preferred alternative (D) of the EA proposes to increase management options and 

flexibility for DeSoto Lake. In general, refuges strive to maintain a broad diversity of 

management options to ensure resiliency and adaptive management capacity. 

Off-channel aquatic habitats such as backwaters, side-channels, and ephemeral wetlands

are historically and scientifically validated management options for benefiting endemic 

riverine fish species. The success of changes to lake management will be measured 

through monitoring and surveys coordinated with partner agencies and organizations.

Minimal impacts to DeSoto Lake’s sport fishery are expected as connectivity is increased to 

the Missouri River. A number of fish species are expected to benefit from improved 

spawning habitat and a larger prey species population.

Comment 8: Waterfowl 

What is DeSoto NWR’s 15-year goal for waterfowl numbers?

We support restoring the habitat needed to attract and maintain migrating waterfowl populations 

as both refuges historically did.

Three million waterfowl use days may be too excessive. Waterfowl migration patterns are 

moving west and avoiding eastern Nebraska due to once pasture areas now having central 

pivot irrigation and growing crops, which in turn provides feeding areas.

Response: The refuges worked with state partners to draft the waterfowl objectives and 

believe a target of three million annual waterfowl use days is achievable. 

Comment 9: Marshbirds

There isn’t much of a population of marshbirds on Boyer Chute NWR.

Response: In the past, the availability of required habitats was a limiting factor for 

marshbird populations at Boyer Chute NWR. The preferred alternative (D) of the EA 

proposes to restore drained wetlands and provide the additional habitats required by these 

birds.

Comment 10: Water Rights

A water rights section should be added that includes a brief description of Nebraska and Iowa 

water law and administration, a concise description of each state’s permitting requirements, and 

the water rights held by both refuges.

Response: A water rights section has been added to the Final CCP (see the Water 

Resources section, chapter 3).

Comment 11: Levees

Changes to the levee system on DeSoto NWR are not evaluated across the alternatives, and 

there is no discussion of levee modifications to reconnect the floodplain to the river.
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

296

Response: The levee system was discussed during the planning process on multiple 

occasions, and it was decided that no changes would be proposed under any alternative. 

The levee system on the refuge impacts a large geographic area, much of which spans nonService lands. If changes are proposed to the levee system in the future, the changes will 

be discussed collaboratively in the levee district and fully evaluated for benefits and adverse 

impacts not only to the refuge, but on the entire impact area.

Comment 12: Floodplain Protection

Additional floodplain land should be put into conservation uses due to future flood risks.

We encourage the new management plan to consider levee setbacks whenever possible.

Response: Refuge management supports these ideas, and all future land acquisition

planning will consider these factors.

Comment 13: Boyer Chute NWR Land Acquisition

Management should emphasize the full acquisition of Boyer Chute NWR’s existing authorized 

boundary.

Expand the Boyer Chute NWR acquisition boundary to include adjacent uplands for the 

restoration of native prairie habitat.

Response: As funding and willing sellers allow, refuge management will continue its efforts 

to acquire the lands within Boyer Chute NWR’s authorized boundary. At this time there are

no plans to expand existing approved boundaries.

Visitor Services

Comment 14: Hunting

Hunting should be reduced or eliminated – other wildlife population controls should be 

employed. 

We support additional hunting on the refuges for use as a conservation tool and for the 

provision of additional recreational opportunities. Hunting has been recognized by the Service 

as a priority use of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

I am in favor of public lands being made available to the public for hunting and fishing. This 

produces people who are concerned for and support conservation (i.e. ducks unlimited, 

pheasants forever, etc.)

Response: Hunting is a priority use of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuges 

administer hunt programs to achieve healthy local deer populations and to provide positive 

recreational experiences to the public.
Appendix K:Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

297

Comment 15: Consumptive Uses of the Refuges

The refuges should not allow uses that incur take of animals or plants. Hunting, mushroom 

gathering, and wood cutting/harvesting should be prohibited on refuge lands.

Response: These uses have been approved through the refuge compatibility process

documented in appendix G of the EA and Draft CCP and are considered to have either 

beneficial effects or negligible adverse effects. In some cases these consumptive uses aid 

management by reducing maintenance costs or assisting with wildlife population 

management.

Comment 16: New Trails

New trails should not be expanded beyond current conditions; resources to build and manage 

new trails would be better spent on wildlife management and habitat enhancement.

Response: New trails proposed in the preferred alternative (D) of the EA are intended to

replace trails abandoned after the 2011 flood, and they will be planned and designed to 

minimize future maintenance costs. If there is a conflict between biological goals and public 

use, it is the refuges’ responsibility to prioritize wildlife management and habitat 

enhancement.

Comment 17: Trails Damaged by Floods

Will the trails near the DeSoto NWR Visitor Center, the Bertrand Discovery Site, and Wood 

Duck area be restored? These were good wildlife observation trails.

Response: Some of the refuges’ flood-damaged trails will not be rebuilt because they are 

located in flood prone areas or pose safety risks due to flood-caused tree mortality. All 

refuge trails continue to be assessed for their ability to provide a quality and safe visitor 

experiences while minimizing disturbance to wildlife.

Comment 18: Seasonal Closure of DeSoto Lake

Why is it necessary to close the west arm of DeSoto Lake for the migration season?

Response: DeSoto Lake has always closed during the migration season to reduce 

disturbance to migrating waterfowl and waterbirds during these critical periods.

Comment 19: Seasonal Closure of the South Gate

The South Gate should remain open year-round for public access.

Response: The South Gate has always remained closed during the migration to avoid 

disturbance during these critical periods.

Comment 20: New Boat Ramp on DeSoto Lake

The future location of the new boat ramp on the south end of DeSoto Lake is a prime bank 

fishing area and launch activities will be disruptive to anglers. Why not use existing boat launch 

areas?
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

298

Response: All boat ramps on DeSoto NWR were damaged during the 2011 flood and 

continue to be subject to periodic inundations. The objectives in the CCP seek to reduce 

impacts to infrastructure during floods and high water conditions. The new boat ramp is 

higher in elevation and will provide additional lake access while reducing the risk of 

infrastructure damage during floods. Bank fishing will still be available at the new ramp 

location, and should not be impacted by the ramp.

Comment 21: Bertrand Discovery Site Interpretation

The pond and overlook at the Bertrand Discovery Site are enjoyed by many visitors. We hope 

that there isn’t a plan to fill in the pond and remove the observation platform. 

Response: Much of the Bertrand Discovery Site was damaged during the 2011 flood and is 

in need of repair and improvement. The plan for interpreting the site has not yet been fully 

vetted or approved, and will be further evaluated through the visitor services step-down 

management plan. One of many options for the site’s redevelopment is to fill in the 

excavation scar.

Comment 22: Refuge Roads

Heavily used gravel roads should be paved (i.e. DeSoto Refuge’s Loop Road) to improve the 

habitat quality, reduce maintenance costs, and improve visitor satisfaction.

Response: The high cost of paving and the long-term maintenance of asphalt road

surfaces are not justified for seasonally-used gravel roads.

Comment 23: General Refuge Access 

Maximize public access to areas of both DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges west of the Missouri 

river.

Response: Public access to both refuges is being expanded under the preferred alternative

(D). However, all changes to public access must be compatible with the purposes of the 

refuges and designed to support wildlife and habitat management. Access to DeSoto 

NWR’s West Side Unit expands from a short mushroom collection season to three-season 

access (during non-migratory periods), and additional units of Boyer Chute NWR will be 

seasonally open to the public (see figures 4-4 and 4-5 of the Final CCP for additional 

information). 

Comment 24: Refuge Access for Wildlife Observation and Photography

Under the proposed future management hunters can access approximately 95% of both refuges 

during the hunting season, whereas non-hunters are limited to 45% at DeSoto NWR and 80% at 

Boyer Chute NWR. Is it possible to allow non-hunters into closed zones for special events or 

limited seasons?

Response: While the majority of both refuges are open for controlled deer hunts, this is 

done so to regulate game species populations and has biological and management 

efficiency benefits. Management decisions to limit access to portions of the refuge, or 
Appendix K:Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

299

during specific seasons, are carefully evaluated by refuge staff in order to meet biological 

goals while providing the best visitor experiences possible. 

Comment 25: Dogs on Refuges

Allowing leashed dogs could result in greater disturbance to wildlife and to other visitors, and it 

may be difficult to enforce leash regulations.

I am pleased to see allowing leashed dogs is a part of the proposed plan and urge early 

implementation of this point.

Response: Allowing leashed dogs on the refuges will increase management consistency 

with other national wildlife refuges throughout the Midwest Region of the Service. Refuge 

management does not anticipate that leashed dogs will increase the level of disturbance

above that which occurs from regular refuge visitation.

Comment 26: Floodplain Development

Government agencies should not build within the Missouri River floodplain.

Response: Management under the preferred alternative (D) of the EA does not propose

any new infrastructure in the floodplain. In fact, the preferred alternative actively reduces

much of the current floodplain infrastructure including assets with a combined valued of over 

two million dollars.

Comment 27: Refuge Support

It is important for the refuges to work in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and to look for additional support 

through partnerships, volunteers, and collaboration.

Response: The refuge will continue to expand and strengthen its relationships with these 

and other partners. 

Planning Process

Comment 28: Comment Period Length

The public review period for the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges’ EA and Draft CCP should 

be extended because the federal government shutdown limited the resources available for 

review and comment.

Response: The review and comment period was extended by three weeks from October 18 

to November 8, 2013 to account for the sixteen days lost during the federal government 

shutdown. The review period extension was announced using the same methods used to 

announce the original review period dates: a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 64970), 

media releases, a website, and an announcement sent to the refuges’ mailing list.
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

300

Comment 29: Public Scoping Outreach

Additional open houses should be held in other states during public review of the DeSoto and 

Boyer Chute Refuges’ Environmental Assessment (EA) and Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP).

Response: Resources available for review of the EA and Draft CCP are allocated as 

effectively as possible. Mailings and media releases are used to capture national and 

regional audiences, whereas open houses are held at the local level to engage the most 

frequent and invested visitors to the refuges. An open house was held on or adjacent to 

each of the refuges for public scoping (January/February, 2012) and again for public review 

of the EA and Draft CCP (September/October/November, 2013). According to a visitor 

survey conducted on DeSoto NWR (Sexton et al. 2011), most visitors to DeSoto NWR live 

within 50 miles of the refuge (63%) and 84% live in either Nebraska or Iowa. 

Comment 30: Audience for Review of the EA and Draft CCP

Review of EA and Draft CCP should include a broader audience, including independent 

reviewers.

Response: The availability of the EA and Draft CCP is announced nationally through the 

Federal Register, regionally and locally through media releases, and an announcement is 

sent to the refuges’ mailing list. Everyone is encouraged to review and comment on the 

draft document and the proposed management direction. The comments received by the 

refuges on the EA and Draft CCP came from individuals and groups both locally and 

nationally.

Planning Document Structure and Content

Comment 31: Combining the EA and Draft CCP

In the EA and Draft CCP why are the two documents integrated instead of separate documents 

as they have been in the past?

Response: Service policy 602 FW 3 (http://www.fws.gov/policy/602fw3.html) guides 

development of CCPs. The policy offers two options for structuring the associated 

documents, one separates the NEPA document from the Draft CCP and the other integrates 

the two. The DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges’ EA and Draft CCP is an example of the 

integrated document, though the Service has produced CCPs in the separated form as well. 

Separating the two documents places greater emphasis on the Draft CCP, less emphasis on 

the environmental assessment, and increases duplication of content. Integrating the NEPA 

document with the content of the Draft CCP places greater emphasis on the alternatives, 

“the heart of the NEPA process” as noted in Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations (Code of Federal Regulations 1502.14), and less on a discrete Draft CCP.

Comment 32: Organization of Chapter 4

The information presented in Chapter 4 (Refuge Environment, Current Management, and 

Environmental Effects) should have less detail and more organizational structure.
Appendix K:Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

301

The Refuge Environment and Current Management sections should be separate from the 

Environmental Impacts section.

Response: There is a larger volume of content in the Refuge Environment and Current 

Management chapter of this EA and Draft CCP, in part, because the document covers two 

refuges with very different establishment and management histories. Chapter 4 is organized 

to mirror the goal themes: habitat, wildlife, and people.

The environmental consequences can be organized by alternative or by resource. In the 

case of the DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges’ EA and Draft CCP it has been organized by 

resource and deliberately placed in close proximity to the description of the environment and 

current management sections.

Comment 33: DeSoto NWR’s 2001 CCP

The CCP should include the implementation status of the 2001 CCP.

Response: Important information from the 2001 DeSoto NWR CCP is included as 

appropriate throughout the revised CCP, including a summary in chapter 2 with habitat 

targets and highlights from the 2001 CCP’s goals, objectives, and strategies. Furthermore, 

the management of DeSoto NWR under the no action alternative (A) of the EA is an 

articulation of the 2001 CCP’s management direction. The quantity of material (25 goals, 43 

objectives, and 212 strategies) and general nature of the 2001 CCP’s management direction 

made direct tracking of goals, objectives, and strategies within the revised CCP impractical. 

Objectives and strategies from the 2001 CCP that identified specific targets (e.g., landcover 

acreages, deer populations, and staffing goals) were used in the development of the revised 

CCP. Finally, changes in the refuge’s natural resources (e.g., greatly reduced snow goose 

populations) and relevant science and Service policies (e.g., guidance on farming, climate 

change, and focal species) rendered aspects of the previous CCP out-of-date.

Comment 34: Purpose and Need Statement

The Purpose and Need statements in Chapter 1 address administrative requirements (the 

mandate to prepare a CCP) rather than on the existing challenges and resource conditions 

(planning issues), though the planning issues constitute a more compelling need.

Response: The Purpose and Need statements in chapter 1 of the EA cite a number of 

reasons for this planning effort—only one of which is Service policy. The additional

purposes and needs are as equally compelling and overlap the issues described in chapter 

2, including two subsequent years of catastrophic flooding and the decision to complex 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute Refuges. Also cited are changing public values, new scientific 

information, new agency policies, the benefit of periodic re-evaluation of management 

direction, and the intent to “ . . . select a management direction for the refuges that best 

achieves the refuges’ purposes and vision; contributes to the mission of the Refuge System; 

is consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management; and addresses 

relevant mandates, policy, and major issues developed during scoping.” 

Comment 35: Connection Between Planning Issues and Alternatives

The EA should have a clearer and more specific connection between the planning issues and 

the components of each alternative.
Appendix K: Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

302

Response: Although there are no direct issue references for the components of each 

alternative, all planning issues were reviewed and considered during the construction of the 

alternative management scenarios. The four alternatives represent a reasonable range of 

management options associated with the challenges and opportunities presented in the 

issue statements.

Comment 36: Narrative Description and Comparison of Alternatives

In Chapter 3 more detail should be included for the narrative description of each alternative, and 

a clearer contrast between the alternatives.

Response: Chapter 3 of the EA and Draft CCP provides a description of the alternatives in 

two formats: narrative and tabular. The narrative description is designed to be general in 

nature and more concise—providing a digestible overview of each alternative. The second 

representation of the alternatives found in table 3-3 of the EA provides a detailed, clearly 

articulated, side-by-side comparison of the objectives of the four alternatives. The 

redundancy of providing both formats is intended to offer audiences opportunities for both a 

brief, topical overview as well as a more detailed, in-depth analysis of the alternatives.

Comment 37: Environmental Consequence Table (3-4)

Table 3-4, Summary of Environmental Consequences across the Alternatives, is not helpful in 

evaluating the impacts of the alternatives.

Response: The Environmental Effects table (3-4) is designed to provide a concise summary 

of the numerous and complex effects of the management across the alternatives. Additional 

detail is found in the effects write-ups accompanying each resource in chapter 4.

Comment 38: Specificity of Goals and Objectives

The EA/Draft CCP should include more specificity and detail as to how the refuge goals will be 

achieved, identifying the metrics for the successful implementation of the CCP.

Individual objectives lack specifics and do not allow the reader to distinguish how proposed 

management is different from current management.

There should be more detail and a clearer differentiation between the ‘no action’ alternative (A) 

and the proposed action (alternative D).

Response: The term “goal” is defined in the glossary of the EA and Draft CCP as “a 

descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that 

conveys purposes but does not define measurable units.” The goals in the EA and Draft 

CCP are consistent with this definition. The combination of objectives and strategies in the 

EA and Draft CCP (chapter 4 the Final CCP) are designed to be specific, measurable, 

attainable, results-oriented, and time-bound. Step-down management plans are obligated in 

situations where additional information is needed for management decisions and a finer 

resolution of management actions are to be prescribed.

The alternatives each offer a different way to meet the goals. Variation in amount, location, 

and type are common elements that provide the difference between alternatives. Table 3-3 
Appendix K:Response to Comments on the EA and Draft CCP 

DeSoto and Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuges / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

303

in the EA and Draft CCP provides a direct, side-by-side comparison of all four alternatives. 

This table best illustrates the magnitude of change between Alternative A (no action) and 

Alternative D (proposed action).


DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

1434 316th Lane

Missouri Valley, IA 51555–7033

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/desoto

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

3720 Rivers Way

Ft. Calhoun, NE 68023-4005

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/boyer_chute

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/midwest