U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 3 (Midwest Region); Bloomington, MN

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Neal Smith

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan
Cover Photograph: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

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)
Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

Neal Smith 

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background ......................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose and Need for Plan.............................................................................................................2

1.3 Refuge Establishment and Purposes..............................................................................................2

1.4 Refuge Vision and Goals.................................................................................................................4

1.5 Legal and Policy Framework...........................................................................................................6

1.6 Other Conservation Initiatives........................................................................................................8

Chapter 2: The Planning Process.................................................................................................................12

2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................12

2.2 Scoping and Public Involvement ..................................................................................................12

2.3 Summary of Issues........................................................................................................................13

2.4 Preparation, Finalization, and Implementation of the CCP..........................................................19

2.5 Public Comments on the Draft CCP..............................................................................................19

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management....................................................................................22

3.1 Refuge Environment.....................................................................................................................22

3.1.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting .............................................................................................22

3.1.2 Physical Environment............................................................................................................24

3.1.3 Biological Environment .........................................................................................................32

3.1.4 Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................................................40

3.1.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................41

3.2 Refuge Management....................................................................................................................44

3.2.1 Biological Program ................................................................................................................44

3.2.2 Visitor Services Program .......................................................................................................61

3.2.3 Administration.......................................................................................................................68
Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction .................................................................................................70

4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................70

4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationales..............................................................................70

4.2.1 Habitat...................................................................................................................................70

4.2.2 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................83

4.2.3 People....................................................................................................................................88

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation.................................................................................................................95

5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................95

5.2 Funding.........................................................................................................................................95

5.3 Staffing..........................................................................................................................................97

5.4 Partnership Opportunities............................................................................................................98

5.5 Step-Down Management Plans....................................................................................................98

5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation...........................................................................................................99

5.7 Plan Review and Revision.............................................................................................................99

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact...........................................................................................100

Appendix B: Land Protection Plan.............................................................................................................101

Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations ..............................................................................................110

Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations.........................................................................................148

Appendix E: Floristic Quality Assessment.................................................................................................167

Appendix F: Bibliography ..........................................................................................................................169

Appendix G: Summary of Refuge Ecosystems..........................................................................................173

Appendix H: Birds of Special Consideration..............................................................................................174

Appendix I: Invasive Plants .......................................................................................................................175

Appendix J: Species Lists...........................................................................................................................177

Appendix K: Research Publications (2001–2011) .....................................................................................189

Appendix L: Compliance Requirements....................................................................................................193

Appendix M: Glossary ...............................................................................................................................199

Appendix N: List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................202
Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Location of Neal Smith NWR ......................................................................................................1

Figure 1-2: Aerial Photo of Neal Smith NWR ................................................................................................3

Figure 1-3: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.....................................................................................10

Figure 3-1: Conservation Lands in the Area of Neal Smith NWR................................................................23

Figure 3-2: Landforms of Iowa ....................................................................................................................25

Figure 3-3: Soil Associations........................................................................................................................27

Figure 3-4: Walnut Creek Watershed .........................................................................................................30

Figure 3-5: Stream Channel Evolution ........................................................................................................31

Figure 3-6: Current Land Cover, Neal Smith NWR......................................................................................35

Figure 3-7: Current Visitor Services Facilities, Neal Smith NWR.................................................................63

Figure 4-1: Neal Smith NWR Generalized Future Land Cover.....................................................................72

Figure 4-2: Refuge Boundary Expansion.....................................................................................................80

Figure 4-3: Future Configuration of Hiking Trails........................................................................................91

Figure B-1: Map of Alternatives................................................................................................................109

List of Tables

Table 3-1: Major soil series and attributes.................................................................................................26

Table 3-2: Changes in population, employment, and income 1995-2005..................................................40

Table 3-3: Prescribed burn history 1993–2010...........................................................................................51

Table 3-4: Visitor numbers..........................................................................................................................62

Table 3-5: Where do visitors come from? ..................................................................................................62

Table 4-1: Bird populations on Neal Smith NWR........................................................................................84

Table 5-1: Current and proposed Neal Smith NWR staffing .......................................................................98

Table 5-2: Step-down management plans..................................................................................................99

Table B-1: Summary of land protection by environmental assessment alternative on Neal Smith NWR103
Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

(This page intentionally left blank)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

In this chapter

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Purpose and Need for Plan

1.3 Refuge Establishment and Purposes

1.4 Refuge Vision and Goals

1.5 Legal and Policy Framework

1.6 Other Conservation Initiatives

1.1 Introduction

Located about 20 miles east of Des Moines, Iowa (figure 1-1), Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, 

Refuge) was established in 1990 as Walnut Creek NWR. The name was changed by Congress in 1998 to 

honor Congressman Neal Smith, whose support was instrumental in establishment of the Refuge. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) is authorized to acquire 8,665 acres of land within the 

Walnut Creek watershed to reconstruct a piece of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem essentially “from 

scratch” on former farmland. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. Although the tallgrass prairie 

ecosystem once covered much of the central United States and Canada, it is now globally endangered. 

Less than one percent of this historic mosaic of prairie, savanna, and wetlands remains today. Many 

prairie-dependent wildlife species are declining range-wide.

Figure 1-1: Location of Neal Smith NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

Refuge restoration efforts already have provided for a diversity of life on the Refuge including hundreds 

of native plant species, over 200 bird species, and dozens of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and 

butterflies. Prescribed fire and grazing are used to emulate historic processes that maintained the 

diversity of the landscape. 

Approximately 140,000 visitors come to the Refuge each year to enjoy the prairie environment, to learn 

about the Refuge and the tallgrass heritage of central Iowa, and to participate in wildlife-related 

outdoor activities. The Neal Smith National Wildlife Visitor Center is a major environmental education 

facility that includes exhibits, meeting rooms, theater, laboratory-classroom, bookstore, and research 

facilities. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for Plan

The purpose of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is to guide management and administration 

of the Refuge for the next 15 years and to help ensure that the Refuge meets the purposes for which it 

was established, contributes to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, 

Refuge System), and adheres to Service policies and other mandates. The CCP describes the desired 

future condition of the Refuge and provides guidance for management actions and decisions. It 

addresses identified issues of significance, sets goals and measurable objectives, and outlines strategies 

for reaching those objectives. The planning process informs and involves the general public, state and 

federal agencies, and non-government groups who have an interest, responsibility, or authority related 

to the Refuge.

This CCP is needed to provide long-term management direction that reflects lessons learned since the 

last comprehensive plan (known as a Master Plan) was completed in 1992. Large-scale reconstruction of 

the tallgrass prairie ecosystem using local ecotype seed had never before been attempted. The Master 

Plan provided initial guidance for the newly established Refuge and recognized that management 

programs would need to adapt over time as experimental approaches were tested. 

In addition, the landscape has undergone changes that affect habitat and wildlife, new threats to the 

Refuge are emerging, new laws and policies have been put in place, and new scientific information is 

available. Updated management guidance is needed that reflects these changes to help achieve Refuge 

goals for habitat, wildlife, and visitor services. 

1.3 Refuge Establishment and Purposes

Congress authorized the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major 

parcel of land (about 3,600 acres) was purchased by the Service in April 1991 from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power. Previously, this property had been targeted for a nuclear 

power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are included 

within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far (figure 1-2).
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

Figure 1-2: Aerial Photo of Neal Smith NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

Each unit of the Refuge System has one or more purposes specified in or derived from the legal 

instruments that established, authorized, or expanded it. Chapter 601 FW 1 of the Service Manual 

provides guidance for determining refuge purposes and using them in administration and management 

of the Refuge System. The purposes of Neal Smith NWR (formerly known as Walnut Creek NWR) derive 

from three authorities: 

" . . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . . 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) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986)

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 

U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)

Our first obligation is to fulfill these broad legislatively-based purposes. The vision, goals, and objectives 

contained in this CCP meet the purposes of Neal Smith NWR.

We also may manage the Refuge to achieve additional conservation objectives in a manner that first 

protects Refuge purposes. For example, Congressman Neal Smith of Iowa saw Walnut Creek NWR as “an 

unusual opportunity for interpretive programs, wetlands, a habitat for some 300 species of indigenous 

and migratory birds, the regrowth of many acres of now scarce species of trees, buffalo and elk which 

were indigenous to the area, and the largest native prairie grass fields in Iowa,” and a place where “tens 

of thousands of school children” could use the area for outdoor study. (Congressional Record, H2727)

The Master Plan developed for the new Refuge in 1992 incorporated and expanded upon the 

Congressman’s vision and other early Refuge planning documents. The Master Plan provided ten-year 

guidance for the Refuge and recognized that changes would be needed as new information became 

available. Management priorities defined in the Master Plan were: 

• Restore native tallgrass prairie, wetland, and woodland habitats for breeding and migratory 

waterfowl and resident wildlife;

• Serve as a major environmental education center providing opportunities for study;

• Provide outdoor recreation benefits to the public; and

• Provide assistance to local landowners to improve their lands for wildlife habitat.

Although not considered Refuge purposes in the legal sense, these conservation priorities have guided 

Refuge management activities since 1992. Understanding the original focus of Refuge management has 

been helpful in informing the goals and objectives of this CCP.

1.4 Refuge Vision and Goals
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

The vision is a descriptive picture of how the Refuge will look in the future and provides a sense of 

direction and purpose. From the vision flow broad goal statements, which in turn provide the 

framework to craft more detailed and measurable objectives which are the heart of the CCP. The vision 

and goals are important as reference points for keeping objectives and strategies meaningful, focused, 

and attainable. 

1.4.1 Refuge Vision

The Refuge is a vast expanse of wind-swept prairie punctuated by sheltering oak savannas. 

Walnut Creek and its tributaries, bordered by sedge meadows, meander through the Refuge providing 

clean water for aquatic wildlife. Bound and connected to natural systems to the north and south, the 

Refuge forms a sanctuary and corridor for prairie-dependent wildlife species. These ecosystems are alive 

with a wide diversity of plants and wildlife that are thriving again. The natural processes that contribute 

to a healthy ecosystem include fire, grazing, nutrient cycling, pollination, and water filtration. These 

processes are working to improve life for plants, wildlife, and people. The picture of a landscape that 

existed before European-American settlement is renewed. 

Guided by sound biological information and ongoing research, this landscape continues to be 

rejuvenated through the dedicated work of staff, volunteers, and the support of the public and the 

many partners of the Refuge. People of all ages and abilities visit to experience the natural world using

all of their senses and to contribute to the ongoing efforts. Visitors come to the Visitor Center to learn 

new concepts and to learn about and use new tools and methods to restore prairies. Visitors leave the 

Refuge with a sense of belonging coupled with new knowledge of these ecosystems, a connection to the 

natural history of the region, and a desire to be involved in conservation. The Refuge is an open 

laboratory where experts and laypersons alike share information to demonstrate how to restore and 

reconstruct tallgrass prairie, oak savanna, and sedge meadow.

1.4.2 Refuge Goals

Habitat

The Refuge will actively protect, restore, reconstruct, and manage diverse native communities of 

tallgrass prairie, oak savanna, sedge meadow, and aquatic ecosystems and the natural processes 

essential to these ecosystems to enhance the vitality and health of the native prairie environment.

Wildlife

The Refuge will protect, restore, and maintain biologically diverse populations of native wildlife 

associated with healthy prairie, savanna, sedge meadow, and aquatic ecosystems, with an emphasis on 

grassland and savanna bird species including Greater Prairie-Chicken, Northern Bobwhite, Northern 

Harrier, Upland Sandpiper, Short-eared Owl, Red-headed Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, Loggerhead 

Shrike, Bell's Vireo, Sedge Wren, Eastern Bluebird, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow, Grasshopper 

Sparrow, Henslow's Sparrow, Le Conte’s Sparrow, Smith’s Longspur, Orchard Oriole, Dickcissel, Bobolink, 

Eastern Meadowlark, and Western Meadowlark. 

People

The Refuge will provide a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational and educational opportunities for 

visitors to experience and develop an appreciation for the native tallgrass prairie heritage, ecological 

processes, and cultural resources while participating in ecological restoration efforts or enjoying other 

activities on the Refuge.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

1.5 Legal and Policy Framework

Neal Smith NWR is managed and administered as part of the Refuge System within a framework of 

organizational setting, laws, and policy. Key aspects of the framework are outlined below. A list of other 

laws and executives orders that have guided preparation of the CCP and that guide future 

implementation are provided in Appendix L: Compliance Requirements.

1.5.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior (DOI). The 

Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving and enhancing the nation’s fish and 

wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the Service shares this responsibility with other federal, 

state, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has specific responsibilities for migratory birds, 

threatened and endangered species, certain interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and the 

Refuge System. 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.”

1.5.2 The National Wildlife Refuge System

The National Wildlife Refuge System had its beginning in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt used 

an Executive Order to set aside tiny Pelican Island in Florida as a refuge and breeding ground for birds. 

From that small beginning, the Refuge System has become the world’s largest collection of lands 

specifically set aside for wildlife conservation, including more than 550 national wildlife refuges covering 

over 150 million acres, plus 38 wetland management districts. The administration, management, and 

growth of the Refuge System are guided by the following goals:

• 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.

• 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).

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

wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

1.5.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and Related Policy

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) amended the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and became a true organic act for the 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

Refuge System by providing a mission, policy direction, and management standards. The Improvement 

Act’s main components include:

• A strong and singular wildlife conservation mission for the Refuge System;

• A requirement that the Secretary of the Interior maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System;

• A new process for determining compatible uses on refuges;

• A recognition that wildlife-dependent public uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, when determined to be 

compatible, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the Refuge System;

• That these compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses 

of the Refuge System; and

• A requirement to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge.

Compatibility Policy

No use that the Service has authority to regulate may be allowed on a unit of the Refuge System unless 

it is determined to be compatible (Service Manual, 603 FW 2). A compatible use is a use that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manager, will not materially interfere with or detract from 

the fulfillment of the Refuge System mission or the purposes of the national wildlife refuge. Managers 

must complete a written compatibility determination for each use, or collection of like-uses, that is 

signed by the manager and the Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System in the respective Service 

region.

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy

The Service is directed by the Improvement Act to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans . . . ” The biological integrity policy (Service Manual, 601 FW 3) helps define 

and clarify this directive by providing guidance on what conditions constitute biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health; guidelines for maintaining existing levels; guidelines for 

determining how and when it is appropriate to restore lost elements; and guidelines in dealing with 

external threats to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Policy (Service Manual, 605 FW 1)

The Improvement Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses; hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Congress 

directed the Service to grant these six wildlife-dependent public uses special consideration in the 

planning, management, establishment, and expansion of Refuges. In addition, if determined compatible 

on a refuge, these six uses assume priority status over any other uses proposed or occurring on a refuge. 

The Service is to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities when they do not 

interfere with the ability to fulfill refuge purposes or the mission of the Refuge System.

1.5.4 Wilderness Review

Refuge planning policy mandates that wilderness reviews be conducted through the 

comprehensive conservation planning process. The criteria are size, naturalness, opportunities for 

solitude or primitive recreation, and supplemental values. No lands within Neal Smith NWR met the 

criteria for wilderness established by Congress and described in Service policy (Service Manual, 605 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

FW1). Neal Smith NWR does not contain 5,000 contiguous acres of roadless, natural lands, nor does the 

Refuge possess any units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as wilderness. Refuge 

lands and waters have been substantially altered by humans, especially by agriculture, dam 

construction, river channel modifications, and road building.

1.6 Other Conservation Initiatives

The Service works closely with other government agencies and conservation organizations in developing 

a variety of regional, national, and international conservation plans and initiatives. Several of these 

efforts relevant to Neal Smith NWR are described below; their recommendations and priorities were 

reviewed and integrated where appropriate into this CCP.

1.6.1 Iowa Wildlife Action Plan

Congress mandated that all state fish and wildlife agencies develop a comprehensive wildlife 

conservation plan by October 1, 2005 as a condition of receiving federal funds through the State Wildlife 

Grant Program. These plans address the needs of a wide array of wildlife, including fish and many 

invertebrates, but focus primarily on species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) and their habitats. 

The Iowa Wildlife Action Plan includes priorities for protecting and enhancing existing habitats that 

benefit SGCN, and developing new 3,000–5,000 acre habitat blocks connected by travel corridors for 

wildlife. The plan recognizes that no single entity can implement all needed conservation actions and 

emphasizes the importance of partnerships. Neal Smith NWR and other nearby conservation areas are 

identified as high-priority areas for cooperative conservation partnerships. 

1.6.2 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives

Partners in Flight (PIF) was launched in 1990 in response to growing concerns about declines in the 

populations of many landbird species. The North American Landbird Conservation Plan includes 

priorities and objectives to guide national and international conservation efforts. PIF also has developed 

regional bird conservation plans based on physiographic areas. Neal Smith NWR lies within 

Physiographic Area 32, the Dissected Till Plains. The Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the 

Dissected Till Plains (Physiographic Area 32), completed in 2000, identifies priority bird species for 

grassland, savanna, riparian forest, and big river vegetation communities. Priority PIF species that also 

are of concern to Neal Smith NWR include Greater Prairie-Chicken, Northern Bobwhite, Northern

Harrier, Short-eared Owl, Red-headed Woodpecker, Field Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Henslow’s 

Sparrow, Dickcissel, and Bobolink. The plan describes population and habitat objectives, research and 

monitoring needs, conservation opportunities, and outreach priorities. 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) began in 1986 as a partnership effort to 

restore waterfowl populations to historic levels through habitat conservation but has since expanded its 

focus to include other taxonomic groups. The plan is international in scope but is implemented through 

regional partnerships called "joint ventures." The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan provides a scientific 

framework to determine shorebird species, sites, and habitats that most urgently need conservation 

action. The Upland Sandpiper is a shorebird of high concern in the Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes 

region, which includes Neal Smith NWR. The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan provides a 

continental framework for conserving wading birds, marsh birds, gulls, terns, pelicans, and sea birds and 

their habitats.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a continental effort to integrate all migratory 

bird conservation programs under one umbrella. The goal is to facilitate bird conservation through 

regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships. NABCI has defined Bird 

Conservation Regions (BCR) as its planning units. BCRs are becoming increasingly common as the unit of 

choice for regional bird conservation efforts. Neal Smith lies within BCR 22, the Eastern Tallgrass Prairie. 

High priority grassland birds in BCR 22 include Greater Prairie-Chicken and Henslow’s Sparrow. Redheaded Woodpecker leads the list of savanna specialists. 

Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (FWS, 2008a) was developed by the Service to identify migratory 

and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or 

endangered) that represent the Service’s highest conservation priorities. The list encompasses three 

distinct geographic scales—NABCI Bird Conservation Regions, FWS Regions, and National—and uses 

assessment scores from three bird conservation plans: the North American Landbird Conservation Plan, 

the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The 

assessment scores are based on several parameters including population trend, threats, distribution, 

abundance, and the importance of an area to a species. Eleven species of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem 

are considered Birds of Conservation Concern for the area that includes the Refuge: Upland Sandpiper, 

Short-eared Owl, Red-headed Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, Loggerhead Shrike, Bell’s Vireo, Field 

Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Henslow’s Sparrow, Smith’s Longspur, and Dickcissel.

1.6.3 Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

The Service established the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program) in 1987 to work 

beyond the boundaries of refuges with landowners and other partners to improve habitat on private 

lands for fish and wildlife. The program is voluntary, relies heavily on a partnership approach, and 

leverages both ideas and funding from a variety of sources. Cost sharing agreements and technical 

assistance are important components. 

The overall goal of Partners Program projects is to return a site to the ecological condition that likely 

existed prior to loss or degradation. Priority ranking is given to proposed projects that meet these 

conditions:

• Improve habitat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, 

marine mammals, and other declining species. 

• Complement activities on Refuge System lands, or contribute to the resolution of problems on 

refuges that are caused by off-refuge practices. 

• Address species and habitat priorities that have been identified through Service planning teams 

(with our partners), or in collaboration with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

• Reduce habitat fragmentation or serve as buffers for federal or state conservation lands. 

• Result in self-sustaining systems that are not dependent on artificial structures. 

Service biologists work one-on-one with landowners to plan, implement, and monitor their projects. 

This level of personal attention and follow-through is a significant strength of the Program. Through the 

Partners Program, the Service has restored 8,200 acres of wetland and 30,000 acres of upland on private 

lands in Iowa between 1987 and 2008.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

Neal Smith NWR lies within the Lower Des Moines River Corridor, a primary focus area of the Partners 

Program in Iowa. This focus area was established to help address connectivity of Iowa’s major habitat 

units. Program activities in the corridor are centered on restoration and enhancement of floodplain 

forest, riparian wetland, oak savanna, and tallgrass prairie. The primary goal is to increase connectivity 

of habitat for songbirds and waterfowl migrating between the Mississippi River and the Prairie Pothole 

Region. Other benefits include improved habitat for resident wildlife, enhanced water quality in the 

river, and increased resilience to environmental stressors such as climate change. 

1.6.4 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

The Service and the DOI have begun developing a national network of Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives (LCCs). LCCs are management-science partnerships between the Service and other federal 

agencies, states, tribes, non-governmental organizations, universities, and other stakeholders. LCCs will 

inform management decisions to address landscape-scale stressors such as habitat fragmentation, 

genetic isolation, spread of invasive species, and water scarcity, all of which are magnified by 

accelerating climate change. LCCs will connect site-specific protection, restoration, and management 

effort to larger goals supporting fish and wildlife populations and the natural systems that sustain them. 

They are intended to provide a strong link between science and conservation delivery without 

duplicating existing partnerships. By functioning as a network of interdependent units, LCC partnerships 

can accomplish a conservation mission no single agency can accomplish alone. Each LCC will focus on a 

defined geographic area. Neal Smith NWR falls within the boundary of the Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and 

Big Rivers LCC (figure 1-3).

Figure 1-3: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

1.6.5 FWS Climate Change Strategic Plan

The Service’s strategic plan for responding to climate change (FWS, 2010) establishes a basic framework 

for efforts to ensure the sustainability of fish, wildlife, and habitats. It includes three key elements: 

Adaptation: Minimizing the impact of climate change on fish and wildlife through the application of 

cutting-edge science in managing species and habitats. 

Mitigation: Reducing levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Engagement: Joining forces with others to seek solutions to the challenges and threats to fish and 

wildlife conservation posed by climate change. 

The plan recognizes the role of healthy ecosystems in helping fish and wildlife populations adapt to a 

changing climate. It also allows resource managers to be responsive as science, technology, and 

experience evolve over time, as explained in the plan:

“We will increase our adaptation efforts significantly in the near term as we respond to 

increasing climate change impacts. Our initial emphasis will be on reactive adaptation, as we 

work to build resilience in ecosystems through our management efforts and, in some cases, to 

buy additional time to increase our certainty regarding future landscape conditions. . . Over the 

long term, however, we will work with partners to assemble the technical and institutional 

capability to increase anticipatory adaptation efforts, particularly as the impacts of climate 

change become more certain.”
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

In this chapter

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Scoping and Public Involvement

2.3 Summary of Issues

2.4 Preparation, Finalization, and Implementation of the CCP

2.5 Public Comments on the Draft CCP

2.1 Introduction

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process for Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, 

Refuge) meets the dual requirements of compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), both of which 

require the Service to actively seek public involvement in the preparation of environmental documents. 

NEPA also requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) to seriously consider all reasonable 

alternatives to its Preferred Alternative including the “No Action” alternative, which represents 

continuation of current conditions and management practices. 

Key steps in the CCP process include:

1. Form the planning team and conduct pre-planning.

2. Initiate scoping and public involvement.

3. Identify issues and develop vision and goal statements.

4. Develop alternatives and assess their environmental effects.

5. Identify the preferred alternative.

6. Publish the Draft CCP and NEPA document for public comment.

7. Revise and publish the final plan.

8. Implement the CCP.

2.2 Scoping and Public Involvement

The Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP and Environmental Assessment (EA) for Neal Smith NWR was 

published in the Federal Register dated December 17, 2008 (Vol. 73, No. 243, page 76677). 

Internal scoping began in April 2009 when Service planning staff and Neal Smith NWR staff developed a 

preliminary list of issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with management of the Refuge. A 

second internal scoping session was held with the Service’s Regional Office staff at Fort Snelling, 

Minnesota in October 2009 to get input on issues from regional supervisors, biologists, planners, and 

other program specialists.

Public scoping began in June 2009, when Refuge staff hosted two open house events in Des Moines and 

Prairie City, Iowa to inform the public of the planning process and to solicit their input on issues of 

concern. About 15 people attended. In addition, CCP information and comment sheets were available in 

the Visitor Center and were sent to the several hundred stakeholders on the Refuge mailing list. Written 

and e-mailed comments were received from a total of 24 people. 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

In August 2009, the Refuge convened a team of resource professionals to share their perspectives on 

the biological and visitor services programs at Neal Smith NWR. Participants outside the Service included 

partner agencies, researchers, educators, and Refuge volunteers. Purposes of the workshop were to 

review the draft list of issues, begin discussing options for addressing them, and ensure that the bestavailable scientific and socioeconomic information was being considered.

In April 2011, a newsletter update was sent to all stakeholders on the Refuge mailing list. The newsletter 

summarized comments received during the scoping period, described the primary management issues 

being considered during development of alternatives, and outlined the schedule and next steps leading 

to completion of the CCP. 

2.3 Summary of Issues

Issues were identified through the scoping process described above. These issues represent input from 

the public, other agencies and organizations, and Service staff. The following section summarizes the 

major issues that were identified and analyzed as part of the CCP process. The issues were critical in 

framing the objectives for the various alternatives considered and formed the basis for evaluating 

environmental effects.

2.3.1 How will we effectively and sustainably restore native prairie, savanna, and sedge 

meadow plant communities on the Refuge?

Although much progress has been made in converting agricultural fields and restoring remnant prairie, 

savanna, and sedge meadow sites, much work still remains. Knowledge gained from these initial efforts 

is important in setting objectives and priorities for the next phase of reconstruction and restoration in 

order to make effective and efficient use of limited resources. Individual tracts of land are in different 

stages of reconstruction/restoration so management needs vary, but several main issues predominate:

• Native plant diversity

• Management of non-native invasive plants

• Effects of subsurface drainage and other watershed alterations

• Disruption of historic fire and grazing regimes

Several public comments during the initial scoping period stated the importance of restoring the 

tallgrass prairie/oak savanna ecosystem, and invasive species control was often mentioned as an 

important issue. Other comments recommended increasing plant diversity on prairie sites, focusing 

more effort on completely restoring small areas first before expanding outward, focusing more effort on 

savanna restoration, and stopping tree cutting on the Refuge. The use of bison and elk to facilitate the 

natural process of grazing by large mammals was seen as worthwhile and was preferred over the use of 

cattle. Careful consideration of the potential effects of climate change on long-term Refuge restoration 

and management was recommended.

Tallgrass Prairie Reconstruction

The initial approach to reconstructing tallgrass prairie on former agricultural lands was to quickly plant 

as many fields as possible with as much diversity as possible. Early seed mixes contained small amounts 

of many species but were dominated by warm season grasses that were available in larger quantities. 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Diversity of seed mixes used to plant agricultural fields is increasing compared to earlier efforts as seed 

from more species becomes available in larger quantities, but plant diversity continues to vary between 

reconstructed prairie units. All need more native cool season grasses and forbs, but this type of seed is 

still not easily obtained. All contain non-native invasive plants, and management of these invasive plants 

is time-intensive. Terraces, gullies, trees, roads, fences, and drain tiles still need to be removed on some 

previously planted sites. Some farm fields and former pastures have not yet been planted with native 

prairie species.

Native Prairie and Savanna Remnants

Patches of degraded tallgrass prairie and oak savanna remnants are found on the Refuge. These 

remnants are in varying stages of degradation, but many still held high potential for restoration when 

the initial vegetation survey was conducted in 1991 (Drobney and Bryant, 1991). These remnants 

provide valuable genetic diversity that is adapted to local conditions.

Refuge remnants currently vary in quality and diversity. Some have a relatively low diversity of native 

prairie and savanna species compared with what they historically held. Most include non-native plants. 

The historic fire regime has been disrupted, resulting in many remnants becoming overgrown with trees 

and woody shrubs. In the early years of the Refuge, management of remnants was a lower priority than 

native plantings on agricultural fields, so restoration efforts have been minimal to date. Where 

restoration has taken place the response of prairie and savanna understory species has been positive. 

These restored remnants contain plants not found elsewhere on the Refuge, are valuable seed 

collection sites, and contain remnant populations of native invertebrates (Klaas and Bishop, 1995). 

Refuge remnants are irreplaceable and must be restored soon before their integrity is lost. 

Sedge Meadow

Dominant native plants found in healthy sedge meadows include prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), 

sedges, rushes, and some forbs. In low-lying sedge meadows near Walnut Creek and its tributaries, 

invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) has become a tenacious competitor due in large part to 

hydrologic changes to the stream and its floodplain. Over 300 acres of these low-lying Refuge lands are 

covered by more than 75 percent reed canarygrass. Sedge meadows on upland areas near seeps and 

ravines are degraded from their natural state but often still retain some diversity. Subsurface drainage 

tiles have reduced the level of soil saturation in seeps and ravines and have reduced the quality and 

diversity of sedge meadows found there.

Fire and Grazing

Fire and grazing are natural disturbances that were important in maintaining the diversity and 

heterogeneity of plant communities in the historic tallgrass prairie ecosystem. Both were disrupted by 

human settlement, and both are now important management tools for restoring prairie, savanna, and 

sedge meadow on the Refuge. 

Variability in timing of prescribed fire promotes diversity of plant species; however, the majority of 

burns on the Refuge to date have been in spring. More extensive summer and fall burn seasons are 

difficult to implement due to weather conditions and staffing shortages, but creative and persistent use 

of prescribed fire in spring, summer, fall, and even winter if conditions permit, would enhance the ability 

to achieve Refuge goals and objectives. 

Bison and elk have been reintroduced to the Refuge to re-create the historic role of large grazers. These 

animals cannot be allowed to roam onto private land and so must be kept within a fenced enclosure. 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

The enclosure size is 700 acres, which restricts the use of grazing as a management tool to only a small 

portion of the Refuge. The 1992 Master Plan recommended an eventual enclosure size of 2,000 acres 

when land acquisition is completed, but even that size would limit grazing to about one-fourth of the 

Refuge. A sound decision on whether and how to expand bison and elk grazing is hampered by limited

data on the effects of the current program on the success of restoration. A lack of measurable objectives 

for grazing and restoration has precluded a strict monitoring program.

Adding cattle, sheep, and/or goat to address specific management issues would enhance flexibility and 

facilitate expansion of the grazing program. Although cattle have been used successfully elsewhere to 

increase prairie diversity and heterogeneity, some studies encourage their use only when it is not 

possible to have bison due to differences in behavior and grazing patterns. Electric fencing and watering 

tanks would need to be installed and removed seasonally, and herds would be removed from the Refuge 

entirely during non-grazing periods. Economic feasibility and private interest in grazing cattle on the 

Refuge have not been evaluated in any detail and would likely depend in large part on the specific 

protocol developed. Service policy (Service Manual, 601 FW3) allows for livestock grazing on refuges to 

meet wildlife and habitat objectives only when more natural methods, such as fire or grazing by native 

herbivores, cannot meet Refuge goals and objectives.

2.3.2 How will we maintain and enhance native wildlife populations on the Refuge?

The Refuge seeks to protect, restore, and maintain biologically diverse populations of native wildlife 

associated with a healthy tallgrass prairie ecosystem.

Grassland Birds

Grassland birds are of particular concern, because their populations have exhibited steeper, more 

consistent declines than any other group of North American birds. Many species largely disappeared 

from central Iowa due to habitat loss as the prairies were cleared for agriculture, but many, including 

Northern Harrier, Short-eared Owl , Sedge Wren, Field, Grasshopper, and Henslow’s Sparrows, 

Dickcissel, Bobolink, and Eastern and Western Meadowlarks, have returned to the Refuge as former 

agricultural lands were restored to tallgrass prairie. Some grassland bird species are using the Refuge as 

a migration stopover, including Swainson’s Hawk, Le Conte’s Sparrow, Savanna Sparrow, and Smith’s 

Longspur. Others such as Upland Sandpiper, Northern Bobwhite, and Loggerhead Shrike are sometimes 

present on the Refuge in small numbers. 

Additional improvements to quality and quantity of habitat would be expected to increase the number, 

diversity, and productivity of grassland birds that the Refuge can support. Management strategies for 

conservation of grassland-nesting birds and other wildlife usually center on protecting or establishing 

large contiguous grassland blocks, providing plant diversity as well as structurally diverse habitat, 

eliminating mid-season grassland mowing, reducing edge, and controlling woody encroachment.

Bison and Elk

Bison and elk were reintroduced to a fenced enclosure to re-create the historic role of large grazers in 

maintaining diverse prairies, to study their effects on the ecosystem, and as a learning experience for 

visitors. The optimum enclosure size and configuration to best meet multiple Refuge needs has not been 

determined. The optimum herd size under the current management program also has not been firmly 

established, although a range of 73-129 animals could be supported by the vegetation based on the 

available forage at a moderate stocking rate. More information is needed on the effects of grazing and 

other behaviors on reconstructed prairie. Doubling the size of the enclosure is feasible given the current 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

Refuge boundary. A larger enclosure would expand the ability to manage and manipulate the grazing 

program creating more biological and structural diversity throughout the Refuge but also might reduce 

the visibility of the animals to visitors. Expanding the enclosure would also allow the Refuge to move the 

fence away from creeks and tributaries where it causes erosion or impedes water flow. Bison are not the 

cause of erosion, because they do not loaf along streams and creeks. Several waterways run through 

the enclosure; none are eroding due to use by bison. 

The desired number of elk on the Refuge is fifteen. Animals usually are culled when the population gets 

above twenty. Inbreeding is a concern with such a small number of animals. The effects of their grazing 

on overall habitat diversity in the enclosure are probably small due to the small number of elk. 

Information about their impacts on Refuge habitat is limited. Refuge staff conducts weekly health 

monitoring, but because of their habits the elk are difficult to observe. Tranquilizers are necessary to 

handle them, and darting them is difficult and dangerous for staff and can be fatal for the elk, so 

research involving marking or tracking animals is not conducted. Live elk are not handled, and 

management focuses on morbidity and mortality. A study of habitat selection and diet of bison and elk 

in the enclosure was conducted in 2006-2007 (Kagima, 2008). Chronic Wasting Disease is a potential 

threat to the long-term viability of elk on the Refuge and prohibits removal or addition of live elk. 

The bison and elk are extremely popular with the public, and most Refuge visitors come specifically to 

see the herds. Public scoping comments strongly supported the program, stating that the animals are an 

integral part of the Refuge, an important link to our past, and a valuable opportunity for environmental 

education and interpretation. Some recommended a larger enclosure. Others wanted the animals to be 

more visible to the public. 

Other Wildlife Reintroductions

In addition to bison and elk, the regal fritillary butterfly has been successfully reintroduced on the 

Refuge. Other wildlife species also might need some help. Even if enough suitable habitat is available, 

the Greater Prairie-Chicken is unlikely to recolonize on its own due to distance from the nearest 

population. For reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, and invertebrates, more information is needed on 

current status, historic range, and/or habitat requirements before well-reasoned decisions can be made 

on whether or not reintroduction is warranted. All wildlife reintroduction decisions will be made in 

coordination and collaboration with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Scoping comments supported restoration of the overall floral and faunal diversity of the Refuge. A 

specific recommendation was made to remove unnecessary roads and power lines to create more 

suitable habitat for Greater Prairie-Chicken reintroduction. (Determining the feasibility of road and 

power line removal would require coordination and planning with Jasper County and MidAmerican 

Energy.) Careful consideration of the potential impacts of climate change on Refuge wildlife was 

recommended.

2.3.3 How will we encourage more people to connect more closely with the Refuge while 

ensuring visitor safety and minimizing disturbance to wildlife and habitat?

The Refuge seeks to provide a variety of compatible wildlife-dependent recreational and educational 

opportunities so visitors can experience and treasure our native tallgrass prairie heritage. Visitors love 

the Refuge, and requests for additional activities are more than can be met with current resources. The 

Refuge must balance visitor services with safety concerns and the potential for disturbance to wildlife 

and habitat.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

Environmental Education and Interpretation

The Visitor Center has excellent facilities for environmental education and interpretation programs. 

Current program offerings include Project Bluestem teacher training workshops, the Partner Schools 

program, and a variety of ranger-led environmental education programs and special events. Demand for 

these programs is high. In addition, many new ideas have been proposed for reaching new audiences. 

The potential for program expansion is much greater than staff and volunteers can meet, so priorities 

need to be set. 

Non-personal interpretation outside the building includes kiosks, signs, and trail brochures, but more 

interpreted sites on the Refuge are desired, such as spotting scopes along the entry road where visitors 

can see bison and elk. The Visitor Center exhibits are high quality but in need of updating, possibly to 

include new interpretive messages. The Visitor Center is open seven days per week requiring full staffing 

to meet the public demand. The station is fortunate to have dedicated volunteers to operate the 

information desk and bookstore. 

Many public scoping comments strongly supported an important role for the Refuge as an 

environmental education leader in central Iowa. Commenters also requested more activities throughout 

the year, more interpretive programs geared toward adults and families, and handicapped parking 

closer to the building entrance. Some made suggestions for new exhibits and brochures.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wildlife observation and photography are popular Refuge uses. Many visitors come just to drive the 

auto tour route to see bison and elk without leaving their vehicles. Four designated foot trails are 

available, as well as pull-offs along the entrance road. Some visitors also want to walk the mowed fire 

breaks or explore off-trail. Close visitor connection to the tallgrass prairie ecosystem is a meaningful 

experience to be encouraged. However, there are safety concerns when staff is burning, mowing, or 

spraying on the Refuge or when visitors get out of their vehicles to look at the bison and elk. Although 

current demand for Refuge access off the main trails is low (mostly hunters and birders), wildlife 

disturbance could become an issue if demand increases. A well-defined policy is needed that balances 

visitor access and exploration with safety concerns and the potential for wildlife disturbance.

Comments during the scoping process supported increased public access and participation on the 

Refuge without losing sight of the primary wildlife mission. Some had an interest in making wildlife 

viewing easier including allowing foot access in the bison and elk enclosure. 

Hunting

About two-thirds of the Refuge is currently open for deer, squirrel, rabbit, pheasant, and quail hunting. 

All are open during the full state season with the exception of cottontail rabbit. All hunting on the 

Refuge ceases on January 31 of each year to accommodate research, biological monitoring, and other 

non-consumptive recreational activities on the Refuge. Shotgun, archery, and muzzleloader hunting are 

allowed. Drive hunting for deer is currently allowed, which is traditional in the local community, but

there are safety concerns and potential conflict with other recreational uses. 

Public comments have supported banning drive hunts or limiting group size. There have been requests 

by the public for turkey and furbearer hunting. No special disabled or youth hunts are offered. There are 

multiple entry points onto the Refuge, ten hunter parking lots, and no required on-Refuge registration, 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

so accurate assessments of hunter use are not available. Trespass occurs on adjacent private lands; 200-

yard shooting zones are marked. There is no regular law enforcement presence. 

Other Recreational Opportunities

Public scoping comments indicate support for development of a designated biking trail on the Refuge. 

Additional horseback riding opportunities are desired by some. Other uses requested by visitors have 

included camping, picnicking, snowmobiling, antler collecting, and creation of potholes for winter ice 

fishing and for wildlife. Some visitors would like to bring their dogs on the Refuge. 

2.3.4 How will we improve our communication and community outreach efforts?

Communication and partnerships with area residents and local communities are crucial to the success of 

Neal Smith NWR. The Refuge is an active partner with the nearby town of Prairie City and has a 

supportive volunteer group called Friends of Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge (Friends). In 2010, 

volunteers contributed more than 13,000 hours of service to Refuge programs. Refuge staff and 

volunteers provide current news and event information to the public through a quarterly Friends 

newsletter, the Friends website, news releases sent to local media, presentations to community groups, 

and participation in the Prairie City Business Association. When first established, the Refuge was a big 

story in the local media. Now, however, few area newspapers and radio stations publish the news 

releases, and few television stations have covered stories about the Refuge in several years. As is 

common at refuges across the nation, there are many residents in the Des Moines area who are 

unaware that the Refuge exists. 

The importance of developing strong community outreach and partnerships was a frequent theme 

during the public scoping period. Comments included the need to promote and publicize the Refuge at 

every opportunity; increase outreach in metropolitan Des Moines and the Midwest; and collaborate 

with other local organizations such as libraries, historical societies, and garden clubs. The partnership 

with Prairie City received praise, and continued development of that relationship was recommended. 

Recruitment of additional volunteers was encouraged, including more volunteers from the Prairie City 

area. 

2.3.5 How will we address conservation concerns related to urban development and loss of 

wildlife habitat outside the Refuge boundary?

The Refuge is located in a primarily rural area just 20 miles east of urban Des Moines. Development is 

increasing rapidly near the Refuge as the city and suburbs expand. Additional homes may be built close 

to the Refuge boundary and throughout the watershed; commercial development likely will increase 

near the highway. Wildlife movement between the Refuge and other protected areas will decrease. Our 

long-term ability to restore and sustain native vegetation and wildlife on Refuge lands depends in part 

on the integrity of the surrounding landscape. As more agricultural areas are developed, opportunities 

for the Service to influence land use decisions and reduce habitat fragmentation will become 

increasingly rare. 

Many conservation options are available on private lands outside the Refuge boundary including 

cooperative efforts with landowners, conservation easements, or fee acquisition from willing sellers in 

some cases. Public scoping comments often named development as a significant threat to the Refuge. 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

Some commenters encouraged continued emphasis on land acquisition near the Refuge and/or creation 

of habitat corridors connecting the Refuge to other public lands in the area.

2.4 Preparation, Finalization, and Implementation of the CCP

The Neal Smith NWR CCP was prepared by a team of staff from Neal Smith NWR and the USFWS 

Regional Office. The CCP was published in two phases and in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Environmental Assessment, which was published as Appendix A in 

the Draft CCP, presented four alternatives for future management and identified a preferred alternative. 

A 30-day public review period, including a public open house, followed release of the draft plan. 

The alternative that was selected has become the basis of the Final CCP, which will guide management 

over the next 15 years. It will guide the development of more detailed step-down plans for specific 

resource areas and it will underpin the annual budgeting process through Service-wide allocation 

databases. Most importantly, the CCP lays out the general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and 

people at Neal Smith NWR that will direct day-to-day decision making and actions.

2.5 Public Comments on the Draft CCP

The Draft CCP was officially released for public review and comment on August 20, 2012; the comment 

period ended on September 21, 2012. Availability of the Draft CCP was announced through local media 

outlets and a summary of the document was sent to more than 400 individuals and organizations. The 

Draft CCP was posted on the Service website and hard copies were available on request. Nine people 

attended the open house event on August 26th at the Neal Smith NWR Visitor Center. Fifteen written 

responses were received by the end of the comment period. 

Wildlife and Habitat

Some comments expressed full support for the Service’s preferred alternative (Alternative B: Refuge 

Grassland Bird Focus); expansion of the Refuge boundary was seen as an important buffer to the effects 

of increasing development. Others supported a larger Refuge boundary expansion to include the upper 

reaches of Walnut Creek or the entire watershed (Alternative C: Watershed Focus) to improve water 

quality and Refuge floodplain habitat, or the entire Chichaqua Bottoms–Neal Smith–Lake Red Rock 

corridor (Alternative D: Corridor Focus) to support wildlife populations and enable full restoration of 

ecosystem processes. The emphasis on Refuge habitat restoration and management was supported. 

Continued research was seen as important. The conversion of all cropland to prairie within just five 

years was questioned. The importance of considering the effects of climate change on wildlife and 

habitat was described. The importance and value of partnerships with other agencies, organizations, 

and private landowners to achieve conservation goals was recognized.

One respondent suggested that objectives for wildlife and habitat restoration should be more 

ambitious: the focus on grassland birds was seen as too narrow, monitoring of other wildlife species and 

consideration of additional wildlife reintroductions was encouraged, and restoration of a greater 

diversity of native plants than that proposed in the Draft CCP was recommended. 

Service Response

The 3,200-acre boundary expansion includes the headwaters of tributaries that flow through the 

Refuge, which will allow us to reduce the number of drainage tiles, reestablish more natural soil 

moisture and water flow, and thereby improve the quality and sustainability of habitat on lands within 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

the current Refuge boundary. In addition, the new boundary will help buffer habitat and wildlife on the 

Refuge from the negative effects of development, habitat fragmentation, and climate change. The 

expanded Refuge acquisition boundary includes only those lands of highest conservation value to the 

Service and is the most cost-effective means of achieving Refuge purposes and National Wildlife Refuge 

System goals.

Although the primary focus of the CCP is on restoring Refuge lands, working with partners to achieve 

mutual conservation goals throughout the Walnut Creek watershed and within the Chichaqua 

Bottoms—Neal Smith—Lake Red Rock corridor will continue to be a high priority. Effective partnership 

efforts can greatly improve the amount and quality of wildlife habitat and ecosystem services within the 

watershed and the corridor.

The CCP focuses limited resources on creating high quality wildlife habitat on the Refuge and providing 

the varied habitat structure needed to support migratory grassland birds of primary concern to the 

Service. Grassland-dependent bird populations have declined from historic levels more than any other 

group of birds. Restoration of diverse high quality habitat that meets the needs priority grassland birds 

will also benefit other prairie and savanna dependent wildlife including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, 

invertebrate pollinators, and many additional bird species.

About 450 acres of farmland are still being cropped on the Refuge. The original Service intent was to 

plant Refuge lands to native vegetation within two to three years of acquisition; many farmland 

conversions are now long overdue. Current research projects on the Refuge will not be affected by the 

ambitious five-year conversion objective. As additional lands are acquired by the Refuge, they will be 

planted to prairie within three to five years. The tallgrass prairie ecosystem has been reduced to less 

than 0.1 percent of its original extent in Iowa. We can best help to reverse that trend by beginning the 

long-term process of reconstructing native prairie and savanna as soon as possible. 

Restoration of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem will take many years with many adjustments over time as 

additional experience is gained. Specific wildlife and habitat objectives in this CCP are not meant to 

indicate full restoration of Neal Smith NWR; instead they reflect realistic results thought to be 

achievable within the 15-year time frame of this plan. Monitoring of wildlife and habitat is an important 

part of measuring success in achieving the CCP objectives. A detailed habitat management plan and 

monitoring plan will be developed within the next few years. 

People

Requests for increased recreational opportunities included more bicycle access, more multi-use trails 

(e.g., for mountain biking), and allowing leashed dogs on walking trails. Hunting-related comments 

included support for increased opportunities, support for current programs only, and the desire to 

eliminate all hunting. Fostering partnerships with the local community and developing outreach and 

education messages that make Refuge issues relevant to everyday life were both seen as important. 

Development of more visitor programs geared toward families and children was appreciated. A 

suggestion was made to incorporate more recent data on Refuge cultural resources.

Service Response

County roads that cross through the Refuge already are open to bicycle traffic. In addition, a new bicycle 

trail paralleling the entrance road will be constructed in 2013–2014. We believe that we can 

accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians by keeping some trails—Overlook, Tallgrass, Savanna, and 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

Basswood—closed to bicycle access. Biking outside of designated roads and trails is not allowed because 

of the potential for harm to habitat, nests, and wildlife. 

Based on public comments received, dogs now will be allowed on trails and roads within the Refuge 

provided they are on a leash and the owner cleans up after them. Dogs may not threaten wildlife or 

people, and owners must remain in full control at all times. The Refuge reserves the right to close any 

trail to dogs if problems arise. 

Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use on national wildlife refuges under the 

Improvement Act passed by Congress in 1997. Comments on the details of the Neal Smith NWR hunting 

program have been noted. Final decisions on any changes to the hunting program on the Refuge will be 

addressed in the step-down Hunt Plan to be completed within one year of CCP approval.

Information from the most recent Refuge cultural resources investigation, completed in 1991, was 

incorporated into this plan. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

In this chapter

3.1 Refuge Environment

3.2 Refuge Management

3.1 Refuge Environment

3.1.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Ecological Land Classification

Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) lies within the Prairie Parkland (Temperate) Province 

as defined by Bailey’s ecological classification system, developed by Bob Bailey and others in the U.S. 

Forest Service. The Prairie Parkland (Temperate) Province covers an extensive area from Canada to 

Oklahoma, with alternating prairie and deciduous forest. Summers are usually hot, and winters are cold. 

Vegetation is characterized by intermingled prairie, groves, and strips of deciduous trees. The prairies 

seem to be areas that have not yet become forested, either because of frequent fires or because the last 

glaciation was too recent for final successional stages to have been reached. Due to generally favorable 

conditions of climate and soil, most of the province is cultivated, and little of the original vegetation 

remains (Bailey, 1995).

In Bailey’s classification system, sections are subdivisions of provinces based on terrain features. The 

Refuge lies within the Central Dissected Till Plain Section, which includes southern Iowa and portions of 

Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. Key characteristics include:

• Moderately dissected, glaciated, flat-to-rolling plains that slope gently toward the Missouri and 

Mississippi River valleys.

• An estimated 60 percent of the land surface was tallgrass prairie, with bur oak and white oak 

savannas interspersed. Upland forest (white oak-shagbark hickory) occurred on more dissected 

land, grading into bottomland forests and wet bottomland prairies along rivers.

• A well-developed dendritic drainage network is carved into the land surface. Natural lakes and 

ponds are rare or non-existent. Many streams now are straightened by channelization and 

silted-in from agricultural run-off. A few bottomland wetlands have been preserved from 

drainage enterprises.

• Fire and grazing by herds of bison and elk were the most important disturbance regimes in 

creation and maintenance of this landscape.

Other Conservation Areas

Chichaqua Bottoms Greenbelt is a 9,100-acre wildlife area along the Skunk River in Polk County that 

contains county, state, and federal lands (figure 3-1). It is managed by the Polk County Conservation 

Board and includes dry, mesic, and wet prairies; floodplain wetlands, pothole marshes, wooded oxbow 

wetlands, and riparian woodlands. Much of the wildlife habitat has been restored and protected 

through the Wetlands Reserve Program administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

Figure 3-1: Conservation Lands in the Area of Neal Smith NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

Lake Red Rock is a flood control reservoir project and conservation area located about 3 miles south of 

the Refuge along the Des Moines River. At 52,800 acres, it’s the largest contiguous public land mass in 

Iowa. Lake Red Rock conservation lands are managed by multiple agencies including the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and Marion County Conservation Board. 

Habitats include open water, forested corridor, wetland, prairie, savanna, and some fields and cropland. 

Neal Smith NWR and Lake Red Rock are located within the boundary of the Des Moines Recreational 

River and Greenbelt, a 410,000-acre open space corridor along the Des Moines River. Authorized by 

Congress in 1985 and administered by the Corps of Engineers, the purpose of the Greenbelt is to 

develop and manage natural resources, cultural features, outdoor recreation facilities, and 

environmental education programs in a manner that makes wise use of resources and attracts outdoor 

recreation use and economic development to the area.

The National Audubon Society has identified Neal Smith NWR, Chichaqua Bottoms Greenbelt, and Lake 

Red Rock as Important Bird Areas (IBA). Sites that meet IBA criteria are considered to be the most 

essential habitats for support of the most seriously declining species of birds. The Chichaqua–Neal Smith 

region has been designated as a Grassland Bird Conservation Area by the Iowa DNR, following guidelines 

established by Partners in Flight. Such conservation areas are identified throughout the Iowa Wildlife 

Action Plan as providing significant habitat protection and restoration potential for Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need.

Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge (NTGP) was established to provide a means of 

working with individuals, groups, and government entities to permanently preserve and restore native 

prairie and wetland remnants in western Minnesota and northwestern Iowa. The project presently 

includes about 2,800 fee-title acres and 2,400 easement acres in widely scattered tracts. All or portions 

of 37 Iowa counties lie within the NTGP project area. One 192-acre tract on Neal Smith NWR has been 

purchased through the NTGP program. This tract, known as the Southeast Unit of the NTGP is managed 

as part of Neal Smith NWR and will be restored to prairie and savanna habitats as appropriate. 

3.1.2 Physical Environment

Geology

Landforms of Iowa (Prior, 1991) divides Iowa into eight landforms based on glaciation, soils, topography, 

and river drainage. Neal Smith NWR is located in the Southern Iowa Drift Plain landform region (figure 3-

2), which covers most of the southern half of Iowa and contains all or part of 66 counties, including 

Jasper County. This region was created by repeated glacial expansion and retreat, wind-deposited loess, 

and erosion. 

The glaciers that created the Drift Plain are hundreds of thousands of years older than those that 

created the Des Moines Lobe to the north. Consequently, this terrain has had much more time to be 

reshaped by erosion, resulting in a landscape characterized by steeply rolling hills interspersed with 

generally level hilltops and valley bottoms. The flat hilltops are remnants of the old glacial plain. The 

region is heavily dissected by drainage systems such as the Walnut Creek basin. The Southern Iowa Drift 

Plain contains some of the most productive agricultural land in the world.

The current Refuge landscape consists of loess and alluvium over glacial till and bedrock. Loess, a fine, 

ash-like, wind-deposited material, typically occurs on uplands. Alluvium, found on valley bottoms, is 

eroded material from upland areas. The loess deposits tend to be thinner on valley slopes where they 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

have been subject to erosion than on the ridgetops. Although the underlying bedrock is generally buried 

to a considerable depth by glacial till and loess, narrow outcrops of sandstone occur in a few locations.

Figure 3-2: Landforms of Iowa

Topography

The Refuge landscape has been molded by the erosive activities of Walnut Creek and its tributaries. 

Elevations within the Refuge range from a low of approximately 785 feet above mean sea level along 

Walnut Creek near the southern boundary to a high of approximately 930 feet above mean sea level at 

several locations on the ridgetops that occur at the periphery of the Refuge.

The majority of the Refuge consists of relatively level 0 to 5 percent slopes (approximately 43 percent) 

and gently sloping 5 to 9 percent slopes (approximately 41 percent). Approximately 15 percent of the 

Refuge consists of moderately to steeply sloping land (10 to 20 percent slopes). These slopes, which are 

associated with stream valleys, tend to face east or west along Walnut Creek and north or south along 

its tributaries.

Soils

Refuge soils formed as a result of the interaction of climate with the growth of tallgrass prairie and 

deciduous trees in loess, glacial till, and alluvial deposits. Decomposition of the deep fibrous root 

systems of grasses and forbs over many centuries produced the rich, black organic soils characteristic of 

tallgrass prairie. Soils formed under deciduous trees are generally lighter in color and more acidic than 

soils formed under tallgrass prairie. Based on interpretation of the soils data for the 1992 Master Plan, 

the majority of Refuge soils were formed under tallgrass prairie (62 percent) and oak savanna (36 

percent); a much smaller portion of the Refuge (less than 2 percent) formed under deciduous 

woodlands. However, soil is just one factor in determining historic distribution of vegetation types; 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

geomorphic setting (slope, aspect, etc.), rainfall, and fire regime also affect the distribution of 

vegetation over time. 

Approximately 60 percent of Refuge soils are subject to moderate erosion. These soils are located on 

valley slopes, which are subject to water erosion and on flatter ridgetops, which are more prone to wind 

erosion. Agricultural development during the last 150 years may have resulted in the erosion of up to six 

feet of topsoil from some upland areas, thus, accounting for the thin and weakly developed soil profiles 

currently encountered in the upland areas. Some of the soil has been deposited in lowland areas, 

creating soil levels higher than historic levels in these areas.

Soils can be grouped into soil associations, which are landscapes that have a distinctive pattern of soils 

in defined proportions. They typically consist of one or more major soils and at least one minor soil

(table 3-1). Soil associations provide a general understanding of the soil types in a particular survey area 

and are useful for comparing different parts of the Refuge. Neal Smith NWR contains four soil 

associations: Tama-Killduff-Muscatine, Downs-Tama-Shelby, Otley-Mahaska, and Ladoga-Gara (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 1979). 

Table 3-1: Major soil series and attributes

Major Soil 

Series Drainage Texture Slope Location Conditions of Formation

Tama Well drained Silty clay loam 0 to 4 % Convex ridgetops and 

side slopes Formed in loess under grass

Killduff Moderately well 

drained Silty clay loam 5 to 18 %

Convex side slopes 

near threads of 

drainageways

Formed in loess under grass

Muscatine Somewhat 

poorly drained Silty clay loam 0 to 2 % Broad upland divides Formed in loess under grass

Downs Well drained Silt loam 0 to 18 % Convex ridgetops and 

side slopes

Formed in loess under 

deciduous trees and tall prairie 

grasses

Shelby Moderately well 

drained Loam 9 to 25 % Convex side slopes next to drainageways

Formed in glacial till under 

prairie grasses

Otley Moderately well 

drained Silty clay loam 2 to 14 % Ridgetops and side slopes Formed in loess under grass

Mahaska Somewhat 

poorly drained Silty clay loam 0 to 2 % Upland divides Formed in loess under grass

Ladoga Moderately well 

drained Silt loam 2 to 14 % Convex ridgetops and 

side slopes

Formed in loess under 

deciduous trees and tall prairie 

grasses

Gara

Moderately well 

drained to well 

drained

Loam 9 to 40 % Convex side slopes

Formed in glacial till under a 

mixture of prairie grass and 

timber
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

Within each association, individual soil series typically can be arranged based on slope position as 

illustrated in the diagrams (figure 3-3). Soil series information is needed to make decisions on specific 

tracts, because the soils within an association ordinarily vary in slope, depth, stoniness, drainage, and 

other characteristics that affect their management.

Figure 3-3: Soil Associations

 Ladoga-Gara Downs-Tama-Shelby

 Otley-Mahaska Tama-Killduff-Muscatine

(Diagrams from U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1979)

Climate

The climate of central Iowa, classified as humid continental, is characterized by warm, humid summers 

and cold, relatively dry winters. Average temperatures typically range from 72 °F in the summer to 22 °F 

in the winter. Approximately 70 percent of the average annual rainfall (32 inches in Jasper County) falls 

between April and September. The typical seasonal snowfall is approximately 27 inches. The amount of 

precipitation is a primary factor in the historic dominance of tallgrass prairie in the region: drier areas to 

the west support midgrass or shortgrass prairie, while deciduous forest is the native vegetation typically 

occurring in moister regions to the east. Prevailing winds in the region are from the northwest in the 

winter and from the southwest in the summer. The typical growing season begins sometime after the 

first week in April and lasts until the middle of October, with about 165 growing days.

Climate change

Iowa’s annual average temperature has increased since 1873 at a modest rate, but seasonal and daynight changes have been proportionately larger. Temperatures have increased six times more in winter 

(0.18 °F/decade) than in summer (0.03 °F/decade), and nighttime temperatures have been increasing 

more than daytime temperatures. Iowa now has a statewide average of five more frost-free days per 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

year than 50 years ago and eight to nine more than at the beginning of the 20th century. Higher winter 

and spring temperatures seem to be causing earlier and more protracted snowmelt and a reduced 

probability of spring flooding (Iowa Climate Change Impacts Committee [ICCIC], 2011). 

Precipitation in Iowa has gradually increased over the last 100 years, although year-to-year variability is 

high. Eastern Iowa has a higher upward trend than the statewide average. Most of the precipitation 

increase has come in the first half of the year and less in the second half, leading to wetter springs and 

drier autumns. Trends toward more precipitation and changed seasonality, as well as higher increases in 

eastern Iowa, are projected to continue. Growing evidence points to stronger summer storm systems in 

the Midwest due to warming temperatures and increasing humidity levels. The increased number of 

large summertime rain events, increased soil moisture, and other factors seem to be leading to 

increased summer flooding. This new pattern of seasonal flood occurrence in Iowa is expected to 

continue (ICCIC, 2011).

Predictions of continued increases in temperature and precipitation may cause accelerated growth of 

woody vegetation, which could eventually allow oak savannas to expand into non-wooded areas (if they 

are not cropped). Increased rainfall could make prescribed fire more difficult to implement, allowing fire 

intolerant species to more rapidly invade grasslands and savannas. Monitoring climate change effects on 

the Refuge will require a cadre of varying expertise. In the short term it will be difficult to determine or 

predict what the impacts of climate change will be on management of the Refuge. However, continuing 

to restore a healthy, resilient ecosystem in the face of current uncertainty will help wildlife and plants 

adapt to the changing climate over time. 

Water and Hydrology

The Refuge is located within the 30.7-square mile Walnut Creek watershed, which lies within the Des 

Moines River drainage basin. The acquisition boundary for Neal Smith NWR encompasses about 44

percent of the watershed (figure 3-4). From its headwaters, located two to three miles north of the 

Refuge, Walnut Creek flows south approximately ten miles to its confluence with the Des Moines River 

at the upper end of the Red Rock Reservoir. The approximately 6.5-mile stretch of Walnut Creek within 

the Refuge boundary bisects the Refuge from north to south and is fed by numerous tributary streams 

that generally flow in an east-west orientation (figure 3-4). 

Stream flow increases substantially from north to south, with flows in the southern portion of the 

Refuge averaging about three times greater than flows in the northern portion of the Refuge. Typically, 

volume has been greatest in the spring following heavy rains, decreasing throughout the summer, 

although this pattern could be altered as climate change progresses. Walnut Creek changes from an 

intermittent stream north of the Refuge to a perennial stream sustained by groundwater discharge, 

subsurface tile drainage, and tributary inflows as it flows south through the Refuge. Groundwater seeps 

are located on the Refuge where the upland mantle of loess has thinned and groundwater discharges at 

the contact between the loess and exposed paleosols or glacial till.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

Water Quality

Water quality in Walnut Creek varies with changes in discharge and runoff and is typical of many warm 

water streams in Iowa. A Walnut Creek water quality monitoring program was established in 1995 in 

conjunction with habitat restoration efforts on the Refuge. Because the Walnut Creek watershed was 

intensively farmed in the past, the restoration of Neal Smith NWR provides a valuable opportunity to 

study sediment transport and nutrient cycling in a modified stream and monitor how quickly water 

quality can be improved by land management changes. 

Sediment moves very rapidly downstream in the watershed in response to precipitation and snowmelt. 

Approximately 10,000 to 20,000 tons of sediment is transported each year in the Walnut Creek channel. 

The majority of highly erodible land occurs within the Refuge area whereas the headwaters area, above 

the Refuge, is the more gently sloping portion of the basin. 

In addition to sediment, Walnut Creek is affected by agricultural non-point-source water pollutants 

including nutrients, pesticides, and animal waste. Between 1995 and 2005, nitrate concentrations 

significantly decreased in the Walnut Creek watershed as acreage of row crops decreased. Phosphorus 

concentrations varied between 0.06 mg/l and 0.2 mg/l but did not statistically change between 2001 

and 2005. Herbicide detection frequencies were greater than 70 percent. Fecal coliform bacteria were 

detected frequently above water quality standards of the Environmental Protection Agency, with 

highest counts often occurring between May and October during high stream flow periods associated 

with rainfall runoff (Schilling et al., 2006).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

Figure 3-4: Walnut Creek Watershed
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

Hydrologic Alteration

Walnut Creek Floodplain

As tallgrass prairie was converted to agriculture, most of the natural meanders in Walnut Creek were 

straightened and deepened, and subsurface drainage tiles were installed throughout the watershed. 

These measures had the desired effect of moving water off crop fields and down Walnut Creek more 

efficiently, thereby increasing farm productivity. However, the increased volume and velocity of water in 

the straightened creek also caused significant channel scouring. Today the channel is incised as much as 

ten feet in many places, the groundwater table is lowered near the channel, and Walnut Creek is 

disconnected from its historic floodplain. As a result, floodplain soils are drier, particularly near the 

stream, and native vegetation has been overtaken in many locations by a monoculture of invasive reed 

canarygrass. Although much of the main stem of Walnut Creek has been straightened, an 840-acre 

Refuge inholding (surrounded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS, Service] fee title lands) includes a 

reach of the creek with meanders largely intact. This reach has retained some of the original 

geomorphology, but the hydrology is still altered; the area is a bottleneck for large volumes of water and 

sediment moving down the ditched portions of the creek.

The creek has benefitted from reduced human disturbance and is slowly moving toward a new state of 

equilibrium as it attempts to balance parameters such as slope, sediment loads, water volume, and 

channel geometry. Given current trends, the creek will eventually restore many of its natural functions. 

The incision of the creek bed has largely stabilized, and the channel is gradually widening as the stream 

banks collapse (Schilling et al., 2011). This is a natural process resulting from the channel encountering 

more resistant layers of alluvium and till, and probably aided by conversion of former agricultural fields 

to native prairie on the Refuge and widespread use of conservation tillage on farmland upstream. As the 

channel widens, slope of banks will decrease, terraces and channel meanders will begin to emerge, and 

floodplain vegetation communities will become established (figure 3-5). The “new” floodplain will be 

connected to the stream stage but the abandoned floodplain will continue to be largely unsaturated. 

The new floodplain could be populated by pre-settlement vegetation (sedge meadow), whereas the old 

floodplain terrace could be populated by floodplain savanna. The time needed for these changes to 

occur naturally is unknown but would be on the order of decades to centuries (Schilling et al., 2012). 

Figure 3-5: Stream Channel Evolution

(From MN Dept. of Natural Resources, 2010.)

I. A properly shaped stream in equilibrium and connected to its floodplain prior to disturbance.

II. Channel incision from ditching or by a headcut originating in a channelized reach due to increased slope and flow.

III. Channel widening as the channel begins to meander again.

IV. A more properly shaped stream as it evolves to re-establish equilibrium and rebuild a new floodplain.

V. A new, properly shaped channel in equilibrium with a lowered floodplain.

Subsurface Drainage System

The subsurface drainage system in the Walnut Creek watershed follows the natural branched drainage 

pattern of the land. Typically, a perforated tile line was buried under each ravine to sufficiently dry these 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

low areas enough for farmers to drive across and plant. The tile lines lower surficial groundwater levels 

by draining water out of the soil column above and adjacent to the tile. The diameter and length of tile 

lines varies depending on location and the amount of water each was designed to carry. Many of the 

small tributary streams in the watershed originate from tile drains. The system has not been mapped 

but is extensive—more than 50 outlets have been found on the Refuge along Walnut Creek and 

throughout several of its tributaries. 

The branched drainage system of Walnut Creek is fairly common in the Southern Iowa Drift Plain but 

unusual in many other places (Schilling et al., 2012). Watersheds in the Des Moines Lobe and other 

recently glaciated areas are typically drained by pattern tile systems laid out in a dense grid designed to 

lower entire surficial groundwater tables below the root zone for increased crop yields. The extent, 

volume, and water quality concerns of pattern tile drainage are much more significant than for 

branched tile. However, although downstream impacts of Walnut Creek tile drainage on the Iowa and 

Mississippi River systems are small when compared with pattern tile systems, local impacts to habitat 

restoration on the Refuge are of concern. 

State Highway 163 runs east-west through the Walnut Creek watershed. Refuge lands lie almost entirely 

south of the highway. Tile lines originating in the upper watershed, north of Highway 163, do not pull 

water from Refuge uplands; they empty directly into the creek before reaching the Refuge. Tile lines 

located south of the highway do affect many prairie, savanna, and upland sedge meadow sites on the 

Refuge by reducing the amount of available water in the soil. Reducing or eliminating the subsurface 

drainage system south of the highway would restore more natural water flow to the Refuge uplands, 

likely resulting in more diverse and sustainable native plant communities. 

Breaking, plugging, or complete removal of tile lines also has the potential for undesired effects: plugs 

might create overly wet conditions in adjacent areas as water continues to discharge above the plug; 

breaking the tiles might allow some continued drainage and potential headcutting at the break points; 

and full removal has the potential for increased erosion in some areas. Headcuts will always be a 

concern in the highly erodible soils found on and near the Refuge, but as Walnut Creek continues 

moving toward a new state of equilibrium, active erosion and headcut risk will decrease dramatically 

over time. 

Nonetheless, restoring the hydrology of upland areas on the Refuge should be fairly straightforward, 

especially after the techniques have been mastered. The real challenge may be in locating the tile lines 

and addressing segments outside the Refuge boundary. Some tile lines lie completely within the Refuge 

boundary, but many are thought to originate on private agricultural lands up-gradient of the Refuge. 

Breaking, plugging, or removing these tiles only within the Refuge boundary would not be enough to 

restore local hydrology; off-Refuge portions would remain intact, continuing to discharge groundwater 

onto Refuge lands and possibly backing water onto adjacent private property. 

3.1.3 Biological Environment

Vegetation

Historic Ecosystem

At the time of European settlement, prairie covered 28.6 million acres in Iowa (Smith, 1998). Oak 

savannas covered 11 to 13 million acres in the Midwest (Nuzzo, 1985) and about 2.4 million acres in 

Iowa (Smith, 1998). According to 1846 General Land Office survey records, the land cover of the current 

Neal Smith NWR at the time of European settlement consisted of tallgrass prairie in the northern half, 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

extending into the southwestern and southeastern portions of the Refuge; a lobe of oak savanna

extended from the south along Walnut Creek to the center of the Refuge.

The pattern of vegetation across the landscape was dependent on a complex combination of 

environmental factors such as climate, topography, hydrology, grazing, and soils; combined with the 

effects of fire either caused naturally by lightning or deliberately set by humans. Fire was an important 

factor in the ecology of the ecosystem, promoting deep-rooted herbaceous plants, reducing litter buildup, and suppressing the growth of woody vegetation. Bison and elk provided essential functions such as 

grazing and other disturbances that, together with fire, maintained the diverse and dynamic nature of a

system dominated by herbaceous vegetation. As these environmental factors varied over time and 

space, so too did the distribution of vegetation communities. The landscape was a mosaic of prairie 

flowing to oak savanna and sedge meadow with no abrupt edges between them. 

Tallgrass prairie is dominated by grasses and forbs. Typically there is little cover of woody vegetation, 

although some shrub species are appropriate. Plant species are adapted to sunny conditions. Springblooming species are smaller in stature with each successive wave of bloom coming on taller plants until 

late summer and autumn, when tall forbs bloom amidst warm season grasses. Several hundred plant 

species are adapted to prairie conditions with variation in moisture regime and soil type. 

Oak savanna is characterized by spreading, open-grown oak trees. The scattered trees or groves of trees 

typically have a canopy ranging between 10 and 70 percent. On the Refuge, bur oak (Quercus 

macrocarpa) is the dominant tree species interspersed with red oak (Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus 

velutina), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis). Sapling and pole 

trees help maintain a subcanopy layer and replace mature overstory trees that age and eventually drop 

out of the canopy. Historically, trees probably were denser in wet areas and along north and east slopes. 

The mosaic of open, closed, and partially shaded areas created by the trees provide for a unique mix of 

herbaceous understory plants—sun-loving prairie species, shade-adapted forest species, and savannaspecific species can all be found in oak savanna. Shrubs may or may not be present depending on fire 

frequency. Savanna fires are often slow and creeping, compared to raging prairie fires. Historically, oak 

savanna represented a dynamic ecotone between prairie and forest, slowly expanding and contracting 

as climate and fire regime shifted over thousands of years. 

Sedge meadow is a very shallow wetland community characterized by hydric soils and dominated by a

variety of sedges. Sedge meadows occur along a gradient from mesic tallgrass prairie to wet prairie to 

sedge meadow to wetland. They require moisture close to the surface for an extended period during the 

growing season. The plants require full sun and frequent fire. In addition to sedges, sedge meadows 

contain prairie cordgrass, rushes, and some forbs. Sedges often form tussocks, creating unique habitat 

for wildlife. Sedge meadows are a unique mix of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, with fluctuating 

water levels. 

European Settlement

The tallgrass prairie ecosystem was quickly settled and cleared as European-Americans arrived in the 

Midwest in the mid-1800s. Oaks provided firewood and building material. When settlement began it 

was believed that the best soil for farming was under wooded areas so many were rapidly cleared for 

agriculture. The rich prairie soils were soon discovered and quickly plowed as the state was settled. By

the late 1800s, most of the prairies had been plowed or heavily grazed, and today less than one percent 

of tallgrass prairie remains east of the Missouri River, and less than 0.1 percent in Iowa (Smith, 1998). 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

Only 0.02 percent of midwestern savannas remain, with the rest destroyed or severely degraded (Nuzzo,

1986). Noss et al. (1995) classified tallgrass prairie east of the Missouri River and on mesic sites 

throughout their range and all midwestern oak savannas as critically endangered. Savannas are the 

biome with the greatest conservation risk on Earth (Hoekstra et al., 2005). 

Populations of wildlife that depended on tallgrass prairie habitats declined quickly as the land was 

settled and many species disappeared from the area. It is estimated that there were 50–75 million bison 

present in North America at the time Europeans arrived. The last of the bison (Bison bison) were 

extirpated from Iowa in 1863, and elk (Cervus elaphus) were gone by the early 1870s (Dinsmore, 1994). 

Many species of grassland birds also showed precipitous declines in numbers. The last nesting 

population of Greater Prairie-Chickens in southern Iowa disappeared in the 1950s, prior to their 

reintroduction in 1987.

Neal Smith NWR

The entire Walnut Creek watershed and surrounding area were heavily impacted by agriculture. Most 

prairie and savanna were converted to croplands; lands less suitable for crops were used for grazing 

livestock or logging. Fire was actively suppressed. Consequently, all of the pre-settlement natural 

communities were eliminated, degraded, or considerably disturbed. When the Refuge was established, 

cropland occupied about 69 percent of the approved boundary, grazed pasture occupied approximately 

17 percent, and about 7.5 percent had been converted to grassland dominated by non-native brome 

under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Scattered untilled remnants of native vegetation also 

remained. Figure 3-6 illustrates current Refuge land cover.

Reconstructed prairie

About 3,400 acres of former cropland have been planted with native prairie species. Prairie 

reconstructions on the Refuge are of varying quality, from very diverse to those dominated by a few 

species, primarily warm season grasses including big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indian grass 

(Sorghastrum nutans), and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium). Native cool season graminoids 

(grasses and sedges) and forbs are under-represented throughout the Refuge. Some units have very low 

densities of forbs and some are beginning to be invaded by woody vegetation. Non-native invasive 

species are present in many locations. 

Many plants that are associated with high quality prairie [such as lead plant (Amorpha canescens), 

prairie lily (Lilium philadelphicum), and New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus)] are beginning to be 

observed on the Refuge despite having been planted a decade or more ago. These and other species are 

indicators of a maturing prairie and testimony that ecological restoration is a long-term process.

The 2,500 acres of reconstructed prairie classified as “Warm Season” on the 2010 vegetation map 

(figure 3-6) are dominated by warm season grasses and native forbs but may contain up to 20 percent 

cover of non-native grasses (mostly brome) and non-native forbs. Units classified as “Cool/Warm 

Season” (675 acres) have more than 50 percent cover of non-native grasses, especially brome. This 

category is typical of younger plantings and areas that have been grazed or mowed. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

Figure 3-6: Current Land Cover, Neal Smith NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

Crop fields and old pasture

About 600 acres of Refuge land are still being farmed to prevent weed encroachment until they can be 

planted to prairie. Another 700 acres are categorized as “Brome (Cool Season).” Most of these units 

were planted for pasture or through the CRP prior to Refuge ownership. They are dominated by smooth 

brome and other non-native cool season grasses [timothy (Phleum pretense), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa 

pratensis), etc.].

Prairie and savanna remnants

About 90 acres of remnant tallgrass prairie and 150 acres of oak savanna remnants are found on the 

Refuge. When fire was suppressed, non-fire-tolerant woody species began encroaching, eventually 

forming an overly dense canopy that favors shade-tolerant understory species at the expense of prairie 

and savanna specialists. Native herbaceous plants that remain often are limited to spring-blooming 

species that complete much of their life cycle before the trees leaf out. Non-native plant species, both 

woody and herbaceous, are invading many remnants. Oak regeneration in savannas has been limited by 

shady conditions, competition with faster-growing trees and shrubs, and browsing by white-tailed deer.

Sedge meadow

Dominant native plants found in sedge meadows include prairie cordgrass, sedges, and rushes. Native 

forbs occur occasionally. Sedge meadows are located in floodplain depressions associated with Walnut 

Creek and its tributaries as well as in upland seeps and ravines. In the floodplain, invasive reed 

canarygrass has become a tenacious competitor due to hydrologic alteration. About 330 acres of lowlying Refuge land are classified as “Phalaris (Reed Canarygrass)” on the 2010 vegetation map (figure 3-

6). These areas are dominated by greater than 75 percent reed canarygrass. One ten-acre sedge 

meadow on the Refuge is the subject of an ongoing reconstruction and research program.

Sedge meadows on upland areas near seeps and ravines often still retain some diversity. Seasonal 

variations in wetness in these locations make it difficult for many invasive plants to survive, including 

reed canarygrass, although seeps are vulnerable to cool season exotics like smooth brome. Ravines drain 

surface runoff into Walnut Creek; many probably contained seeps prior to being tiled and sedges 

sometimes still survive in these areas. Subsurface drain tiles have reduced the level of soil saturation in 

seeps and ravines and reduced the quality and diversity of the sedge meadows found there.

Volunteer Woodland

About 220 acres, primarily along Walnut Creek, are currently woodlands that have grown in since 

European-American settlement. Another 185 acres of trees have been removed since the Refuge was 

established. Although the trees are primarily native species, they are fire-intolerant and did not occur in 

these locations in the 1840s. Oak woodland did exist in some parts of southern and eastern Iowa prior 

to European settlement but not on the Refuge. Evidence indicates that current-day Refuge woodlands 

are actually overgrown savanna, prairie, or sedge meadow, the result of fire suppression, not historic 

ecological processes. For example:

• Mature oaks in the Refuge woodlands have widely spreading branches indicating that they grew 

in strong sunlight. 

• There is no ecological relationship between the overstory and understory species in Refuge 

woodlands indicating that the understory species are present as a result of disturbances in the 

natural ecological processes. 

• The General Land Office (GLO) survey notes make no mention of trees north of the current 

Visitor Center site.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

Ponds

Farm ponds existed on some Refuge lands at the time of purchase, created by previous landowners as a 

water source for livestock or to reduce soil erosion. Some were silted-in and abandoned at the time of 

Service acquisition. Most of the dams have been removed so the ponds no longer hold water. Such 

ponds did not exist in the pre-settlement ecosystem, and their modest wildlife habitat benefits can be 

replaced by restoration projects that are more appropriate for the ecology of the area.

The 1992 Master Plan called for creation of six small impoundments and moist soil units within the 

riparian corridor. The purpose was to create marsh habitat to increase the value of the Refuge for 

wildlife, provide educators with the opportunity to teach the public about wetlands and wildlife, and 

enhance the visual and biological diversity of the Refuge. The created wetlands would have required 

dikes, water control structures, and intensive management. However, as a result of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and subsequent policy on biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health, National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System)

priorities began to favor management that restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes and 

functions. The created wetlands identified in the Master Plan were not constructed.

Wildlife and Fish

Birds

More than 200 species of birds now use the Refuge, including more than 80 species during breeding 

season. Many bird species that had been extirpated from the area due to habitat loss have returned as 

the ecosystem undergoes restoration.

Birds began showing up in Refuge prairies soon after plantings began, and as the Refuge has grown the 

number of grassland bird species has increased. Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) was first 

found on the Refuge in 1999 and is now ubiquitous in the unburned prairies and grasslands each year. 

Several other species of grassland birds including Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis), Field Sparrow 

(Spizella pusilla), Grasshopper Sparrow (A. savannarum), Dickcissel (Spiza Americana), Bobolink 

(Dolichonyx oryzivorus), and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) also are common on the Refuge 

during the breeding season. Western Meadowlark (S. neglecta) is found in a few locations including one 

pair in the bison and elk enclosure most years. Upland Sandpipers are present in small numbers in most 

years, and fledglings have been confirmed. The Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) is present in 

small numbers, although some of these birds may be captive-reared birds released for hunting from a 

nearby game farm. Short-eared Owls (Asio flammeus) and Northern Harriers (Circus cyaneus) are now 

consistently seen during winter and migration. Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni), Smith’s Longspurs 

(Calcarius pictus), and Le Conte’s (A. leconteii) and Savanna Sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis) use 

the Refuge regularly during migration.

Another group of birds on the Refuge uses shrubs for feeding and nesting, including Bell’s Vireo (Vireo 

bellii), Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), Yellow-breasted Chat 

(Icteria virens), and Orchard Oriole (I. spurius). Others—such as Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), 

Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes 

gramineus), Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla), Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), and American 

Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis)—use scattered shrubs surrounded by grasslands. Loggerhead Shrikes are 

sometimes present on the Refuge in small numbers. American Tree (Spizella arborea) and Harris’ 

Sparrows (Zonotrichia querula) and Northern Shrikes (L. excubitor) are also present in this habitat during 

migration and winter.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

Red-headed Woodpeckers (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) are found in oak savannas on the Refuge. 

Northern Flickers (Colaptes auratus) frequently forage in prairies but use trees for nesting. Eastern 

Towhees and Field Sparrows use shrubs in oak savanna areas.

Waterfowl may occur on the Refuge more frequently as habitat conditions in sedge meadows and 

savannas improve.

Mammals

By the end of the 19th century at least 13 mammals were extirpated from Iowa including bison, 

pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), elk, mountain lion (Felis concolor), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), 

gray wolf (Canis lupus), wolverine (Gulo luscus), lynx (Lynx canadensis), fisher (Martes pennant), black 

bear (Ursus americanus), beaver (Castor canadensis), river otter (Lutra canadensis), and white-tailed 

deer (Odocoileus virginianus). The last three have been reintroduced into the state and the populations 

are rebounding. Black bears are sighted occasionally in Iowa but have not shown a substantial 

comeback, which is likely the result of a lack of suitable habitat. 

More than 40 mammal species, including the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) have 

been documented on the Refuge. White-tailed deer, eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), thirteenlined ground squirrel (Citellus tridecemlineatus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) are the most frequently 

seen mammals on the Refuge. Badgers (Taxidea taxus) and bobcats (Lynx rufus) have also been found. 

Bison and elk have been reintroduced to a 700-acre fenced enclosure. The Refuge has suitable habitat to 

support the spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), although the species is thought to be extirpated from the 

state. Although somewhat outside its present range, the white-tailed jack rabbit (Lepus townsendii) 

could potentially occupy grazed areas of the Refuge in the future. Franklin’s ground squirrel (C. franklini) 

is another species formerly occurring in the area that could be re-established on the Refuge.

Reptiles and Amphibians

The 1992 Master Plan appendices list four turtles and 15 snakes likely to occur on the Refuge. Most of 

these species have broad distributions and are common in Iowa. At least three species of grasslandassociated reptiles might reoccupy the area if suitable habitat were available. Two of these species 

[western slender glass lizard (Ophisarius attenuates) and speckled kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula 

holbrooki)] are currently listed as endangered in Iowa. The ranges of both species extend to near the 

Refuge. The other, the northern prairie skink (Eumeces septentrionalis), is reasonably common in 

suitable habitat (sand prairies) in Iowa,

but such habitat currently is greatly 

restricted and not present on the 

Refuge. All three of these species might 

naturally recolonize the Refuge if

suitable habitat is available. Fox (Elaphe 

vulpine) and bull snakes (Pituophis 

catenifer) (as well as many others) are 

also declining and are present in suitable 

habitat on the Refuge. 

Amphibian surveys documented nine 

species on the Refuge in 2004 including 

the tiger salamander (Ambystoma 

Eastern Gray Treefrog
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

tigrinum), eastern gray treefrog (Hyla versacolor) and Cope’s gray treefrog (H. chrysoscelis), American 

toad (Anaxyrus americanus), American bullfrog (Ranus catesbeiana), Blanchard’s cricket frog (Acris 

crepitans blanchardi), western chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), 

and pickerel frog (R. palustris). A narrow-mouthed salamander (Ambystoma texanum) was captured in a 

pitfall trap as part of a ground invertebrate sampling project in 1994. The most common frogs and toads 

detected on annual nocturnal call surveys are eastern gray tree frog, American toad, Blanchard’s cricket 

frog, and western chorus frog. None of the amphibians present on the Refuge are on the federal or Iowa 

lists of threatened or endangered species, although Blanchard’s cricket frog is listed as a species of 

greatest conservation need in the Iowa Wildlife Action Plan. Additional species that may occur include 

the plains leopard frog and green frog (R. clamitans). The spring peeper (P. crucifer) is found in nearby 

counties and its range is expanding in Iowa. 

Invertebrates 

Nearly 90 butterfly species have been documented on the Refuge, including the regal fritillary (Speyeria 

idalia), which has been the subject of Refuge reintroduction and research efforts. Baseline sampling in 

remnants on the Refuge identified 426 moth species. At least 29 species of ants have been documented 

from the Refuge, including Formica montana and Formica exsectoides, two species that build large 

mounds. Five species of native earthworms have been documented on the Refuge. Prairie crayfish 

(Procambarus gracilis), which engineers the prairie by building burrows, is found throughout the Refuge.

Fish 

Thirty-one species of fish from eight families were collected from Walnut Creek between 1995 and 2005, 

but the overall number of fish collected was low. The fish community was dominated by minnows 

(Cyprinidae), most of which are considered abundant-to-common in Iowa streams. Sunfishes 

(Centrarchidae) were often found in Walnut Creek, but in small numbers. Seven species of suckers 

(Catostomidae) were collected, generally in fairly low numbers. Gizzard shad comprised a large 

proportion of the Walnut Creek fish population in 1998 and 1999 but were found in relatively low 

numbers in other years. During all years, species tolerant of degraded environmental conditions made 

up a large proportion of the Walnut Creek fish community. Less tolerant species were sporadically 

found. The diversity of fish collected from Walnut Creek can vary dramatically and is heavily influenced 

by its proximity to the Des Moines River. The dominant resident fish species are likely populations that 

have relied historically on Walnut Creek for shelter and food while the infrequent species are likely just 

transients (Schilling et al., 2006).

Little is known about the historic fish assemblage of Walnut Creek. At least two species listed as 

threatened in Iowa [western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara) and blacknose shiner (Notropis 

heterolepis)] once were found in this region, although Walnut Creek does not appear to have suitable 

habitat for either. The Refuge is within the historic range of the endangered Topeka shiner (N. topeka), 

but the species has not been found in Walnut Creek, and the Refuge does not contain designated critical 

habitat. The damming of the Des Moines River to create Red Rock Lake influences habitat in Walnut 

Creek and allows access to the creek by warm-water species that would not be present otherwise.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Federally endangered Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) migrate from central Missouri to southern Iowa 

during the spring months to raise their young. Jasper County is near the northwestern edge of the 

species’ range. Two monitoring seasons (1992 and 1993) on the Refuge resulted in successful mistnetting of lactating females and juveniles from one localized area just north of Thorn Valley Savanna. A 

third monitoring season resulted in capture of one adult male. The Refuge follows Service guidelines for 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

tree-cutting and burning to protect roosting Indiana bats. Savanna restoration will likely improve Indiana 

bat habitat by developing more desirable flyways and thus, better forage conditions under an open 

canopy. The species prefers large dead trees with loose bark during breeding season.

In 1994, seeds of the federally threatened prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptostachya) were sown on 

the Refuge. No plants have been observed as yet on this 35-acre site. Seeds and/or seedlings may have 

perished, but it is also possible that the seeds are still lying dormant in the soil. Some species of the 

genus Lespedeza require seed scarification to begin the germination process, but it is uncertain whether

or not prairie bush clover is one of those species. 

In 2001, seedlings of the federally threatened western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) 

were transplanted to two sites on the Refuge. The plants were the result of a project instigated by Dr. 

Margaret Fromm, the only individual who had successfully propagated the species from seed in the lab. 

Seedlings existed as a single green shoot or leaf per plant. Though the shoot stayed green on some 

orchid plants, others could not be found again later in the year. In subsequent years the plants have not 

been observed in the area where transplanting took place.

3.1.4 Socioeconomic Environment

Population, Income, Employment, and Demographics

The Refuge lies in the southwest quadrant of Jasper County. Jasper County is primarily rural in nature. 

Polk County includes the city of Des Moines, located about 18 miles west of the Refuge. The Des Moines 

metropolitan area (population 500,000) is one of the fastest growing regions of the state. The town of 

Prairie City (population 1,400) lies just northeast of the Refuge boundary.

The area population increased by 12.8 percent from 1995 to 2005, compared with a 3.4 percent 

increase for the State of Iowa and an 11.4 percent increase for the United States as a whole. Per capita 

income in the area increased by 8.6 percent over the 1995-2005 period, while the State of Iowa and the 

United States increased by 14.6 and 13.2 percent respectively (Carver and Caudill, 2007; figure 3-2).

Table 3-2: Changes in population, employment, and income 1995-2005

County Population Employment Per Capita Income

2005 % change 1995-

2005 2005 % change 1995-2005 2005 % change 1995-2005

Jasper 37,500 6.0% 18,700 1.4% $28,622 1.5%

Polk 401,800 13.5% 323,300 12.5% $39,215 14.5%

Area Total 439,300 12.8% 342,000 11.8% $33,919 8.6%

Iowa 2,965,500 3.4% 1,968,200 9.6% $31,670 14.6%

United States 266,278,400 11.4% 174,249,600 17.0% $34,471 13.2%

(From: Carver and Caudill, 2007)

The median household income in Jasper County in 2009 was $48,439 with ten percent of residents living 

below the poverty level. The population is about 97 percent white (U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts). 

Manufacturing is the largest category of private sector employment in Jasper County, followed by retail 

trade, leisure/hospitality, and education/health services (Iowa Workforce Development 

http://iwin.iwd.state.ia.us/iowa).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

Refuge Economics

Neal Smith NWR affects the local economy through the visitor spending it generates and the 

employment it supports. The Refuge currently supports 10.5 full-time permanent employees and 

receives about 160,000 visitors each year, many of whom visit the Refuge multiple times during the 

year. About 14 percent of visitors come from Jasper County, 24 percent from the Des Moines 

metropolitan area, 36 percent from other parts of Iowa, and 22 percent from other parts of the United 

States. Neal Smith NWR was one of the sample refuges investigated in a national study of the economic 

benefits to local communities of national wildlife refuge visitation (Carver and Caudill, 2007). This study 

found that, in 2006, resident and non-resident visitors to Neal Smith NWR spent about $2.3 million with 

non-residents accounting for about 90 percent of total expenditures. When this spending had cycled 

through the economy, Refuge visitation had generated $982,200 in job income, 36 jobs, and about 

$325,400 in total tax revenue for local communities.

3.1.5 Cultural Resources

Area History (from Hudak et al., 1991)

Pre-History

Archeological records show evidence that nomadic hunter-gatherers were present in Iowa from the 

earliest generally accepted cultural period, the Paleo-Indian tradition, that began about 12,000 years 

before present (yrs BP). Archeologists hypothesize that these hunter-gatherers roamed widely through 

the post-glacial boreal forest of the Midwest in search of mastodon, wooly mammoth, and other 

resources. 

The Archaic tradition evolved as the climate grew warmer and drier, and the cool moist boreal forest 

gave way to deciduous forest and savanna. People became more sedentary, exploiting deer, elk, and 

smaller mammals for food, as well as birds and plant resources. There is consistent evidence of ongoing 

trade and other forms of interaction during this period. Prairie vegetation moved into the region during 

the middle Archaic (8,000–5,000 yrs BP), and bison became a dependable resource. Late Archaic sites 

are well represented in central Iowa, including sites in Saylorville Reservoir.

Cooler moister conditions subsequently re-emerged. As deciduous forest expanded once again, bison 

herds likely moved farther west, although other resources were still plentiful. During this time, people of 

the Woodland tradition developed pottery manufacture, construction of burial mounds, 

experimentation with cultivated plants, and habitation in small villages. The middle Woodland tradition 

(2,500–1,500 yrs BP) is well represented in the archeological record of central Iowa.

Several new cultural traditions emerged in the Midwest as shorter climatic intervals (~400 years) 

oscillated between wet and dry periods. The people of the Oneota tradition (950–200 yrs BP) were the 

primary inhabitants of the tallgrass prairie. Archeological sites west of the Mississippi River generally 

offer large numbers of bison bone, suggesting that the animals were located nearby and were 

intensively sought by these people. Almost all Oneota villages offer evidence for intensive gardening of 

corn, beans, and squash. The Oneota culture is regarded as the traditional culture of the Winnebago, 

Ioway, Oto, and Missouri Indians. Oneota cultural remains from central Iowa are sufficiently distinctive 

that they are referred to in the literature as the Moingona phase.

Native American History

Prior to 1821, the Ioways and Missouris were in control of the lower and central Des Moines River 

Valley. The prehistoric remains of these tribes are well represented in the nearby Red Rock Reservoir 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

area. It is possible that the ancestral Ioway, Missouri, and/or Oto lived in large villages very near the 

Refuge area as early as A.D. 1000. Their hunting grounds, collecting locations, campsites, and gardens 

were probably located in the Walnut Creek drainage although there is little specific documentation in 

the historic record.

The Sauk Indians, led by the famous warrior Black Hawk, soundly defeated the Ioways in a battle fought 

near Iowaville in 1821. The Ioways vacated the area soon thereafter and ceded all their Iowa lands to 

the U.S. Government in the early 1830s. Shortly after the battle, the Sauk and Fox moved into the 

central Des Moines valley and became the principal Native Americans in residence there until they 

ceded all Iowa territory and left for reservations to the west.

The Sauk and Fox lived in several villages simultaneously that fluctuated in size depending upon the 

fortunes of the village leader. In the early 1840s Poweshiek’s village was located less than 20 miles north 

of the Refuge on the South Skunk River, and Keokuk’s village was located immediately south of the 

Refuge along the Des Moines River (now Lake Red Rock). 

The Sauk and Fox were involved in numerous treaties with the U.S. Government to cede their lands. In 

an 1842 treaty, they ceded their last claim to Iowa land in exchange for a reservation in Kansas, then to 

the present-day reserve in Oklahoma. Part of the Meskwaki tribe, however, separated from the larger 

group, returned to Iowa, and purchased land in Tama County where they still maintain the Meskwaki 

Settlement today. 

The historic record contains few specific references to Native American use of the Walnut Creek 

drainage but one early settler, William Edward Pulver, told the story of the “Johnnie Green Indians” in a 

1935 article in the Newton Daily News. Johnnie Green was a Potawatomi, yet he was the leader of a 

band of Meskwaki. Pulver probably saw Green and his band along Walnut Creek in the early 1860s when 

he was a small boy: 

“I remember seeing the Indians ride past our house wrapped in their bright blankets and I have been 

with Lute Hayes in their camp about two miles east of here, where they built a dam in the creek to 

wash their clothes, in the Dan Hayes timber. They were called the Johnnie Green Indians as that was 

the name of their chief. They left here and went to Kansas, then later moved to Tama. It was their 

custom to return each year to camp for a time in the timbers near their graveyard on the Billy Hayes 

farm. There are some fourteen or more graves that lay on a hillside just east of a small creek east 

and a little north of the barn as it now stands, the location being R 21 W, Township 78 N, Section 21. 

There are also several Indian graves just south of the school house.”

Euro-American Settlement

Jasper County was created in 1840 even before there were any permanent residents. Settlement began 

in 1843, and by 1846 permanent white settlement was sufficient to merit establishment of formal 

county government. Newton City (later shortened to Newton) was named county seat.

With rapid increased settlement in the interior of Iowa came calls for a state capital that was more 

centrally located than Iowa City. Many frontier communities dreamed of capturing the prize, and the 

political pressure was intense. A three-man commission examined a series of locations in 1847 before 

settling on an uninhabited site two miles south and east of present-day Prairie City. Word of the 

selection touched off a frenzy of speculative lands sales, and central Iowa suddenly was the place to be. 

However, legislators in Iowa City were less than thrilled with the location, so in 1848 they repealed the 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

earlier act that provided for a new capital location. The capital of Iowa was moved to Des Moines in 

1857. 

By the summer of 1847, there was evidence of various settlement activities in southwest Jasper County. 

The map prepared by surveyor Samuel Jacobs showed four sets of cultivated fields, what may have been 

an Indian trail running east-west across the center, and a portion of the old Territorial Road from 

Oskaloosa to Fort Des Moines crossing the northeast corner of the township. Jacobs described the 

landscape:

“Township 78 Range 21 W 5th Meridian has a rolling surface and a good second rate soil. In the 

southwestern part of the township there is a body of generally good timber, about equal in area to 

ten sections, consisting of oak, hickory, elm, lind, walnut, etc. The remainder of the township is 

rolling prairie. It is well watered and being rapidly settled.”

Prairie City was founded in 1851 and soon became a stop along the old Territorial Road. Jasper County 

acquired rail service in 1865 when the Des Moines Valley Railroad reached Monroe. Prairie City emerged 

as the dominant community in the Walnut Creek area when it gained rail service in 1866. 

Farms and communities developed rapidly, fueled by the developing agricultural economy. In Jasper 

County and elsewhere, settlers initially favored farm sites combining timberland and open prairie land, 

preferably near a stream. Such sites offered wood for fuel and building purposes, a water source, and 

prairie for pasture and (relatively) easy planting. But as settlement increased, virtually all available land 

was soon snapped up without regard for the proportions of timber and prairie on them. 

Livestock and corn were dominant in Iowa, but some areas developed additional agricultural specialties. 

In the Prairie City area, commercial potato production was very important during the late 19th century. 

The area was termed the “Potato Metropolis,” and one 1891 account estimated that the total harvest 

that year alone would easily reach 100,000 bushels. The Dowden potato digger was invented and 

manufactured in Prairie City, and the company touted its “potato harvesters, shoveling boards, potato 

cutters, potato sorters, etc.” Many prominent root cellars on area farmsteads persist as a visual 

reminder of this era.

Refuge Cultural Resources

In 1991, the Service sponsored a cultural resources investigation of the Refuge to guide development of 

the 1992 Master Plan and to formulate a predictive model to identify areas of high cultural resources 

potential for use in future planning (Hudak et al., 1991). 

The investigation team identified and evaluated seven prehistoric sites, two reported historic Indian 

burial locations, a reported Indian camp area, and all standing farmsteads located on the Refuge. None 

of the prehistoric sites were considered significant. No surface evidence of the reported burial areas or 

camping site was found, probably due to the effects of cultivation and erosion. Additional nondestructive testing was recommended should ground-disturbing activities become necessary. The 

farmsteads have been greatly altered over the years and it is unclear at present whether any are eligible 

for the National Register of Historic Places. 

Two soil groups found in alluvial fans and valley bottoms were identified as having the potential to 

contain additional cultural resources. Cultural resources in the lowlands may now be deeply buried. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Uplands on the Refuge show little or no promise for either surficial or buried archaeological sites 

because of extensive erosion. 

Cultural Resources 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 regarding not only human 

interactions with each other, but also with 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 National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966, of identifying historic properties (cultural resources that are eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places) that may be affected by our 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. 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA), Section 14 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 (not just sites 

meeting the criteria for the National Register) on federal land 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 

relating to cultural resources are to be 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 administered lands, by monitoring archaeological investigations by 

contractors and permittees, and by reporting ARPA violations.

3.2 Refuge Management

3.2.1 Biological Program

Introduction

At Neal Smith NWR, management emphasis is placed on restoring the tallgrass prairie ecosystem, 

including native wildlife, plants, and ecological processes. Tallgrass prairie, oak savanna, and sedge 

meadow vegetation communities are being restored or reconstructed. The prescribed fire program is 

approximating a historic burn regime. Bison, elk, and the regal fritillary have been reintroduced on the 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

Refuge. Many grassland bird species and other wildlife have returned to the Refuge as habitat 

conditions have improved.

The benchmark reference period for ecosystem restoration on the Refuge is the 1840s when permanent 

European settlement was beginning in central Iowa. This period was chosen because GLO survey notes 

and maps from that era provide one of the earliest detailed records of landscape conditions in central 

Iowa. However, it is understood that some of the flora and fauna of that time period may no longer exist 

today, and other irreversible changes have occurred so that it will be impossible to restore the entire 

historic conditions. We also are faced with the effects of climate change creating uncertainty about 

future precipitation and temperature patterns. Habitat restoration to date has focused on 

reconstructing native prairie plant communities on former agricultural lands and restoring biological 

diversity on prairie and savanna remnants according to the best science available.

Refuge staff developed an ecosystem summary table for Neal Smith NWR (Appendix G: Summary of 

Refuge Ecosystems); three vegetation communities are named: tallgrass prairie, oak savanna, and sedge 

meadow. Also included are aquatic and aerial ecosystems. Table columns list characteristic plant 

species, wildlife species, natural processes, and limiting factors/threats. Plant and wildlife species listed 

aren’t considered more “important” than other species, but they are considered representatives of a 

high quality ecosystem, specializing in those communities. It is considered that if these species are 

present, then other more generalist species should be present, too.

Vegetation

Tallgrass Prairie Reconstruction

Habitat work in the early years following Refuge establishment focused on planting and maintaining 

native prairie species on former agricultural fields. The new Refuge was controversial, and quickly,

planting many fields was perceived to be critical in gaining credibility and support at all levels both 

within and outside the Service. About 1,100 acres were planted from 1993 to 1995. Today that total is 

about 3,400 acres (figure 3-6). Each planting is a unique prescription derived for the specific site 

conditions using the plant species available at the time. 

Seed sources and mixes

Development of seed sources was a complicated business when the Refuge began. Only seed from a 38-

county “local ecotype zone” was to be used for Refuge plantings in order to maintain a high degree of 

ecological integrity. By using local ecotype seed, the environmental pressures that influenced presence 

and development of species, genetic, and community characteristics would most effectively be 

captured. The local ecotype zone lies primarily within the Southern Iowa Drift Plain, but because the 

Refuge lies near the northern end of the landform, additional counties were added that were likely to 

have contributed to plant genetic exchange via wind, water, or animal movement. 

The Refuge had a large and immediate need for native prairie seed in the early years, but local remnant 

prairie seed sources were small, scattered, and mostly unknown to the conservation community. 

Businesses supplying an appropriate seed product did not exist. Over time a greater diversity and quality 

of seed became available as suppliers adapted to this new market and as Refuge plantings began 

producing harvestable seed, but in the initial years the majority of seed available was big bluestem

(Andropogon gerardii), and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans). Now volunteers, school groups, interns, 

and staff collect a wide diversity of native seeds on the Refuge. Species not present in high quantities or 

difficult to collect on the Refuge can be purchased from several local seed vendors.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

Early plantings included some areas with 

concentrations of highly diverse seed 

mixes, some areas with good diversity in a 

matrix primarily of available grass, and 

some plantings that were admittedly 

dominated by big bluestem and Indian 

grass, with the intent of future species 

enrichment. To date, such enrichment has 

been minimal due to time and funding 

constraints. 

Meanwhile, Refuge staff began using 

Canada wild rye as a nurse crop for prairie 

plantings, because it establishes easily, 

competing with weeds as other native 

species become established but declines in vigor within five years. This built-in obsolescence holds the 

place for future infusion of diversity without the intense competition of warm season grass species. 

Inclusion of Canada wild rye as a native nurse crop became standard practice relatively early in Refuge 

development. Canada wild rye is still used on the Refuge in this way and the practice has been widely 

adopted by other prairie restoration programs. 

Refuge greenhouse facilities and production plots provide the opportunity to establish plants without 

competition before planting them out. Plant species diversity has been increased by transplanting plugs 

into specific areas. Certain seed is hard to obtain and/or very expensive, so the greenhouse is used to 

provide better germination success. Some plants do not establish easily or quickly from seed but do so 

from a greenhouse started plant. Other species are grown in the greenhouse, so they can be planted in 

specific areas where seeding hasn’t been very successful, such as near the Visitor Center. The 

greenhouse is used for environmental education and stewardship activities in addition to improving 

plant diversity.

 

With more options for obtaining greater quantities of seed of specific species, planting prescriptions no 

longer need to be dominated by warm season grasses. Current plantings may contain 250 or more 

species, although the precise number of total species planted is difficult to assess. Small samples of each 

lot of machine-harvested seed are tested to provide an idea of at least the most abundant species in the 

mix for development of reasonable planting prescriptions.

Site selection

A variety of factors are considered when selecting planting sites in any given year. A priority in the early 

years of reconstruction was to concentrate plantings in the core of the Refuge to serve a two-part goal 

of ecological restoration and development of an area near the Visitor Center where visitors could 

experience prairie and that was convenient for Refuge interpretive and education programs. Similarly, a 

high priority was placed on planting near the location of the entry road. When roads or buildings were 

constructed, planting the area of disturbance was of utmost importance. 

Planting crop fields has been a higher priority than planting areas with existing perennial vegetation, 

such as former CRP lands and pastures. The Refuge has attempted to take proportionate amounts of 

cropland from each cooperating farmer in any given year, which was a big influence in the early years 

when many acres were planted. The relationship of a site to remnant natural communities or high 

Purple Prairie Clover
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

densities of invasive species like reed canarygrass has been considered. Later priorities included seeding 

along drainage areas, roadsides, and smoothed fencerows that had been included in the initial plantings. 

Site preparation and planting

In general, agricultural fields are kept in Roundup Ready® crops until Refuge staff is ready to plant them 

with prairie seed. This reduces invasive species problems. Crop fields are rotated annually between corn 

and soybeans, with the final crop usually consisting of soybeans. The presence of terraces and trees in a 

unit requires more preparatory work and has delayed planting in some areas more recently. Subsurface 

drain tiles were not removed in most areas that have been planted to native species. 

Early plantings were experimental and included several methods of seed delivery using drills and various 

broadcast seeders, but the most common method was a no-till drill. Later, broadcast seeding became a 

routine practice. Observations and research indicate better results using broadcast seeding in terms of 

invasive species suppression, forb establishment and earlier blooming, establishment of relatively more 

conservative species, and more even species distribution, so that is the approach now used. Broadcast 

seeding is also esthetically more pleasing, because it does not result in obvious rows of plants as drilling 

does.

Generally for the first two years after planting, the field is mowed two to three times during the growing 

season to prevent early successional non-native species from going to seed. After three or four years the 

planting may be burned. It typically takes at least three years for a prairie planting to develop a fuel 

matrix sufficient to carry fire.

Results

Since the Refuge was established, almost 3,600 acres of prairie has been planted into former agricultural 

land. Tallgrass prairie reconstruction at this scale had never been done previously. Returning perennial 

vegetation to the land has provided benefits to the wildlife and hydrology on the Refuge. Native warm

season grasses and many native forb species established readily. Other species have been slow or 

difficult to establish. Prairie reconstructions on the Refuge vary in diversity of vegetation, from highly 

diverse to those dominated by a few species that are primarily native warm season grasses. Native cool

season graminoids (grasses and sedges) and forbs are under-represented throughout the Refuge. Some 

units have low densities of forbs, and most units would benefit from the addition of more species. Nonnative invasive species are present in many locations. Terraces, gullies, trees, roads, fences, and drain 

tiles should be removed before planting. This has not always happened; removal is still needed on some 

previously planted sites. 

Many factors affect the outcome of prairie reconstruction efforts on the Refuge. Differences in diversity 

and development of planted sites can reflect differences in seed mixes; timing and method of planting; 

frequency and seasonality of burning, mowing, and spraying; and effects of bison and elk in the fenced 

enclosure. The large-scale spraying of herbicides to treat invasive species, particularly Canada thistle, 

has probably contributed to the low diversity of native plants in some areas. Weather patterns such as 

temperature and rainfall are very important in determining what species and how many seeds will 

survive, and which invasive species might become a problem. Sorting out the nuances that result in a 

particular planting outcome at any given time is difficult. However, research efforts on the Refuge are 

addressing some of these issues.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

Restoration of Remnant Habitats 

In the first 15 years or so after Refuge establishment, the focus of habitat work was on planting native 

prairie vegetation on former cropland. Work on most remnants was deferred. On those remnants that 

did receive attention, it was minimal. Prioritization of restoration on remnants was focused primarily on 

degree of visibility to the public and on public use. Thus, Thorn Valley and Buzzard Head savannas were 

selected early-on for restoration activities, because both have foot trails and are used for interpretive 

and environmental education activities.

In general, remnant native vegetation communities on the Refuge (figure 3-6) are in a degraded 

condition as evidenced by relatively low native species diversity compared to historic conditions and/or 

the presence of non-native plants. Nevertheless, they are notable for their wildlife benefits, seed source 

potential, and as focal points for native community reconstruction and restoration. Several of the 

remnants contain species unique to that site, so taken together the diversity of remnants is higher. 

Development and maintenance of these sites is accomplished by prescribed burning, planting, grazing, 

and mechanical and chemical control of undesirable plant species.

Most remnants don’t have the more aggressive invasive plants that are targeted for eradication by the 

Refuge and there has been tolerance for many non-aggressive invasive species, knowing most will 

succumb through time to good management including prescribed fire. Also, there is a difference 

between invasive species and opportunistic native species. Some tree species are not invasive but need 

to be removed if they are not appropriate in fire-dependent systems like prairie or savanna. Black locust 

and European silver poplar, however, are non-native and aggressively invasive so require more intensive 

and focused control efforts. 

Tallgrass prairie 

There are 12 known prairie remnants on the Refuge, totaling about 90 acres. Each of the remnants is 

unique, composed of different sets of plant and animal species. The degree of degradation is also unique 

with some sites being overgrown with woody vegetation and others more open but threatened with 

invasive forbs and grasses. Most remnants have had little management except for burning. Remnants 

are usually burned at the same time as the burn unit that surrounds them, if there is enough fuel to 

carry fire. 

Some tree removal has occurred on the Dogleg (15.7 acres) and Coneflower (11 acres) remnants. Trees 

are cut, stumps are treated with herbicide to prevent re-sprouting, and felled trees are moved outside 

the remnants to a designated area. Heavy equipment is used only when the ground is frozen and snowcovered to prevent damage to understory plants, root systems, and soil structure. Some woody species 

have been mowed using a brush cutter. In Coneflower, sweet clover has been mowed and hand-pulled

and, in June 1994, fifty-three species of native grasses and forbs were sown there. Downy gentian 

(Gentiana puberulenta) and prairie phlox (Phlox pilosa), among others, are now thriving and are 

indicators of increasing natural community quality. 

Oak Savanna

About 150 acres of remnant oak savanna remain on the Refuge, with additional remnants within the 

Refuge acquisition boundary. Fire-intolerant woody species have been removed in portions of the Thorn 

Valley, Old Game Farm, and Buzzard Head savannas to begin opening up the canopy. Fire has been 

attempted in these and other savannas with some success. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

Most of the savanna restoration work has 

been focused in Thorn Valley (39 acres) 

where results have been encouraging. Fire 

has been attempted here most years and 

in some years has been quite successful 

but is restricted to the period between 

September 15 and April 15 due to the 

possible presence of Indiana bats. Oak 

seedlings are now scattered throughout 

the areas where the canopy has opened up 

and saplings are found around the 

southern and western edges. The 

understory is recovering and herbaceous 

savanna species are now present. Invasive 

bush honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.) is present. 

Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) along the west edge has been sporadically treated with herbicide. 

In Old Game Farm savanna (22 acres), in the southwest corner of the Refuge, resprouting of cut woody 

vegetation has created a dense thicket in one area. Prescribed fire is not always successful due to tree 

density and difficulty in getting a fire to carry under typical conditions. Due to its history as a game farm, 

this savanna includes invasive species that are not found in most areas of the Refuge, including Japanese 

raspberry (Rubus parvifolius), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Russian olive (Elaeagnus 

angustifolia), and black locust. They persist despite sporadic herbicide treatment. 

Buzzard Head savanna (11 acres), located inside the loop of the Tallgrass Trail, has young oak trees and 

many larger fire-intolerant woody species. Tree and brush clearing was not always followed up with 

stump treatments, resulting in dense shrub thickets. The most recent efforts have concentrated on 

removing brush and trees on the west end of the remnant. Hoary puccoon (Lithospermum canescens)

was recently discovered here, making it the only known population on the Refuge, and indicating sunloving native species still persist in these remnants despite neglect. 

Sedge Meadow

Sedge meadow remnants are found in several small areas on the Refuge. Many are surrounded by 

prairie plantings or prairie remnants and are generally burned with the unit. One area near Thorn Valley 

savanna has been the focus of a reconstruction effort. This area was formerly dominated by reed 

canarygrass. It was burned and sprayed, and planted with sedge meadow seeds, greenhouse-grown 

plants, and plants rescued from a bulldozed fen. Burning has continued almost annually. The area is also 

the site of a hydrology research project. Research results indicate three zones of vegetation that 

correspond to three hydrologic zones.

Research indicates that the zone next to the stream supports a few forbs, a tallgrass component, and 

reed canarygrass. Soil moisture in this zone is affected by stream elevation. Hydrologic study revealed

that the near-stream floodplain groundwater drains into the deeply incised stream and creates dry soil 

conditions adjacent to the channel. Until stream hydrology is normalized, this zone will remain drier 

than it was historically and drier than other parts of present-day sedge meadows.

Thorn Valley Savanna
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

Soil moisture in the middle zone is affected both by upland groundwater tables and stream elevation. 

Reed canarygrass is especially dense and tenacious here. Data indicate wide fluctuation in groundwater 

in response to rainfall with a rapid rise followed by a rapid fall. Water is poorly drained in the middle 

zone until the near zone has sufficiently drained into the incised stream. 

The zone farthest from the stream has the most stable groundwater table during rain events and 

excellent restoration potential. It supports a diversity of sedge meadow species with some reed 

canarygrass mixed in. Groundwater fluctuation in this zone is buffered by distance from the incised 

stream and proximity to the savanna. A fair amount of water is thought to enter the sedge meadow 

from the adjacent savanna.

Management Tools

Prescribed Fire

Fire has shaped prairies for centuries and is critical to restoration of the ecosystem. Prairie and savanna 

species evolved with fire, and it is crucial to their long-term survival. Prescribed fire is used to prevent 

woody species from overtaking the prairie and to reduce invasive species. Fire removes dead plant 

material, allowing additional heat and light to reach the soil and stimulating the growth of native prairie 

and savanna plant species. Fire is also used 

in cool season non-native grasslands to 

prepare the site for prairie reconstruction. 

Frequent-to-annual burns are most 

effective in increasing overall plant 

diversity and in gaining control of woody 

and invasive species. 

Fire improves habitat for many species of 

wildlife by maintaining grassland 

vegetation and allowing easier access to 

forage or prey. Some grassland species 

prefer recently burned areas that begin the 

season with little above-ground vegetation 

or litter, and plant height changes 

dramatically during the growing season. 

Others prefer standing dead plant material in the spring. The downside of prescribed fire is that it may 

have detrimental effects on some invertebrate populations, destroys early nests of ground-nesting 

birds, and temporarily reduces cover for some wildlife species. Frequent fire eliminates the litter layer 

that is important to some wildlife such as small mammals. Careful use of prescribed fire includes leaving 

unburned refugia for vulnerable species and those species requiring a litter layer.

The Refuge has been using prescribed fire as a management tool since 1993 to emulate historic 

disturbance regimes. Refuge files from 1993-2000 document 5,452 acres that were burned during 69 

prescribed burns (table 3-3). In recent years the Refuge typically has burned 2,000 acres or more per 

year. Factors that influence which units are burned each year include presence of certain invasive 

species, time since last burn, management or research activities, and condition of the planting.

Prescribed Fire
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

Table 3-3: Prescribed burn history 1993–2010

Variability in timing of prescribed fire promotes 

diversity of plant species. Fall burning promotes 

forbs and favors a more competitive prairie 

community, and spring burning can be very effective 

in controlling certain invasive species. Weather and 

vegetation conditions generally allow for a longer 

burn window in spring than in fall or summer. 

Although summer burning requires specific weather 

conditions that do not commonly occur, it may 

promote forbs over warm season grasses and can be 

useful in controlling some invasive species. 

Suppression of cool season invasives can be 

achieved by spring burning and woody species can 

be effectively limited by summer burns. Invigoration 

of natural communities resulting from frequent fall 

burns can also suppress invasives. 

The majority of burns on the Refuge to date have 

been in spring, though a limited fall burn program was initiated in 1999, and summer burns have been 

conducted recently in the bison and elk enclosure as part of the patch burn grazing regime. More 

extensive summer and fall burn seasons are difficult to implement due to staffing shortages and 

weather conditions. However, intensive use of an expanded burn season is especially important at Neal 

Smith NWR because of many abnormally wet springs in recent years, often prolonged and cool. Such 

conditions favor rampant expansion of cool season invasive species and encroachment of trees, 

especially in a landscape in the early stages of ecological recovery. Creative and persistent use of 

prescribed fire in spring, summer, fall, and even winter if conditions permit, would enhance the ability to 

achieve habitat goals and objectives on the Refuge.

Grazing

Bison and elk have been reintroduced to emulate the role of grazers in the pre-settlement ecosystem. 

Grazing by native ungulates undoubtedly played an important role in maintaining the tallgrass prairie. 

Bison grazing has been correlated with increased plant species diversity and richness in prairies. 

Removal of dead plant material through burning and grazing increases primary productivity in prairie 

(Knapp et al., 1999). Grazing is an important ecological process in prairies but little is known about its 

effects on reconstructed prairies.

Most of the 700-acre bison/elk enclosure was planted between 1992 and 1996, at which time the first 

bison were reintroduced to the Refuge. The vegetation had little time to become established and was in 

a state of change. Some areas were planted after bison and elk were present and other areas still have 

not been planted with native prairie species and are dominated by non-native smooth brome (Bromus 

intermis). Until 2007, about half of the enclosure was burned each spring, alternating halves between 

years.

In 2007, the Refuge began using more varied patch burn grazing to manage the prairie in the enclosure. 

Patch burn grazing uses prescribed fire in widely spaced small patches to create shifting areas of intense 

bison grazing rotated across the landscape over several years (Fuhlendorf and Engle; 2001, 2004). This 

regime is thought to emulate the patchy mosaic of evolutionary grazing distribution across the tallgrass 

Year Number of Burns Acres Burned

1993 3 58

1994 6 280

1995 2 218

1996 5 805

1997 6 268

1998 10 356

1999 6 868

2000 21 2453

2001 7 813

2001 8 1717

2003 8 854

2004 12 2018

2005 15 3130

2006 14 2738

2007 7 1342

2008 21 2977

2009 17 1878

2010 20 2721
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

prairie. Under patch burn grazing, the enclosure is divided into twelve burn patches, but the bison still 

have access to the entire enclosure. About one-third to one-half of the enclosure is burned each year, 

with two to six different patches burned in different seasons each year depending on burning conditions 

and vegetation condition. 

Patch burn grazing is used on the Refuge to stimulate native vegetation and reduce non-native invasives 

and residual standing dry matter. Bison prefer to graze in recently-burned areas, attracted to the 

nutritionally high quality new growth. Research on the Refuge (Kagima, 2008) provided evidence that 

the spatial distribution of the mixed sex/age bison group is positively correlated with fire and higher 

proportions of native plants, despite the abundance of exotic plant species in the landscape. They also 

have a strong preference for grasses over forbs (Plumb and Dodd, 1993), so intensive grazing in the 

burned areas reduces competition from the dominant grasses, giving forbs a better chance at survival. 

Patch burn grazing is expected to increase plant diversity in the enclosure as well. Grazing creates 

microsites throughout the bison and elk enclosure that, when coupled with seed additions, increases 

diversity and the presence of rare forb and grass species (Martin and Wilsey, 2006). In general, the more 

time that has passed since burning, the more detritus is present, and the less grazing occurs. Plants that 

thrive with fire and grazing grow well in the more recently burned patches, and plants that take longer 

to recover grow more successfully in the patches with the longest time since burning. Grazing is 

dispersed throughout the enclosure over several years but concentrated within individual seasons. This 

creates more spatial and temporal heterogeneity on the prairie. 

Bison stocking rate is important in a patch burn grazing regime. Too many bison will overgraze burned 

patches while too few will allow grasses to grow beyond the stage of high quality forage. An optimum 

bison herd size to promote native vegetation under the current program has not been established. 

Ongoing monitoring of the effects of the Refuge patch burn grazing program will continue. 

Bison affect the prairie in other ways, creating bare areas by rubbing and wallowing. Their grazing and 

rolling also may affect seed dispersal of native plant species; ongoing research is investigating.

The effects of elk grazing on tallgrass prairie are not well-understood, although their foraging habits are 

different from bison so their effects are expected to be different as well. The Refuge elk herd spends 

noticeably less time out on the prairie and more time in wooded areas than the bison. Elk consume 

more woody vegetation, so they may be important in controlling woody species. Although there are 

very few studies of elk food habits in prairie systems, the limited information that exists indicates that 

forbs and browse play an important role in Great Plains elk diets during the fall and winter (Wydeven 

and Dahlgren, 1983). Due to the small number of elk relative to bison in the enclosure, they have less 

impact on the vegetation.

Use of grazing as a management tool is currently limited to the 700-acre fenced enclosure. Doubling the 

size of the enclosure would be possible based on the current land ownership pattern; the 1992 Master 

Plan recommended a 2000-acre enclosure when land acquisition is complete. Non-native grazers such as 

cattle, sheep, and goats have not been used to manage prairie on Neal Smith NWR. 

Farming

Farming is used as a tool to manage the land until sufficient quantities of native local ecotype seed can 

be secured and staff is available to plant and maintain a new planting. Currently there are 543 acres in 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

six management units being farmed on the Refuge by three farmers. In any given year, about 50 percent 

of the farmed area is planted to corn and about 50 percent is planted to soybeans. 

Only “no till” farming practices are allowed. Planting of genetically-modified corn is allowed on Refuge 

cropland tracts as a place holder to reduce weed infestations until the site is planted to prairie. Under 

current FWS Region 3 policy, use of glyphosate-tolerant crops is allowed for a maximum of five years 

after a site is acquired by the Service. Application of anhydrous ammonia is allowed in the spring; no 

fertilizer application is permitted in the fall. All fields with streams and/or gullies are required to have a 

100-foot-wide buffer strip on each side planted with perennial vegetation. 

Only glyphosate (Roundup®) herbicide has been allowed without first obtaining written permission from 

the Refuge. Other herbicides may be permitted under the following conditions:

• There is a documented need from a crop scout; 

• the herbicide is listed on the Region 3 Herbicides List; and 

• the farmer obtains written permission from the Refuge. 

A Special Use Permit that defines terms and conditions is issued to each farmer annually. Farmers pay 

rent each year and provide pesticide use data and crop yield information to Refuge staff. Pesticide data 

are used to insure appropriate use and efficacy and in preparation of the Refuge Pesticide Use Report. 

Crop yield data are compared to the Cash Rental Rates Survey prepared by Iowa State University 

Extension and is used to set the rental rates for the next crop year. The Refuge may remove tracts from 

the farm program prior to drafting the next year’s agreements. 

Invasive Plants

Invasive plants can out-compete native species and cause their displacement, sometimes altering 

habitat structure and ecosystem processes. Even if the native species are not completely eliminated, the 

ecosystem often becomes much less diverse. A less diverse ecosystem is more susceptible to further 

disturbances such as diseases and natural disasters. Invasive plants degrade, change, or displace native 

habitats and thus are harmful to fish, wildlife, and plant resources. Wildlife species are adapted to the 

native plants of an area and are much better served by them for food and cover than by most 

introduced plants. Control of invasive plant species on the Refuge can be time-intensive. Methods 

include herbicides, mowing, prescribed burning, and hand cutting or pulling. 

Sericea lespedeza

Considerable effort was invested in avoiding introduction of the biggest invasive plant threats such as 

spotted knapweed (Centaurea sp.), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), purple loosestrife (Lythrum 

salicaria), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), and leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Nevertheless, two 

sericea lespedeza plants were found within a few years of the initial prairie plantings on the Refuge. One 

plant, located within the bison and elk enclosure, was thought to have been eliminated by bison grazing. 

Since then, however, sericea lespedeza has been found to be widespread in the enclosure, so grazing 

apparently does not eliminate it. The other initial sighting, outside the bison and elk enclosure, could not 

be relocated later for chemical treatment, and sericea lespedeza has since become widespread in that 

area. In 2006, sericea lespedeza was discovered again in several more plantings. The practice of 

harvesting areas of the Refuge and planting the seed in newly retired crop fields exacerbated spread of 

this species.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

Sericea lespedeza can quickly change a landscape by displacing native vegetation. It is a deep-rooted 

perennial that cannot be pulled out of the ground once it is established. Even young seedlings may have 

deep roots before they are of noticeable size. Mature plants can reach five feet or more in height, 

producing large quantities of seed that can remain viable for 20 or more years. Sericea lespedeza is also 

known to produce chemicals that inhibit the growth of neighboring plants. 

The species generally emerges on the Refuge in late May, blooms in September, and sets seed in 

October. Plants stay green later in the season than native warm season grasses, making it easier to 

detect in the fall. However, fall herbicide treatment is less effective than earlier treatments, and seed 

may already be viable by the time plants are easiest to see. Summer mowing may reduce seed 

production but does not affect the plant’s survival. Because of its high tannin content, the plant is not 

very palatable, so livestock and native ungulates avoid it if possible. The species is adapted to fire. Seed 

scarification stimulates germination, and fire does not damage established plants. Chemicals are the 

only effective method of killing sericea lespedeza.

Sericea lespedeza has been promoted for use in wildlife food plots and for cover. However, its negative 

attributes overwhelm its few benefits. The exclusion of other plant species by sericea can result in 

monocultures, reducing the diversity of plant foods and cover needed to support a variety of wildlife. 

Northern Bobwhites occasionally consume the seeds, but they obtain little nutrition from them. Cover 

provided by sericea in the summer can be beneficial to Northern Bobwhites, but this benefit is 

eliminated when sericea is dormant.

For the past several years, interns, volunteers, and staff have been walking a grid pattern through

management units, locating sericea lespedeza plants, marking them with GPS, and spot spraying them. 

Because most of the plants are isolated individuals or small patches, broadcast spraying has not been 

used. Larger patches are sprayed with a UTV-mounted sprayer. Marked locations are re-visited in 

following years to re-spray if necessary. Plants found after seed set are clipped and removed if possible. 

Sericea lespedeza has been found at low levels in most plantings that have been searched. 

More recently, dogs have been used to locate sericea lespedeza plants in management units that have 

not yet been searched. Using smell, the dogs have a high success rate in locating low densities of the 

plant in a relatively short period of time, freeing the use of interns, volunteers, and staff to direct their 

efforts toward more treatment. Repeated use of dogs over time will assist the Refuge in quickly 

determining the success of treatments, locate new infestations, and identify areas without sericea 

lespedeza for harvest sites.

Because of the severity of the threat this species presents, staff is identifying sites on the Refuge that 

show no sign of sericea lespedeza. Seed will either be hand-collected or machine-harvested on sites 

believed to be sericea-free. As planting efforts increase, the Refuge must work to clear more areas of 

sericea for seed harvest or else purchase additional seed.

Other Invasive Species

White and yellow sweet clovers (Melilotus spp.) are mowed while blooming, generally in June. These 

biennial species can be controlled by preventing seed production through early season mowing. 

Eventually the seed bank can be depleted if the plants are consistently mowed every year. The seeds 

respond to fire by germinating, so burning is often followed by a flush of sweet clovers. Although they 

are not as much of a biological threat to the prairie as sericea lespedeza is, sweet clovers are widespread 

and very visible so are also an aesthetic issue.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

Refuge staff also puts considerable time into spraying Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), usually during 

bud stage. Currently, large patches are treated using a Patriot sprayer to apply the herbicide Milestone®. 

The operator locates the patches from the spray rig, but locations are not tracked from year-to-year to 

determine success. This method undoubtedly kills many of the native forbs, too, though it is more 

selective than some other herbicides. Research is underway on the Refuge to determine which native 

species might be resistant to some of the more selective herbicides. In 2009, smaller patches of Canada 

thistle in some of the most diverse plantings were sprayed using a smaller spray rig mounted on a UTV. 

These patches were marked into GPS and will be re-visited for further treatment if necessary. Some 

patches of Canada thistle have also been mowed prior to seed set.

Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) is present on the Refuge in several of the plantings and has invaded 

some remnants. Many of the locations are former home sites or along the edge of the Refuge near 

neighboring residences. Black locust is a clonal species, so the entire clone must be killed. Attempts to 

control it have been sporadic, but much has been learned and efforts are more consistent with added

interns in recent years. In some years black locust was mowed, followed by treatment of resprouts with 

a bud inhibitor, hand cut followed by stump treatment with triclopyr, or basal bark treatment with 

triclopyr. However, if the entire clone was not treated the roots would survive. 

A more complete table of invasive species that have been managed on the Refuge is included in 

Appendix I. Most of the species not already mentioned above are small or isolated populations that do 

not take as much time to manage, or they are widespread persistent species that are kept in check with 

prescribed fire. There are many other non-native species on the Refuge that do not pose much of a 

threat and have not had nor are likely to receive much management. A prioritized list of invasive plants 

that need management attention on Neal Smith NWR will be developed in a step-down management 

plan following approval of the CCP.

Wildlife

Birds

Grassland-dependent birds are adapted to the diverse vegetation structure that historically was 

maintained by frequent disturbances from fire and grazing. Habitat needs vary by species. Some prefer 

tall vegetation with a dense litter layer, while others prefer shorter patchier vegetation. Most grassland 

birds prefer areas with little to no woody vegetation and at least low to moderate forb cover. 

Reestablishing diverse native plant communities and historic fire, grazing, and hydrologic regimes on the 

Refuge will create a sustainable mosaic of habitat types that meets the needs of grassland birds and 

other wildlife. Many birds of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem have returned to the Refuge in response to 

restoration efforts. 

Henslow’s Sparrow was first detected on the Refuge in 1999 and is now quite common in prairie units 

that have not been burned for one year or more. Other grassland birds present during breeding season 

include Sedge Wren, Dickcissel, Eastern Meadowlark, and Bobolink. Sedge Wren prefers tall grass, 

especially in low wet areas of the Refuge. Dickcissel and Eastern Meadowlark are found in all types of 

grassland. Upland Sandpiper and Grasshopper Sparrow use the short vegetation found in areas that are 

grazed or dominated by shorter grass species such as little bluestem or smooth brome. Management for 

more areas of short vegetation likely would increase numbers of these species but would also reduce 

habitat for birds such as Henslow’s Sparrow that prefer taller vegetation. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

Northern Harrier usually is present fall through spring, with an occasional bird seen during the summer. 

Short-eared Owl also is present in small numbers from fall through spring. Both require large areas of 

grassland. Expanding the area of prairie and removing trees may provide sufficient habitat for these 

species to nest. Smith’s Longspur is a migrant found for brief periods in spring and fall using short, 

sparse vegetation in recently burned areas and newly planted prairie that has been mowed. Le Conte’s 

Sparrow is present on the Refuge in tall grass during migration, particularly in the fall.

The Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) requires a large home range and a variety of 

grassland habitat conditions to meet its life cycle needs. The Iowa DNR has had some success in 

reintroducing Greater Prairie-Chicken on grasslands in southern Iowa. Both Missouri and Illinois have 

been able to maintain small populations on fairly small isolated grasslands although they have required 

intensive management including additional reintroductions to maintain genetic diversity. Greater 

Prairie-Chicken populations in some locations have experienced declines associated with competition 

from Ring-necked Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus). The sizeable Ring-necked Pheasant population found 

on Neal Smith NWR and adjacent lands may limit success in reestablishing this species. The Refuge is 

working with Iowa DNR to determine if reintroduction is feasible and, if so, to develop a strategy for 

success through partnerships.

The Northern Bobwhite needs sparse vegetation with some tall grasses and shrubs. The Refuge is in the 

northern edge of its range and the habitat looks suitable throughout portions of the Refuge. Intensive 

agriculture on the surrounding landscape may prevent movement of these birds into the area, so 

reintroduction may be necessary to restore a viable population. Other birds that use Refuge habitats 

with a shrub component include Bell’s Vireo, Gray Catbird, Brown Thrasher, Yellow-breasted Chat, 

Orchard Oriole, Loggerhead Shrike, Willow Flycatcher, Eastern Kingbird, Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes 

graminius), Field Sparrow, Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammucus), and American Goldfinch. Species that 

benefit from Refuge savannas include Red-headed Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, Eastern Towhee, and 

Field Sparrow. 

The Service developed Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 to identify species that represent the 

Service’s highest conservation priorities because they are rare or declining. The list encompasses three 

geographic scales— The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) Bird Conservation Regions 

(BCR), FWS Regions, and National—and uses assessment scores from the North American Landbird 

Conservation Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan. Eleven species of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem are considered Birds of Conservation 

Concern for the portion of BCR 22 that lies within the Service’s Midwest Region, where Neal Smith NWR 

is located: Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) Short-eared Owl, Red-headed Woodpecker, 

Northern Flicker, Loggerhead Shrike, Bell’s Vireo, Field Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Henslow’s 

Sparrow, Smith’s Longspur, and Dickcissel. The species that Neal Smith NWR could be the most 

influential in meeting regional population objectives are Red-headed Woodpecker, Henslow’s Sparrow, 

and Dickcissel (Will, 2012; personal communication). Appendix H contains a table that summarizes the 

current status of species selected as Birds of Special Consideration for Neal Smith NWR.

Restoration activities consider potential negative impacts to birds and avoid them, if possible. Tree 

cutting and brush clearing take place outside of the nesting season, between September 15 and March 

30. Most spring burning takes place before May 1 to minimize destruction of grassland bird nests.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Bison and Elk

The historic ecological role of bison and elk cannot be fully replicated on the Refuge. Herds historically 

were free-ranging and migratory, for example, but now must be confined within Refuge boundaries and 

carefully managed. The appropriate role of captive bison and elk on national wildlife refuges is still 

evolving and has been discussed within the Service since before the Refuge was established. Ultimately, 

the 1992 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Master Plan did support bison and elk 

reintroduction at Neal Smith NWR (then known as Walnut Creek NWR) “to best achieve the biodiversity, 

environmental education, and interpretation and recreation goals” of the new Refuge. 

In August 1996, new Service policy (Service Manual, 701 FW 8 Fenced Animal Management) specifically 

authorized five Refuges to “preserve and promulgate” remnant herds of nationally and/or historically 

significant animals. Walnut Creek NWR was approved for reintroduction of bison and Rocky Mountain 

elk. The policy requires each Refuge to develop a herd management plan that describes objectives 

relating to the specific population(s) and the relationship of the management of the species with other 

objectives. 

The Fenced Animal Management Plan (FWS, 2002) for Neal Smith NWR outlined a program designed to 

restore Refuge bison and elk herds as nearly as possible to the condition that existed prior to EuroAmerican settlement. Neal Smith NWR was described as unique in managing its herds to perpetuate 

habitat, rather than using habitat management to perpetuate the species. The bison and elk are limited 

to a 700-acre fenced enclosure but are treated as wild animals as much as possible and managed with 

minimal interference. 

Bison

The Fenced Animal Management Plan recommended an “ecological” carrying capacity of 35 animal units 

for bison (based on a conservative estimate of 1,500–2,000 pounds/acre of available forage, a moderate 

grazing rate of 35 percent, and a correction factor of 30 percent for soil/slope conditions). This carrying 

capacity was thought to ensure a herd size that would survive drought or severe winter conditions 

without overgrazing the prairie. Herd reductions would be made each year as needed to prevent habitat 

damage while allowing the bison to continue playing a vital role in prairie establishment and ecology. 

Bison were introduced to the Refuge between 1996 and 1998. During that time, 30 bison were 

transferred to the Refuge from Fort Niobrara NWR, Wichita Mountains NWR, and the National Bison 

Range. By the end of the spring 2001 calving season, the Neal Smith herd numbered 68. In October 

2001, the herd size was reduced to 33 by donating animals to other programs. Additional bison were 

culled in 2003 and 2004 to maintain population numbers between 35 and 40 animals.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Service began moving toward more cohesive 

management of federal bison herds as one resource to better conserve and protect the genetic diversity 

of the wild species on a national scale. The majority of bison in the United States currently exist in 

private herds that often have high rates of hybridization with domestic cattle. This makes Service bison 

herds with low hybridization especially valuable for long-term conservation of the species. As part of this 

program, the existing Neal Smith bison were transferred to Native American tribes in Iowa and North 

Dakota, because they represented a gene pool well established in other Service herds. In December 

2006, a herd of 39 animals with high genetic uniqueness was brought in. 

By November 2010, the herd had grown to 85 animals. Thirteen bison were relocated, bringing the herd 

size down to 72 animals as of March 2011. After another year of births and deaths in the herd, in 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

November 2011, another 16 bison were relocated to bring the population down to 71 animals. While 

the current herd size is being held at approximately 70 animals, the optimum herd size has not been 

determined, but is one that will promote the growth and diversity of the prairie and maintain bison 

body condition and health without supplemental food. Monitoring of plant biomass is not currently 

occurring within the enclosure, although one study in 2002-2003 calculated above-ground productivity 

at 4,000 to 7,000 pounds/acre/year, depending on the year and the calculation method used (Martin et 

al., 2005). This production rate is much higher than the estimate used to develop the Fenced Animal 

Management Plan in 2002.

Seven national wildlife refuges participate in the national FWS bison genetics program. These seven 

smaller herds are managed genetically as a single large metapopulation of about 1,400 animals total. 

Each animal undergoes genetic testing and receives a microchip implant for identification. Maintaining 

the genetic foundation broadly across several locations reduces the risk of total loss of genetic resources 

from a natural event or other disaster. In addition, exchange of animals between the participating 

Refuges ensures that the diversity of the metapopulation is maintained. 

The genetics program does not affect habitat management within the bison/elk enclosure. Refuge staff 

decides how many animals to transfer based on habitat quality. Selection of which animals to excess or 

move to other Refuges is done by the FWS Wildlife Health Office in Bozeman, Montana and is based on 

presence of rare alleles and other genetic factors, sex, and age class. Herd management includes an 

annual roundup to take genetic samples and microchip calves, do health screenings on a random sample 

of adults, assess condition of animals, and remove or exchange animals.

The bison get their water from streams running through the enclosure, and mineral blocks are provided 

primarily to prevent bison from being attracted to road salt on vehicles. Domestic animal practices such 

as vaccination, feeding, and individual animal treatment are avoided. However, confinement to small 

areas, dense animal aggregation, and repetitive use of select forage all enhance transmissible parasites 

and diseases so in addition to disease testing during the roundup, occasional testing for parasites is 

done and herd treatment takes place if necessary. Additional actions are taken to inhibit the spread of 

parasites within the enclosure. Refuge staff monitors the herd weekly (when conditions permit) to 

assess herd health and condition. In isolated cases when an animal is determined to be suffering, it is 

euthanized. Dr. Tom Roffe of the Wildlife Health Office advises Refuge staff on herd health issues.

Routine supplies cost about $2,000-$3,000 annually for mineral blocks, biological sampling, microchips, 

and other supplies. Roundups involve considerable staff time for one day each year and some 

preparation time to maintain the handling facility. Regular monitoring and occasional maintenance of 

water gaps and cattle guards is necessary to prevent escape.

Elk

Elk were introduced onto the Refuge in 1998 and 1999 by transferring ten Rocky Mountain elk from Fort 

Niobrara NWR. No additional animals have been brought in since then. Because of difficulties in 

managing elk in captivity, the target herd size is 15. Five animals were culled in 2006 when numbers had 

grown to 21. Since then, elk have died at about the same rate that calves are born. Herd size in spring of 

2011 was 16. 

Inbreeding is a concern with such a small number of animals and the benefits of their grazing on overall 

habitat diversity in the enclosure are probably small due to the small number of elk. Refuge staff 

conducts weekly health monitoring, but because of their habits the elk are difficult to observe. A study 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

of habitat use and diet of bison and elk in the enclosure was conducted in 2006-2007 (Kagima, 2008). 

Tranquilizers are necessary to handle them, and darting is difficult and dangerous for staff and could be 

fatal for the elk, so research involving marking or tracking animals is not conducted. Live elk are not 

handled, and management focuses on morbidity and mortality.

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a significant threat to the long-term viability of elk on the Refuge. 

Deer are free-ranging on the Refuge, so if CWD shows up in Iowa’s deer population it could be 

transmitted to the elk herd. If CWD were found on or near the Refuge, the elk would likely need to be 

eliminated. Elk are regulated through the Iowa Department of Agriculture and cannot be transported on 

or off the Refuge unless they are in the Iowa CWD program. Neal Smith NWR does not participate in this 

program because of its intensive livestock approach and lack of deer-proof fencing on the Refuge.

The Refuge adopted a CWD contingency plan in 2005. The Refuge plan accepts many measures 

identified in the state plan, which includes strategies for 1) surveillance and detection, 2) 

communication and education, and 3) containment and eradication; and includes provisions for 

destroying the elk herd upon request by the Iowa DNR if CWD is found on or near the Refuge. As of 

January 2012, all states bordering Iowa had found at least one CWD-infected animal, but no cases have 

yet been documented in Iowa. 

Indiana bat

The Indiana bat, a federally listed endangered species, was first documented on the Refuge in 1992 

through a bat mist-netting project. Indiana bats were found to be present in the Thorn Valley savanna 

and north along Walnut Creek. In 1992 and 1993 there was evidence of a maternity colony (adult female 

with enlarged mammae and juveniles). In 1995, the last time Indiana bat surveys were conducted, only a 

single adult male was captured. This male was radio-tagged and found to be using red elm snags and live 

shagbark hickory trees as roost sites. Roost surveys found up to two to three bats emerging from these 

trees, consistent with a male Indiana bat roost. The Refuge has conducted Endangered Species Act

Section 7 consultation with Ecological Services and follows seasonal tree clearing and burning

restrictions to protect any maternity roosts that may be present. 

Regal Fritillary

The regal fritillary is a rare butterfly closely associated with high quality prairies whose obligate larval 

host plants are prairie violet (Viola pedatifida) and bird-foot violet (Viola pedata) (Shepherd and 

Debinski, 2005). Iowa State University was the principal investigator in a research project designed to 

reintroduce the regal fritillary to the Refuge and to explore certain relationships that this species has to 

fire including success of its host food.

Prairie violet plots have been established in each of four areas on the Refuge to provide larval food. In 

the summer of 2000, gravid female regal fritillaries were introduced in cages over prairie violets to 

maximize probability of successful egg-laying. Independent of reintroduction attempts, two wild 

butterflies (one male and one female) were observed on the Refuge in 2000. Adult regal fritillaries were 

sighted across the Refuge during the summers of 2002–2010. Though the butterfly is vulnerable to fire, 

especially during the larval period, the prairie violet is invigorated by fire and tends to decline in periods 

when fire is absent from the landscape. Regal fritillaries continue to persist on the Refuge as do the 

violets where they were planted. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

Monitoring and Research

Monitoring

Twenty-five permanent plant transects were established on prairie and savanna remnants throughout 

the Refuge in 1994 under the direction of Dr. Darryl Smith. Fifty randomly located 0.1-meter plots were 

surveyed along each transect. Species diversity, cover, and frequency data were recorded in each plot. 

Transects were permanently marked using metal conduit and drawn on a topographic map. More than 

sixty vegetation survey transects were established on planted prairie sites in late summer of 1997 using 

the same methods. These data have not yet been analyzed. Follow-up monitoring began in 2008, with a 

few different transects sampled each year. Data will be analyzed using the Floristic Quality Assessment 

technique (Swink and Wilhelm, 1994). 

The Refuge has conducted breeding season bird point counts almost every year since 1994. Over 120 

randomly selected points were established and almost evenly divided between riparian, crop, woody, 

and grassland sites. Eighteen of the points are in the bison and elk enclosure. The observer stands at 

each point for ten minutes and documents birds heard and seen within 0–25, 25–50, and >50 meter 

distances of the point. Recently this was modified to include distance bands of 50–100 meters and > 100 

meters. The observer also records whether the birds were first detected in the first five minutes or the 

last five minutes. Recently this was modified to record the minute the bird was first detected. Each point 

is surveyed once per year. The surveys were originally conducted to collect baseline data on birds and 

look for population trends during the early stages of prairie reconstruction (Thomas, 1999). This study 

found increases in grassland birds such as Dickcissel and Grasshopper Sparrow during the first few years 

after Refuge establishment. 

In 1998, a recommendation was made to change the protocol to conduct the counts only one time at 

each point, rather than three times as the original protocol established. This recommendation was 

followed. Another recommendation was made to continue conducting point counts in crop fields, 

despite changes in vegetation from crop to grassland. For unknown reasons this recommendation was 

not carried out, and the number of points in each vegetation type was kept fairly constant, with points 

dropped as crops were planted to prairie vegetation and new points added in crop fields. This has made 

it difficult to detect changes in the bird populations on the Refuge in a straightforward manner. Analysis 

of data is being initiated to try to detect population trends. Recently an analysis was carried out 

examining the bird species composition in prairie plantings of different ages (Olechnowski et al., 2009). 

This study found that the bird species found in certain areas of the Refuge were related to the age of the 

planting. For example, Henslow’s Sparrows were found in more established plantings, while Killdeer, 

Horned Lark, and Vesper Sparrow were most abundant in the first year after planting. Dickcissels peaked 

in abundance the second year after planting.

A Christmas Bird Count circle includes the entire Refuge and the count is conducted annually to monitor 

winter bird populations. This count has not occurred long enough to get trend data, but data are 

submitted to National Audubon Society to contribute to the national database. Some monitoring of 

birds has also been carried out during spring and fall migration. Smith’s Longspurs have been detected 

during spring and fall using Refuge areas that were recently burned or planted and mowed.

Nocturnal frog and toad call surveys are done in coordination with the Iowa DNR’s wildlife diversity 

program and contribute to monitoring long-term trends state-wide. The surveys were originally 

conducted by volunteers between 1997 and 1999. Since 2006, the surveys have been conducted 

annually by the Refuge biologist. The most common frogs and toads detected on annual nocturnal call 

surveys are eastern gray tree frog, American toad, Blanchard’s cricket frog, and western chorus frog. The 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

northern leopard frog has rarely been detected. Bullfrogs were detected in areas that are no longer 

monitored, and no suitable habitat occurs on the current survey route.

In 1994, baseline surveys were conducted across the Refuge on birds, medium-sized mammals, and 

Orthoptera (grasshoppers and katydids). Remnants were surveyed for butterflies, moths, ants, and 

ground-dwelling invertebrates (Klaas and Bishop, 1995).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration operates a meteorological station on the Refuge 

as part of the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). The USCRN consists of more than 100 stations in 

the United States installed for the express purpose of detecting climate change. In addition to 

temperature and precipitation, these stations also monitor solar radiation, surface temperature, and 

surface winds. Data is transmitted hourly via satellite to the National Climate Data Center. Measured 

elements are being expanded to include soil moisture, soil temperature, and relative humidity. 

Research

Neal Smith NWR was home to the Service’s Land Management Research and Demonstration Program 

(LRMD) for over ten years. The LMRD supported research to increase understanding of effective prairie, 

savanna, and sedge meadow restoration techniques. Major studies in 2009 included use of herbicides to 

control Canada thistle and the relationship of avian diversity to changes in vegetative structure in 

restored tallgrass prairie and savanna. Additional studies relate to climate change, carbon sequestration, 

and impacts to vegetation and hydrology due to changes in weather patterns. Outreach programs on 

the Refuge included: research symposia, field days, brown bag specials, student science innovations,

interpretive and environmental education programs, and volunteer involvement in science.

While the program has been beneficial, regional reorganization has caused the Tallgrass Prairie and 

Savanna LMRD site to be phased out in 2012. Some research pertaining specifically to Neal Smith NWR 

prairie and savanna restoration and bison/elk management will continue through the Refuge biological 

program. A list of LMRD-related publications from 2001 through 2011 is included in Appendix K.

3.2.2 Visitor Services Program

The Visitor Services program has been a significant component of management since the Refuge was 

established. Early planning documents all described the importance of the new Refuge as a major center 

for environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife-oriented recreation in central Iowa. To 

enhance the program, state-of-the-art facilities were constructed. The entire Refuge was intended to 

serve as an outdoor laboratory and classroom; it was designed to impart an awareness and appreciation 

of “the value of wildlife and wildlands” and to teach visitors about the natural and cultural history of the 

ecosystem and the process of native habitat reconstruction. Much of that original vision has now been 

implemented.

In 2010 and 2011, a National Visitor Survey was conducted by the FWS Division of Visitor Services and 

Communications and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Fort Collins Science Center. The goal was to provide 

refuge managers, planners, and visitor services specialists with reliable baseline data about refuge 

visitors and their experiences, both at a national level and at a field station level. Neal Smith NWR was 

one of the participating field stations. The data provides insight into visitor characteristics, primary 

activities, and average expenditures. Visitor satisfaction was measured in four categories: recreational 

activities and opportunities, information and education provided at the Refuge, services provided by 

employees or volunteers, and how well the Refuge was conserving fish, wildlife, and their habitats. In 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

each category, more than 90 percent of visitors expressed satisfaction with Neal Smith NWR (Sexton et 

al., 2011).

Neal Smith NWR has been known as the Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge and Prairie Learning Center 

since building construction was completed in 1996. The use of the name Prairie Learning Center has 

been confusing to many visitors who are not certain they are at the Refuge when visiting, or ask 

directions to the Prairie Learning Center. This confusion also has affected public understanding of

Refuge purposes, so “Prairie Learning Center” is being dropped from the name. The large building that 

houses the exhibits, bookstore, and administrative areas is now referred to as the Neal Smith National 

Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center.

Guidance for authorizing public uses on national wildlife refuges is provided in the Improvement Act,

which states that “Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general 

public use of the System . . . through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and 

wildlife.” The Improvement Act specifies hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation as priority public uses. These six activities, when 

determined to be compatible, are considered legitimate and appropriate uses of Refuge System lands 

that should receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management. Compatibility 

determinations are the responsibility of the Refuge Manager with concurrence by the regional office 

supervisor. Compatible uses are those that will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the Refuge.

Welcome and Orientation

Refuge visitation has averaged about 160,000 people annually during the years 2007 through 2009

(tables 3-4 and 3-5). For most, the visit begins with a drive along the winding entrance road that 

meanders through the rolling topography (figure 3-7) and is designed to provide a sense of immersion in 

the landscape. The experience provides a dramatic contrast to the agricultural lands surrounding the 

Refuge and visually introduces visitors to the beauty and diversity of prairie, savanna, and riparian plants 

and wildlife. 

Table 3-4: Visitor numbers

2009 2008 2007

Trails 44,000 18,000 19,500

Visitor Center 25,000 22,500 24,000

Bison and Elk Enclosure 88,500 105,500 149,500

Table 3-5: Where do visitors come from?

Locations Percentage of Visitors

Jasper County 14%

Des Moines + suburbs 24%

Other Iowa 36%

Other United States 22%

Other countries 3%

Unknown 1%
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

Figure 3-7: Current Visitor Services Facilities, Neal Smith NWR
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

The 4.5-mile entrance road leads to the 

Visitor Center. The site of the Visitor Center 

provides good views of the Refuge and 

offers the opportunity to explore and 

discover the incredible diversity of the 

tallgrass prairie ecosystem firsthand. The 

building itself is designed to blend 

unobtrusively into the surrounding 

landscape. The 40,000 square foot Visitor 

Center includes 13,000 square feet of 

exhibits, multi-purpose meeting rooms, 

theater, laboratory-classroom, and 

bookstore, as well as Refuge offices and 

research facilities. The Visitor Center desk is 

staffed seven days/week by volunteers who 

are available to welcome and orient visitors 

to the Refuge.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

The opportunity for wildlife observation and photography are huge draws for visitors. The bison and elk 

are very popular with visitors and are the primary reason many people come to the Refuge; they are 

also a critical component of Refuge biological and environmental education programs. Birding also is 

popular, although most birders come from outside the local area. Five trails and an auto tour loop are 

available for exploration, and all are open from daylight to dusk.

Foot Trails

Overlook Trail is a short, quarter mile paved loop adjacent to the Visitor Center. It has interpretive signs 

and is accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It passes through prairie plantings and offers 

panoramic views of the Refuge. Portions of prairie along the trail have been adopted and are maintained 

by volunteers from the community. Bison and elk can sometimes be spotted in the distance. 

Tallgrass Trail is two-mile asphalt loop that branches off from the Overlook Trail. Its long gradual slopes 

pass through reconstructed prairie, along a prairie/savanna remnant in the process of being restored,

and down to the lowlands along the creek. This trail has an interpretive brochure and benches about 

every third of a mile. Like the Overlook Trail, it offers scenic views and occasional sightings of bison and 

elk. Since this trail parallels the south fence of the bison enclosure, it provides one of the best chances 

to see bison close up while travelling by foot.

Savanna Trail is a half-mile gravel loop that allows visitors to meander through a mature oak savanna 

that is in the process of being restored and to view a sedge meadow under restoration near Walnut 

Creek. The Savanna Trail is located east of the Visitor Center near the main entrance road. The site 

includes a visitor parking lot.

Basswood Trail, located in the southern end of the Refuge, has a mowed grass surface. The half-mile 

trail is mostly wooded and located in the open hunting zone. The site includes a hunter and visitor 

parking lot.

Neal Smith NWR Visitor Center
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

Native Trails are mowed firebreaks that allow the visitor opportunities to walk along the perimeter of 

the Refuge to view the prairie from other vantage points. Over 49 miles of firebreak are available on the 

Refuge, outside the bison enclosure.

Volkssport Trail is an officially designated ten-kilometer trail listed with the American Volkssport 

Association that incorporates some trails, firebreaks, and county roads. 

Auto Tour Route

The four-mile Auto Tour Route is the most popular visitor attraction. Its gravel surface mostly follows 

county roads and passes through the 700-acre bison/elk enclosure. Many visitors come to the Refuge 

just to see the herds. For safety reasons, visitors are asked to remain in their vehicles at all times inside 

the bison/elk enclosure. An interpretive audio CD is available for loan or purchase when the Visitor 

Center is open. 

Bicycle Trail

Visitors enjoy bicycling along the entry road, but there is no shoulder so safety has been a concern. In 

2010, the Refuge received a grant from the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Projects (a Federal Transit 

Authority program) to engineer and design a bike/pedestrian trail that will connect Prairie City with the 

Neal Smith NWR Visitor Center. The trail will follow the entry road, reducing habitat fragmentation while

safely allowing visitors the opportunity to reduce their carbon footprint, exercise, and experience the 

prairie outside of their vehicles. Prairie City currently has a one-mile bike/pedestrian trail that includes a 

parking lot, restroom, and kiosk just to the northeast of the Refuge. Jasper County Conservation Board 

has completed more than half of a trail connecting Prairie City and Monroe Iowa. When completed, this 

trail will add access by bicycle to the Refuge from the town of Monroe.

There are plans for a 100-mile loop trail from Des Moines to Lake Red Rock (a U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers facility), with the Refuge trail being a spur. In the future, there is a possibility of extending the 

Refuge trail to the south, creating two 50-mile loop trails for those desiring a shorter excursion.

Other Access 

Some visitors explore the Refuge away from the designated roads and trails. Although demand for such 

experiences is low at present, this activity is expected to increase. Some visitors walk along fire breaks 

while others (mostly hunters and birders) venture off into the unbroken prairie. Snowshoeing and crosscountry skiing are allowed on- and off-trail in winter; snowshoes in adult and child sizes are available for 

loan when snow depth is six inches or more. Foot access to the bison/elk enclosure is not allowed. 

Horses are allowed on county roads only. Other requests for off-trail access are handled on a case-bycase basis with consideration for visitor safety and wildlife disturbance.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

The Refuge provides a wide variety of environmental education and interpretation programs for a wide 

range of audiences. Teacher training, the Partner Schools program, and ranger-led stewardship activities 

are the heart of the environmental education program. New twice-monthly interpretive programs are 

now being developed and presented by staff in an effort to provide more opportunities for visitors to 

explore the tallgrass prairie and oak savanna ecosystem.

Since 2007, the Visitor Services program has focused more effort on training teachers to lead their own 

groups and less on ranger-led environmental education programs. Teacher training is an effective way to 

reach more students when Refuge staff time is limited. A 200-unit teacher-training curriculum on prairie 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

and oak savanna—called Project Bluestem—has been developed by Refuge staff, the Friends of Neal 

Smith NWR, and educators from around the state. The K–12 interdisciplinary program is available 

electronically and is designed for Refuge or school-site learning. The original authors of the Project 

Bluestem Curriculum (PBS) wrote in their introduction that the PBS curriculum should be constantly 

“changing, improving, and growing.” Neal Smith NWR recognizes the importance of these commands 

and has worked to uphold them by reviewing and revising the curriculum with the most current 

philosophies and methods of environmental education. Recently, Neal Smith NWR has adapted and 

created six new lessons for each grade level K–5; three for the fall season and three for the spring 

season. These new lessons will be added to the original Project Bluestem Curriculum. Teacher 

workshops are held at the Refuge in the summer and are usually well-attended. A new rotation of 

teacher workshops is currently being developed.

The Partner Schools program uses the environment and the outdoors to teach science, math, social 

studies, English, and art. It provides a multidisciplinary standards-based curriculum that includes handson experiences with plants and wildlife to immerse students in nature throughout the seasons. The 

program typically involves the entire student body. Ideally, Refuge staff visits each school three to four 

times per year and each class visits the Refuge three to four times per year. While the program reaches

a wide audience of students, the emphasis is on diverse youth. The Refuge currently partners with five 

area schools; additional schools would like to participate and will be accommodated when and if staffing 

and resource levels are able to meet the requests. 

Through this interaction, students are able to gain both hands-on and minds-on learning experiences on 

a repetitive basis, allowing more in-depth understanding of America’s wildlife resources and the role 

that the Service plays in their management and protection. A growing volume of new research may be 

accessed at http://www.peecworks.org, the Place-Based Education Evaluation Collaborative website. 

Previous research and the findings from the Prairie Science Class (Prairie Wetlands Learning Center in

Fergus Falls, Minnesota) evaluations demonstrate that integrated learning using authentic field-based 

experiences makes sense, with positive outcomes for both students and partnering organizations such 

as the Service.

Research also substantiates that maintaining a smaller teacher to student ratio is one of the most 

effective ways to increase academic achievement. For this reason, Neal Smith NWR has recently moved 

from having 100 students on a field trip at time to usually 50 students at a time. Even with these 

restrictions, staff still lead nearly 5,000 students in environmental education and stewardship programs

at the Refuge each year and teach another 2,500 students during off-Refuge programs. The Refuge is 

also involving teachers and students in research-based programs such as hands-on field work, 

monitoring, and data collection, and designing their own research proposals. Neal Smith NWR partners 

with many surrounding institutions of higher learning including Central College, Des Moines Area 

Community College, Simpson College, Wartburg College, and Iowa State University to provide their 

students with hands-on, career-related work. School groups are at the Refuge every weekday in 

September, October, April, and May and most weekdays the rest of the year. 

The Refuge sponsors eight special events each year including celebrations for Earth Day, International 

Migratory Bird Day, National Wildlife Refuge Week (Ding Darling Day), Monarch Madness, Public 

Lands/Buffalo Day, stewardship days, butterfly counts, and the Christmas bird count. Other interpretive 

programs include prairie walks, winter adaptation hikes with snowshoes, beginning birding classes, and 

preschool and family programs. Most activities are scheduled on Saturdays and Sundays. Public interest 

in these events and programs is strong. An activity guide is made in-house and distributed each season 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

and includes information about interpretive programs and special events. On the weekends, Neal Smith 

NWR also offers ranger-led badge programs for Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of various ages. 

Non-personal interpretation on the Refuge includes the Visitor Center exhibits, multi-media 

presentation, trail brochures, interpretive signs and kiosks, and an interpretive audio CD for the auto 

tour route. A butterfly garden with walkways has been established next to the Visitor Center. 

Hunting and Fishing

About two-thirds of the Refuge is open for deer, squirrel, rabbit, pheasant, and quail hunting. The 

bison/elk enclosure and the area surrounding the Visitor Center are closed to all hunting. Shotgun, bow, 

and muzzleloader deer hunts are available. Drive hunting for deer is also currently allowed. Special 

youth and disabled hunter deer seasons are currently not open on the Refuge. There are 15 temporary 

parking areas available on the Refuge during hunting season. Non-toxic shot is mandatory. The use of 

dogs is allowed only for upland game birds during the state-approved season. Hunter registration is not 

required. 

Walnut Creek and a few tributaries are the only areas within the Refuge with perennial waters. Even so, 

water depths are very shallow in the summer and winter months, supporting minnows and other small 

fish not suitable for angling. Peak water flow occurs after spring rains when flood conditions sometimes 

make Walnut Creek inaccessible. Therefore, fishing is not a recreational activity that is conducted on 

Neal Smith NWR.

Other Recreational Uses

Other recreational activities include:

• Horseback riding is allowed on county roads only. 

• Dogs allowed for pheasant hunting only.

• Berry and morel collecting are allowed.

Activities not allowed on the Refuge include:

• No shed antler collection.

• No ATVs or snowmobiles.

• No camping/picnicking/fires, but lunchroom and outdoor lunch area are available for visitor use.

Volunteers, Partnerships, and Community Outreach

Refuge programs are supported by many dedicated volunteers. They staff the Visitor Center and 

bookstore, lead environmental education and interpretive programs, and assist with special events. 

Volunteers help with invasive species control, greenhouse operations, hand harvest of seed, the 

prescribed fire program, and many other activities. In 2010, volunteers contributed more than 13,000 

hours to the Refuge. 

The volunteer group Friends of Neal Smith NWR (Friends) was established in 1993. In addition to 

supporting the activities listed above, the Friends group pays for the quarterly Prairie Wind newsletter 

and maintains the tallgrass.org website to communicate current news and event information. The 

Friends group has joined the local business association and provides up to four annual $1,000 college 

scholarships to local graduating high school seniors who are pursuing a higher degree in a natural 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

resources field. The group also provides funding for a 12-week Prairie Builder intern program. Since 

1999, over 65 interns have received a combined total of more than $150,000 in stipends. 

In 2008, the Friends group and the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation (INHF) acquired 840 acres of land 

within the Refuge acquisition boundary. Of particular importance was a large tract of land containing 

remnant oak savanna and the only remaining unchannelized section of Walnut Creek. The Friends and 

INHF jointly committed $2.7 million to purchase and hold the land until Service acquisition funds 

become available.

In 2004, Refuge staff assisted Prairie City with a successful $600,000 grant application that included 

construction of a bike trail, entry plaza with native plantings, and a bison sculpture. Another $10,000 

grant for interpretive kiosks was funded with assistance from Refuge staff. The Refuge was a partner in 

developing interpretive panels for the kiosks that were installed in 2009. The Refuge continues to be an 

active member of the Prairie City Business Association.

3.2.3 Administration

Facilities

The 40,000 square-foot Visitor Center was built in the mid-1990s using existing green technology 

(including geothermal heating and cooling). The building serves as Refuge headquarters and includes 

offices, exhibits, bookstore, research lab, greenhouse, and meeting rooms. A maintenance shop, vehicle 

and seed storage buildings, greenhouse, and small outdoor amphitheater are located nearby. 

The Refuge uses a constructed subsurface flow wetland to treat effluent leaving the septic tank. This 

system offers an environmentally compatible alternative to a septic drain field, which studies had shown 

to have severe limitations in the area proposed for the Visitor Center. Through a series of physical, 

chemical, and biological processes, the three-cell wetland naturally breaks down the effluent as it passes 

through the porous rock medium and over plant roots and stems on which bacteria, algae, microflora,

and fauna are present. The wetland is monitored and operated by Refuge staff to meet permit discharge 

requirements. Weekly inspections and monthly water sample testing are required. Frequent vegetation 

control within the cells and surrounding area is necessary to keep the wetland functioning properly. The 

water quality of the wetland discharge has consistently been better than the permit requires.

A 4.5-mile paved entry road leads from Highway 163 to the Visitor Center, and a paved parking lot is 

available for visitors and staff. The Refuge is crisscrossed by county roads, both paved and unpaved. 

About 30,000 linear feet of eight-foot-high, high-tensile woven wire fence surround the bison and elk 

enclosure, and two cattle grates have been installed, one at each end of the enclosure.

Conservation Easements

When the Farm Services Agency (FSA), formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration, acquires 

property through default on loans, it is required to protect wetland and floodplain resources on the 

property prior to public resale. The Service assists the FSA in identifying important floodplain and 

wetland resources on these properties. Once identified, the FSA assigns a perpetual conservation 

easement to the property and transfers management responsibility to the Service as part of the Refuge 

System. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Neal Smith NWR manages 21 FSA conservation easements located in 10 central Iowa counties and 

totaling approximately 700 acres. All easement properties are inspected, have management plans, and 

are posted with signs indicating the properties are under conservation easements. Widely dispersed 

easements have proven difficult to adequately manage with limited Refuge staff. Easements need 

regular inspection and management to prevent encroachment and resource degradation. The Refuge 

visits and inspects easements each year, notifying the owners of the upcoming visit as well as any 

violations that may be found afterwards.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction 

In this chapter

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationales

4.1 Introduction

The Environmental Assessment in Appendix A describes and analyzes four management alternatives for 

Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service)

identifies one as its preferred alternative, and it is described in this chapter as the proposed 

management direction, defined by a series of goals, objectives, and strategies. 

Goals are broad descriptive statements of desired future conditions. There are three goals for Neal 

Smith NWR. Each goal is followed by a series of objectives, which are specific statements describing 

management intent. Beneath each objective is a list of strategies—the specific actions, tools, and 

techniques needed to meet the objective. Finally, rationale statements describe background, history, 

assumptions, and/or technical details of the objectives and strategies. Unless otherwise noted, the 

Service intends to meet these objectives within the next 15 years.

4.2 Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Rationales

4.2.1 Habitat

Goal: The Refuge will actively protect, restore, reconstruct, and manage diverse native communities 

of tallgrass prairie, oak savanna, sedge meadow, and aquatic ecosystems and the natural processes 

essential to these ecosystems to enhance the vitality and health of the natural prairie environment.

Objective 1-1: Agriculture 

Within five years, plant all remaining agricultural fields (540 acres) with diverse native prairie or savanna 

seed mix to include no more than 20 percent warm season grass seed, at least 30 percent cool season 

grass and sedge seed, and approximately 50 percent forb seed (by seeds/ft2

). Initiate restoration of 

newly-acquired agricultural lands within three years of acquisition. Maintain all sites for continued 

dominance of at least 75 percent native species. 

Strategies

• Remove all terraces, fencelines, and woody vegetation; and re-contour if necessary prior to 

planting.

• Evaluate whether removing, breaking, or blocking drain tiles is desirable in each management 

unit and if so, implement actions prior to planting. 

• Use local ecotype seed mix appropriate to soil type and hydrology of each site.

• Plant appropriate buffer strips on farm sites to reduce erosion if not converted to prairie within 

one year of acquisition.

• Mow as necessary during early establishment to prevent competition from early successional 

weedy species.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

• After plantings have been established for three to five years, conduct prescribed burns on a 

variable schedule every one to five years and within different seasons, if feasible, to invigorate 

natural communities, limit woody plants, and suppress invasive species. 

• Use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) measures including physical, mechanical, grazing, 

prescribed fire, and/or chemical treatments to reduce, control, or eliminate high-priority 

invasive plants.

• Experiment with oak tree planting in appropriate areas. Plant acorns directly in the ground in 

oak savanna reconstruction areas and grow seedlings for future planting in these areas.

• Ensure that all Refuge farming is consistent with FWS Region 3 policy, including limits on the use 

of genetically-modified crops. 

Rationale

Tallgrass prairie and savanna have been reduced to less than one percent of their former presence east 

of the Missouri River and less than 0.1 percent in Iowa making them critically endangered ecosystems. 

According to 1846 General Land Office (GLO) survey records, the land cover of the current Neal Smith 

NWR was primarily prairie and oak savanna at the time of European settlement, but most has been 

converted to agriculture. Reconstructing prairie or savanna on agricultural fields serves to reverse that 

statistic, buffers prairie and savanna remnants, and creates habitat for indigenous plant and animal 

species. Increasing the expanse of prairie and savanna not only benefits wildlife but also creates a more 

resilient landscape that can persist through perturbations such as climate change. 

The acquisition of farmland provides an opportunity to reverse the trend of prairie and savanna loss in 

Iowa and the Midwest. The Refuge continues farming each site for a period of three to five years from 

acquisition while the treatment of tile systems, terraces, or other site-related problems are addressed. 

The ability to meet planting schedules is dependent upon seed availability from vendors, funding to 

purchase seed, and Refuge harvest.

In many areas, failing to remove drain tiles could increase erosion and have undesirable effects on 

native vegetation. In some cases, breaking, plugging, or complete removal of tile lines could have 

undesired effects, so careful evaluation of each site is important. Plugs might create overly wet 

conditions in adjacent areas as water continues to discharge above the plug, breaking tiles could allow 

some continued drainage and potential headcutting at break points, and full removal has the potential 

to increase erosion in some areas.

Prescribed burning is a critical management tool for all habitat reconstruction and restoration objectives 

in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). Tallgrass prairie, oak savanna, and sedge meadow 

systems all evolved with and adapted to frequent fire. Some fires were caused by lightning, while most 

were ignited by Native Americans to ease travel, provide safety from wildfires, and provide forage for 

game species. Fire stimulates growth of many native plants and eliminates competition from species not 

adapted to fire, and in some species fire is required to break seed dormancy. 

Prior to European settlement, prairie and savanna fires occurred primarily during the fall. Spring burns 

are most effective at controlling cool season invasive species but can have detrimental effects on native 

cool season species. Variability in timing of fires promotes plant diversity. Decisions about which areas 

to burn each year and timing of the burn are based on the condition of the prairie, time since last burn, 

presence of certain invasive species, management or research activities, available resources, and 

weather conditions. Practically speaking, spring offers the most opportunities for prescribed burning on 

the Refuge because of weather and fuel conditions. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

IPM is “a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical, and 

chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks” (U.S. Code Title 7

Section 136r-1). It is a long-standing, science-based, decision-making process that identifies and reduces 

risks from pests and pest management related strategies. Steps in the IPM process include monitoring 

and identifying organisms that require action, setting thresholds for action, and managing land and 

water in a way that prevents organisms from becoming a threat. If preventive measures are not working 

and the IPM process indicates that pest control is required, then effective less-risky controls are chosen 

first. Broadcast spraying of non-specific pesticides is a last resort. High-priority invasive plants that 

require action on Neal Smith NWR will be determined in a step-down management plan following 

approval of the CCP.

Oak savanna reconstruction will be initiated on some agricultural lands near existing oak savanna 

remnants. Soil types, historic land cover maps, and field observation will be used to determine other 

suitable locations. In those sites, a less aggressive seed mix of species commonly found in savanna 

understory will be planted that will not compete with oak and hickory seedling recruitment. These 

plantings will be allowed to establish themselves for several years before tree planting begins. Oak 

savanna reconstruction has not been attempted at Neal Smith NWR, and few attempts have been made 

at other sites, so this approach will be experimental to determine the best techniques.

Figure 4-1 shows the pattern of prairie and 

savanna distribution in the early 1800s. The longterm vision for the Refuge over the next 50 to 100 

years includes restoration of prairie and savanna 

as nearly as possible to this historic pattern, given 

the dramatic changes that have occurred on the 

landscape since then. 

Objective 1-2: Tallgrass Prairie Remnants 

Restore vegetation on all prairie remnants (90 

acres) to the following conditions: greater than 

70 percent canopy cover of native species, less 

than 20 percent canopy cover of woody 

vegetation, and combined Floristic Quality Index 

(FQI) of 35 or higher.

Strategies

• Conduct prescribed burns on a variable 

schedule every one to five years and 

within different seasons to invigorate 

natural communities, limit woody plants, 

and suppress invasive species. If 

necessary, plant graminoids (grasses and 

sedges) to provide a fine-fuel matrix to 

carry fire through the remnant.

• Remove fire-intolerant woody vegetation using physical (e.g., hand removal), chemical, or 

mechanical methods to facilitate the use of prescribed fire and increase exposure of prairie 

plants to sunlight. 

Figure 4-1: Neal Smith NWR Generalized Future 

Land Cover
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

• Use IPM measures including physical, mechanical, and/or chemical treatment to reduce, control, 

or eliminate high-priority invasive plants.

• If tiles, ditches, or terraces are present in areas adjacent to remnants, evaluate whether 

removing, breaking, or blocking drain tiles; or removing ditches or terraces is necessary, and if 

so, implement necessary actions.

Rationale

According to 1846 GLO survey records, the land cover of the current Neal Smith NWR was primarily 

prairie and oak savanna at the time of European settlement. Although much of this area has been in 

agricultural production since that time, there are still patches of degraded prairie and oak savanna 

remnants throughout the Refuge. Many of these remnants still hold high potential for restoration but 

they could be lost to invasive species and woody vegetation if not restored soon. Each is unique in 

species composition and other characteristics and, when taken together, they could provide important 

seed sources and valuable genetic diversity adapted to local conditions. Conservative species are 

present in some of the remnants that have not been established elsewhere on the Refuge. 

Prescribed burning is critical to restoration of tallgrass prairie remnants. It promotes native plant 

diversity, which benefits grassland birds, invertebrates and other wildlife. Prairie plants and wildlife are 

adapted to the open sunny conditions maintained by frequent fire. Since European settlement of the 

Midwest, fire has been suppressed, allowing woody vegetation to grow in areas where it wouldn’t be 

present under a natural fire regime. Woody vegetation inhibits growth of native prairie plants and 

degrades wildlife habitat. Removal of trees from prairie remnants can immediately improve habitat for 

grassland birds by creating larger areas of grassland and increasing distance to the nearest tree edge. 

Grassland bird abundance and nest density is lower near woody edges, and grassland birds experience 

lower nest success near woody edges (Askins et al., 2007).

The FQI is a standardized method to objectively assess the quality of a natural area based on its plant 

community. It can be used to compare a site to other sites or to determine changes in the same site 

through time. Intact natural communities have higher FQI scores than disturbed areas. Areas with little 

ecological value have an FQI of less than 20, areas rating more than 35 are important ecologically, and 

areas with an FQI in the 50s are extremely important (Wilhelm and Ladd, 1988; Swink and Wilhelm,

1994; Appendix E: Floristic Quality Assessment). Increasing the FQI also is expected to increase the 

structural diversity of a prairie, providing habitat for a variety of grassland birds and other prairiedependent species.

Reconstructed Tallgrass Prairie 

Objective 1-3

Manage 2,500 acres classified on the 2010 land cover map as Warm Season (Planted) vegetation and 

675 acres classified as Cool/Warm Season vegetation toward the following conditions: at least 70 

percent overall native species comprised of approximately 10 percent cool season grasses, 60 percent 

warm season grasses, 30 percent forbs, and less than 20 percent woody vegetation. 

Objective 1-4

Manage 700 acres classified as Brome (Cool Season) vegetation to contain at least 40 percent overall 

cover of native grasses and forbs. 

Objective 1-5
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

Manage reconstructed tallgrass prairie vegetation throughout the Refuge so that in any given year 

approximately 20 percent will be low stature (less than two-feet tall), 20 percent mid stature (two to 

four feet), and 60 percent tall stature (greater than four feet) achieved through management strategies 

to benefit grassland birds and other prairie-dependent wildlife. 

Strategies (for objectives 1-3, 1-4, and 1-5)

• Conduct prescribed burns on a variable schedule every one to five years and within different 

seasons to invigorate natural plant communities, provide diverse habitat for grassland birds and 

other wildlife, and limit undesirable vegetation. 

• Use bison and elk grazing within the enclosure to meet habitat objectives. If fire or grazing by 

native herbivores cannot meet wildlife and habitat objectives, implement grazing with cattle, 

sheep, and/or goats in selected units outside the enclosure. Evaluate success of grazing program 

and modify if necessary, including changes to the bison and elk enclosure size and herd size.

• Evaluate whether removing, breaking, or blocking drain tiles or removing terraces or ditches is 

necessary in each management unit and, if so, implement necessary actions. Reconfigure 

enclosure fence away from highly erodible stream sites to reduce degradation of riparian areas.

• Use IPM measures including physical, mechanical, and/or chemical treatment to reduce, control, 

or eliminate high-priority invasive plants.

• Increase diversity of native plants, including cool season and other conservative species, by 

interseeding or planting plugs in select areas. 

• Work with Inventory and Monitoring Program biologists to develop a simple and effective 

monitoring protocol and database. Use this protocol and database to collect and enter baseline 

data on a representative sample of reconstructed prairie units within two years of CCP approval.

• Develop Habitat Management Plan further detailing the activities described.

Rationale

Prairie reconstructions on the Refuge are of varying quality, from very diverse to those dominated by 

warm season grasses having low plant diversity, and therefore little structural diversity (lower quality). 

Although the long-term vision is to develop all reconstructions into highly diverse prairies with varying 

species composition and structure, the short-term objectives (15 years) are more limited because 

reconstructed sites take time to develop and mature. The 2010 land cover map (figure 3-6) defines the 

three general vegetation classes based on aerial photography: 

Warm Season (Planted): Dominated by native warm season grasses (big bluestem, Indian grass, little 

bluestem, etc.) and native forbs; may contain greater than 25 percent relative cover of cool season 

grasses (mostly non-native smooth brome) and non-native forbs.

Cool/Warm Season: Also planted with native warm season grasses, but still has greater than 50 percent 

relative cover of non-native cool season grasses (mostly non-native smooth brome). This category is 

typical of younger plantings and areas that have been grazed or mowed so that cool season grasses are 

expressed.

Brome (Cool Season): Dominated by greater than 50 percent relative cover of smooth brome and other 

non-native cool season grasses (timothy, Kentucky bluegrass, etc.); also usually contains non-native 

forbs, such as clover and wild parsnip; relative cover of native grasses and forbs is less than ten percent.

Most of these units were planted for pasture or through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) prior 

to Refuge ownership. This vegetation class provides low-stature vegetation on the Refuge. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Reconstruction of some of these areas to native tallgrass prairie will be conducted using low-growing 

species to contribute to this habitat type.

The interaction of fire and grazing was important in the evolution of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem. 

Both dramatically reduced vegetative cover in tallgrass prairie, but the effects were temporary, allowing 

plant species to adapt to the periodic disturbance. Grazing by bison and elk are essential to the control 

of woody or tree species on the prairie. Removal of dead plant material through burning and grazing 

increases primary productivity in prairie (Knapp et al., 1999). Both of these management tools, as well as 

mowing, are used on the Refuge to mimic disturbance regimes that maintained the historic tallgrass 

prairie ecosystem. 

Burning in the spring for several consecutive years will reduce cool season invasive plants including reed 

canarygrass and smooth brome. Fall burning promotes forbs and cool season species. Native cool

season grasses and forbs are extremely under-represented in prairie plantings on the Refuge. Increasing 

the cover of cool season natives will make these sites more resistant to cool season invasives such as 

smooth brome and Canada thistle and will increase floristic quality. Planting additional cool season 

plants also will provide better habitat for native pollinators by providing an increased season of bloom.

Bison and elk graze freely within the 700-acre fenced enclosure. Patch burn grazing encourages the 

bison to concentrate in different areas of the enclosure each season, creating a mosaic of vegetation 

structure. Burning is used to stimulate native vegetation and reduce non-native invasives and residual 

standing dry matter. This encourages bison to graze these areas, creating areas with short vegetation. 

Unburned areas are grazed less frequently, resulting in taller vegetation and greater litter depth. 

Together these areas create more diversity in vegetation structure. By rotating the burns throughout the 

enclosure, the areas that are grazed most frequently also rotate. Each area is allowed periods of “rest” 

where it receives little grazing, and the residual standing dry matter is able to build up, facilitating 

prescribed fire. The cycle is then repeated. It is intended that some areas are allowed to grow rank. 

Expansion of the enclosure area would increase management capabilities to manipulate grazing with 

bison and elk to best meet wildlife and habitat objectives. 

Cattle, sheep, and/or goats can provide grazing disturbance outside the enclosure if it is necessary to 

meet wildlife or habitat objectives. Cows and sheep can reduce vegetation height or density in prairie 

reconstructions. Goats can be used in both prairie and savanna sites to target woody plant species. 

These animals would need to be confined using temporary fencing that can be moved from place to 

place, and measures would need to be taken to minimize the introduction of new invasive species via 

grazers onto the Refuge.

Vegetation structure significantly affects habitat suitability for grassland birds. For example, Henslow’s 

Sparrow, Le Conte’s Sparrow, and Sedge Wren prefer tall vegetation with high litter layers. Dickcissels, 

Bobolinks, and Eastern Meadowlarks use medium to tall vegetation. Upland Sandpiper, Grasshopper 

Sparrow, and Western Meadowlark prefer areas with shorter vegetation. Northern Harrier and Shorteared Owl require large areas that may include a mix of vegetation heights. Most species prefer areas 

with little to no woody vegetation and at least low to moderate forb cover, which provides habitat 

components such as song perches and above-ground nesting substrates.

Restoring a high FQI on tallgrass prairie remnants and reconstructions will provide appropriate habitat 

diversity for grassland birds but will require many years to accomplish over large areas of the Refuge. In 

the shorter term, strategic use of mowing, haying, grazing, or burning on reconstructed prairie units can 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

provide varied habitat by creating shorter vegetation and removing litter even where the number of 

different native plant species is low. This provides better habitat for certain species such as Grasshopper 

Sparrow. These actions can also be used along with interseeding and herbicides to promote native plant 

diversity. Mowing, haying, or burning during the growing season will keep vegetation short, but will also 

destroy nests of grassland birds. These measures would provide benefits to some grassland birds but will 

reduce habitat suitability for others. The Refuge will play an important role in ensuring that grassland 

birds and other prairie wildlife have the varied habitat structure necessary to meet their life cycle needs

while minimizing damage to nests.

Objective 1-6: Oak Savanna Remnants

Restore vegetation on all oak savanna remnants (150 acres) to the following conditions: canopy cover 

of 10 to 80 percent and stem density of 1 to 25 trees per acre, less than 30 percent cover of fireintolerant trees, 70 percent cover of native savanna understory species, and an FQI of 35 or greater. 

Strategies 

• Remove fire intolerant woody vegetation using methods including physical (e.g., hand removal), 

chemical (herbicide), mechanical, or livestock browsing to facilitate the use of prescribed fire 

and increase exposure of savanna understory plants to sunlight. 

• Conduct prescribed burns to stimulate growth of native savanna plants, remove litter, and 

reduce fire-intolerant woody vegetation and invasive species. Burning should be conducted 

annually for the first ten years if resources allow. If necessary, plant graminoids to provide a 

fine-fuel matrix.

• Use IPM measures including physical and mechanical treatments, herbicide application, and 

prescribed fire to reduce, control, or eliminate high-priority invasive plants.

• If tiles, terraces, or ditches are present in areas adjacent to remnants, evaluate whether 

removing, breaking, or blocking drain tiles or removing terraces or ditches is necessary, and if 

so, implement actions.

Rationale

At the time of European settlement, oak savannas covered 11 to 13 million acres in the Midwest (Nuzzo,

1985) and about 2.4 million acres in Iowa (Smith, 1998). Only 0.02 percent of midwestern savannas 

remain, with the rest destroyed or degraded. There are still patches of oak savanna throughout its 

historic range on the Refuge. These remnants are in varying stages of degradation but still hold potential 

for restoration. They provide valuable genetic diversity that is adapted to the local conditions, providing 

the necessary seed sources for restoring savanna within the Refuge boundary. The metrics for canopy 

cover and tree density described in this objective represent the definition of oak savanna. The cover of 

fire intolerant species and native species are metrics that will help the Refuge move towards complete 

savanna restoration. By achieving this target, we will have restored the oak savanna remnants to a level 

that is low maintenance, requiring only regular prescribed burning and invasive species management. 

The strategies listed mimic natural ecological processes and will benefit all savanna-adapted species.

Because oak savannas have characteristics of both grasslands and forests, they are used by more bird 

species than either of these vegetation types. More bird species are found at higher densities in 

savannas than in grasslands, shrublands, or forests (Grundel and Pavlovic, 2007). These birds are most 

likely attracted to one or more of the distinctive habitat features of savannas including scattered mature 

trees, standing dead trees and snags, and presence of both shrubby and grassland vegetation (Davis et 

al., 2000). Species that have been found to reach higher densities in oak savanna compared to closedcanopy forests included Red-headed Woodpecker (Grundel and Pavlovic, 2007; Brawn, 2006), Northern 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

Bobwhite, Indigo Bunting, Summer Tanager, and Baltimore Oriole (Brawn, 1998). Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak, Indigo Bunting, and Blue Jay experienced significantly higher nest success in savannas and 

woodlands with fire and disturbance compared to closed-canopy forest (Brawn, 1998). Field Sparrow 

was favored by restoration including fire. Another aspect of oak savanna restoration is that small 

patches of overgrown, degraded savannas act as sinks for forest bird species. Restoring these oak 

savannas will provide habitat for source populations of birds adapted to savanna conditions (Brawn,

2006).

Sedge Meadow

Objective 1-7

Manage 330 acres of vegetation classified as Phalaris (Reed Canarygrass) to contain at least 25 percent 

overall cover of native grasses, sedges, and forbs. 

Objective 1-8

Within two years of CCP approval, examine soils, topography, slope, aspect, vegetation, and hydrology 

to identify appropriate sites where wet sedge meadows could be developed or restored. Within five 

years, develop site-specific plans to create or enhance wet sedge meadows on the Refuge.

Strategies (for objectives 1-7 and 1-8) 

• Conduct frequent prescribed burns on sedge meadow sites currently dominated by reed 

canarygrass to invigorate natural plant communities, limit undesirable vegetation, and provide 

diverse habitat for sedge meadow birds and other wildlife.

• Increase diversity of native sedge meadow plants by interseeding or planting plugs in select 

areas.

• Use IPM measures including physical and mechanical treatments, herbicide application, and 

prescribed fire to reduce, control, or eliminate reed canarygrass and high-priority invasive 

plants.

• Use 2011 aerial photography, topographic and soils maps, and past vegetation records to 

identify current and potential sedge meadow sites. 

• With regional office assistance, survey each unit to locate sedge meadows or sites where they 

would have potentially formed before tiling was implemented. 

• Determine where removing, breaking, or blocking drain tiles would benefit sedge meadow 

restoration; implement necessary actions in highest priority locations.

• Establish partnerships with non-profit groups to assist with restoration of sedge meadow sites.

Rationale

A diverse tallgrass prairie ecosystem would necessarily have sedge meadows within the landscape. 

Sedge meadows occur along a gradient from mesic tallgrass prairie to wet prairie to sedge meadow to

wetland. They have hydric soils and require moisture close to the surface for an extended period during 

the growing season. The plants require full sun and frequent fire. Dominant native plants found in 

healthy sedge meadows include many species of sedges, prairie cordgrass, rushes, and some forbs. 

Sedges often form tussocks, creating unique habitat for wildlife. Sedge meadows are a unique mix of 

aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. 

The Refuge has approximately 370 acres of sedge meadow in mostly poor condition. Much of it has 

been subject to hydrologic alteration, siltation, and reed canarygrass invasion. Sedge meadows are 

located in floodplain depressions associated with Walnut Creek and its tributaries as well as in upland 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

seeps and ravines. The 2010 land cover map (figure 3-6) defines two relevant vegetation classes, based 

on aerial photography:

• Phalaris (Reed Canarygrass): Invasive reed canarygrass is greater than 75 percent of the relative 

cover; this category dominates many wet areas that could support sedge meadows (330 acres).

• Wet Meadow: Areas with a mix of reed canarygrass, sedges, and forbs, with reed canarygrass 

normally dominant; typically in wetter settings (40 acres).

In the floodplain, reed canarygrass has become a tenacious competitor due to hydrologic alteration of 

Walnut Creek and its tributaries. In the uplands, sedge meadows near seeps and ravines often still retain 

some diversity, although subsurface drain tiles have reduced the level of soil saturation and the quality 

and diversity of sedge meadows found there. Many ravines probably contained seeps prior to being 

tiled. Sedges sometimes still survive in these areas, but not all have been located and mapped. One tenacre sedge meadow near Savanna Trail is the subject of an ongoing reconstruction and research 

program.

Sedge meadows provide habitat for Service priority wildlife species including Northern Harrier, Shorteared Owl, Sedge Wren, and Bobolink. Waterfowl and other water birds may occur on the Refuge more 

frequently as habitat conditions in sedge meadows and savannas improve. Sedge meadow restoration 

also will reduce runoff and erosion by slowing the flow of water across the landscape, allowing it to 

settle temporarily in wet zones. 

Objective 1-9: Habitat Reconstruction and Restoration Research 

Develop and implement a Refuge research and monitoring program to evaluate the effects of 

management actions (grazing, fire, mowing, planting, etc.) on restoring and reconstructing prairies and 

savannas. Within one year of CCP approval, clearly define three or four of the highest priority 

management-relevant questions and the data needed to answer them. Within two years, solicit 

researchers to implement highest priority studies. Meet annually with research team(s) to discuss 

results, evaluate progress, review priorities, and make plans for the next year.

Strategies

• Continue to collaborate with the Region 3 Prairie Biology Network and other agencies and 

organizations conducting prairie restoration. Investigate research and monitoring protocols used 

in other locations to evaluate their potential usefulness at Neal Smith NWR.

• Conduct a structured decision-making workshop with land managers, biologists, researchers, 

and statisticians with relevant experience from both inside and outside the Service to develop 

specific science-based management questions and data needs.

• Seek funding assistance for management-relevant studies. 

• Incorporate the principles of adaptive management (AM) into all management-related 

monitoring and research activities.

• Strengthen partnerships with academic institutions to coordinate research needs and activities.

Rationale

Although knowledge of complex ecological systems will always be incomplete, refuges must make 

management decisions using the best available information to guide their actions. The Service cannot 

afford to undertake large-scale habitat protection, restoration, or enhancement endeavors only to 

discover after years of management that actions were ineffective. In the absence of perfect knowledge, 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

biologists are forced to make assumptions, but they can treat these assumptions as testable hypotheses 

using an AM approach. AM focuses on deliberately designing management to enhance learning and 

improve subsequent decision-making (Williams et al., 2007).

Studies should be targeted to provide the highest value to resource management; questions having the 

greatest impact on management decisions should be the highest priorities. Re-creating the tallgrass 

prairie ecosystem from scratch on Neal Smith NWR is an experimental process, so problems, questions, 

and hypotheses are complex and wide-ranging. The effect of the grazing and prescribed fire programs 

on vegetative composition and structure has been a high-priority topic of interest. Others that have 

been considered to date include control of invasive plants, altered hydrology in the Walnut Creek 

watershed, the effects of management on priority wildlife species, and appropriate future vegetation 

types under a changing climate scenario. 

Structured decision-making is an organized approach to identifying and evaluating options and making 

choices in complex decision situations. It will help Refuge staff to clearly define the most pressing 

management questions and to direct limited resources toward obtaining scientifically sound answers 

(FWS, 2008b). New information from research and monitoring only becomes useful if it influences future 

management decisions and actions. Thus two important steps in the AM loop are analyzing study data 

and incorporating the results into future actions (Williams et al., 2007). 

Refuge staff will promote specific studies designed to evaluate management practices at Neal Smith 

NWR. This work could be conducted in-house or through college and university partners. Partnerships 

with academic institutions are critical to successful design, implementation, and evaluation of AM

studies on the Refuge.

Objective 1-10: Landscape-Scale Development and Habitat Loss

Reduce the effects of urban development, wildlife habitat loss, and climate change by continued

conservation partnerships, and by expanding the Refuge boundary to include 3,200 additional acres of 

the Walnut Creek watershed that lie to the east and west of the current boundary (figure 4-2).
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

Figure 4-2: Refuge Boundary Expansion
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

Strategies

• Partner with neighboring landowners and the Iowa Private Lands Office to increase use of 

available conservation programs and tools.

• Work with partners to further reduce erosion and improve water quality in the Walnut Creek 

watershed. 

• Work with partners to establish wildlife habitat corridors between the Refuge, Lake Red Rock, 

and Chichaqua Bottoms Greenbelt. 

• Work with partners to protect and restore high-value prairie remnants within the 38-county 

local ecotype zone, especially those that can provide rare plant seeds that are hard to acquire 

elsewhere.

• Encourage better local zoning regulations and lower-impact development.

• Reduce impacts of subsurface drainage on Refuge habitats.

Rationale 

The Refuge is located in a primarily rural area just 20 miles east of Des Moines. Over 99 percent of the 

historic tallgrass prairie ecosystem has been lost to agricultural and urban development, and pressure 

on remaining wildlife habitat is increasing as the city and suburbs expand. Protected areas such as Neal 

Smith NWR, Lake Red Rock, and Chichaqua Bottoms Greenbelt are isolated islands of conservation 

surrounded primarily by croplands. As a result, the ability of many wildlife species to move across the 

landscape is limited. Off-Refuge land use patterns also can affect the Service’s ability to restore and 

manage lands and waters on the Refuge.

Diverse partnerships are important in meeting Refuge purposes, National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS, Refuge System) goals, and the mission of the Service. Neal Smith NWR partners include 

individual landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; non-governmental organizations,

and other stakeholders.

Lands within the proposed Refuge boundary expansion are located within the Walnut Creek watershed 

and include the headwaters of those tributaries that flow through the Refuge. The expansion area lies 

south of State Highway 163 and north of County Road 70. The expanded boundary generally follows 

roads and/or quarter-section lines adjacent to the watershed boundary, which provides a clearly defined 

acquisition boundary while also limiting the expansion only to those lands of greatest conservation value 

in meeting Refuge purposes and objectives. 

The expanded boundary will help buffer Refuge wildlife and habitat from the increasing pressures of 

urban expansion, habitat fragmentation, and climate change, and improve habitat for migratory 

grassland bird species that require large tracts of prairie for successful nesting. Habitat quality on 

existing Refuge uplands will increase by restoring more natural subsurface drainage patterns.

Drainage tiles under the Refuge reduce the amount of water in the soil above, so many sites are drier 

than they would be without tiles. Reducing or eliminating the drainage system under the Refuge would 

restore the natural soil moisture regimes needed for more diverse and sustainable habitat restoration. 

Breaking, plugging, or removing tiles only within the current Refuge boundary, however, is not enough. 

Sections of tile line that lie up-gradient of the Refuge on private lands would remain intact, continuing to 

discharge groundwater onto Refuge lands and increasing the threat of severe headcutting.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Private landowners are unlikely to break, plug, or remove tiles because wetter soil would significantly 

reduce agricultural productivity. Consequently, fee title acquisition by the Service is likely to be the most 

viable option for meeting Refuge objectives, although easements or cooperative agreements also may 

be feasible in some locations. Land acquisition is proposed on a willing-seller-only basis, which means 

that any acquisition would occur only when landowners choose to sell. Additional information about this 

proposal can be found in the Land Protection Plan in Appendix B of this CCP.

Drainage tiles north of State Highway 163 do not flow under the Refuge, so these northernmost 

watershed reaches do not affect the soil moisture of most Refuge prairies, savannas, and upland sedge 

meadows. These northern reaches, however, do affect the Walnut Creek floodplain. Service land 

acquisition north of the highway would facilitate efforts to restore the natural hydrology of the creek, 

but attempting to engineer this restoration would take many years at a very high cost and is unlikely to 

be successful. Active channel restoration involving strategies such as armoring streambanks or installing 

channel meanders is not likely to work until water balance and hydrology are restored (Schilling et al.,

2012). In addition, the creek already is moving slowly toward a new state of equilibrium and will 

eventually restore many of its historic functions if allowed to evolve naturally. Allowing natural 

processes to occur in the stream network (beaver dams, debris dams, etc.) do not cost anything and 

encourage stream evolution and readjustment (Schilling et al., 2012). Therefore, the Walnut Creek 

watershed north of Highway 163 is not included within the expanded Refuge land acquisition boundary. 

These lands, however, are a high priority for Service partnerships aimed at increasing the conservation 

value of private lands near the Refuge. 

Refuge staff will assist agency partners, landowners, and other stakeholders in their efforts to restore 

and protect habitat and wildlife outside the expanded Refuge boundary. Priority areas for such 

assistance include the Walnut Creek watershed north and south of the Refuge, the Chichaqua Bottoms 

Greenbelt corridor, and habitat remnants determined to be of highest conservation value. Refuge staff 

may provide technical assistance and other support as requested, but any fee-title acquisition, 

easements, and ongoing management responsibility in these areas would be provided by others.

The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program) will be a key partner in meeting 

this objective. The Partners Program works beyond the boundaries of refuges with landowners and 

other partners to improve habitat on private lands for fish and wildlife. Neal Smith NWR, Lake Red Rock, 

and Chichaqua Bottoms Greenbelt lie within the Lower Des Moines River Corridor, a primary focus area 

of the Partners Program in Iowa. This focus area was established to help improve connectivity between 

Iowa’s major habitat units.

Ultimately, restoring ecological functions and values in the tallgrass prairie ecosystem in central Iowa 

will require conservation and restoration of both public and private lands. Neal Smith NWR, Chichaqua 

Bottoms Greenbelt, and Lake Red Rock would serve as core areas of permanently protected and 

restored habitat connected by a matrix of public and private conservation lands.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

4.2.2 Wildlife

Goal: The Refuge will protect, restore, reconstruct, and maintain biologically diverse populations of 

native wildlife associated with healthy prairie, savanna, sedge meadow, and aquatic ecosystems, with 

an emphasis on grassland and savanna bird species including Greater Prairie-Chicken, Northern 

Bobwhite, Northern Harrier, Upland Sandpiper, Short-eared Owl, Red-headed Woodpecker, Northern 

Flicker, Loggerhead Shrike, Bell's Vireo, Sedge Wren, Eastern Bluebird, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow, 

Grasshopper Sparrow, Henslow's Sparrow, Le Conte’s Sparrow, Smith’s Longspur, Orchard Oriole, 

Dickcissel, Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark, and Western Meadowlark.

Objective 2-1: Grassland and Savanna Birds

Increase or maintain the populations of native grassland and savanna birds of Service concern that occur 

on the Refuge. Increase Red-headed Woodpecker populations by five to ten percent over 15 years, 

Henslow’s Sparrow population by 20 percent over 15 years, and maintain Grasshopper Sparrow and 

Dickcissel populations (currently at 88 and 661 singing males, respectively).

Strategies

• Through management actions, restore and reconstruct tallgrass prairie and oak savannas to 

benefit bird species that are in decline including Northern Harrier, Upland Sandpiper, Shorteared Owl, Red-headed Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, Sedge Wren, Eastern Towhee, Field 

Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Henslow’s Sparrow, Le Conte’s Sparrow, Smith’s Longspur, 

Dickcissel, Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark, and Western Meadowlark. 

• Conduct prescribed burns on a variable schedule every one to five years and in different seasons 

to prevent spread of woody vegetation within savanna and prairie habitats and provide 

structural diversity.

• Continue bird monitoring to determine populations of grassland and savanna bird species and 

their relationship to Refuge management.

• Analyze point count data collected since 1994 to determine population trends of grassland birds 

on the Refuge in relation to prairie restoration and Refuge management.

• Promote research on breeding and nest success of grassland birds using the Refuge.

• Promote research to determine the relationship between grassland birds and prairie conditions 

such as floristic quality.

• Evaluate conditions necessary to introduce Greater Prairie-Chicken to the Refuge. Continue 

partnership with Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR); encourage the DNR to take the 

lead on reintroduction.

Rationale

Widespread declines of many species of grassland and savanna birds are occurring throughout North 

America (Sauer et al., 2011). In the Midwest, this loss is primarily due to the conversion of prairie to 

cropland, resulting in both habitat loss and fragmentation (Brennan and Kuvlesky, 2005). The tallgrass 

prairie ecosystem has been reduced to less than one percent of its former extent east of the Missouri 

River and less than 0.1 percent in Iowa. Of the bird species listed in Appendix H: Birds of Special 

Consideration, Neal Smith NWR could have the most influence on regional populations of Henslow’s 

Sparrow, Dickcissel, and Red-headed Woodpecker because central Iowa is an important part of the 

breeding range of all three, and they are highly associated with tallgrass prairie and oak savanna 

habitats. Table 4-1 shows current and future Refuge population estimates. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

Table 4-1: Bird populations on Neal Smith NWR

Species Current Population 

Estimate

Long-term Population 

Estimate*

Henslow’s Sparrow 317 745

Dickcissel 661 1,553

Red-headed Woodpecker 11 99

*When all Refuge land acquisition/restoration is complete within expanded Refuge boundary

When the habitat objectives in this CCP are achieved, the population of Henslow’s Sparrows on currently 

owned Refuge land could potentially increase to about 500 singing males (based on 2011 densities of 9.2

singing males/100 acres of Refuge grasslands). Over the longer term, when all lands within the 

expanded Refuge boundary are acquired and restored, the Henslow’s Sparrow population could reach 

745 singing males. 

Dickcissels populations fluctuate and densities in 2011 were 19.1 birds/100 acres of grassland. The 

current population estimate is 661 birds on 3,457 grassland acres. If suitable grassland habitat were 

established on all appropriate soils throughout the current Refuge boundary, the population could reach 

1,032 birds. However, since their populations peak two years after planting, it is doubtful that number 

could be maintained. Maintaining a population of 661 singing males would meet the 15-year objective. 

Over the longer term, full land acquisition and restoration within the expanded Refuge boundary would 

result in an estimated population of 1,553 breeding male Dickcissels.

The current estimate for Red-headed Woodpeckers on the Refuge is 11individuals. Over the long term,

when savanna has been restored on all suitable soils within the expanded Refuge boundary, the 

population could potentially reach 99 individuals (based on 2011 densities of 2.9 birds/100 acres).

The current population estimate for Grasshopper Sparrows is 88 singing males on the Refuge, primarily 

inhabiting the bison enclosure. There they are found at a density of 2.5 singing males/100 acres of 

grassland. Since they are associated with grazed or shorter grasses their population should remain 

stable unless grazed areas are increased or decreased. Estimates are based on numbers of birds within 

50 meters of point transects conducted in 2011 and the amount of suitable cover that the points were 

located in. 

Bird populations vary from year-to-year and season-to-season. Numbers indicate estimates of breeding 

birds. For most breeding songbirds, numbers indicate primarily singing males, the most commonly 

recorded individuals on point counts. For Red-headed Woodpeckers, males and females could not be 

distinguished for most observations. It is unknown whether these birds have mates or successfully 

fledge young. Density does not necessarily indicate habitat quality or nest success, and in some species 

intermediate densities may have higher rates of nest success. 

Each species of grassland bird has specific habitat requirements. Many species, such as Killdeer

(Charadrius vociferus), Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris), and Smith’s Longspur, are able to use short 

sparse grasslands such as agricultural fields and pastures. This habitat type is abundant throughout the 

region in which the Refuge is located. Some short-grass prairie species, such as Upland Sandpiper, 

Grasshopper Sparrow, and Western Meadowlark, are found in drier prairies on sandy soils, brome fields, 

and pastures in Iowa but are more abundant in the core of their range west of Iowa. Tallgrass prairie is 

important habitat for Sedge Wren, Henslow’s Sparrow, Le Conte’s Sparrow, Eastern Meadowlark, 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

Bobolink, and Dickcissel. Birds requiring large tracts of grassland include Greater Prairie-Chicken, 

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), and Short-eared Owl.

Henslow’s Sparrow is a species of particular concern to the Service. Historically a tallgrass prairie 

species, it has a relatively small range and is limited to areas of tall grasslands. Dickcissel is another 

tallgrass prairie species, although more widespread and less specific in its habitat requirements. Other 

than prairie found on Refuge lands, most tallgrass prairie in Iowa is found on private lands enrolled in

the CRP or along roadsides. Since the early 1990s, populations have increased as enrollment in CRP has 

increased.

In recent years, many CRP plantings are rapidly being converted back to agricultural fields. By restoring 

and reconstructing tallgrass prairie and sedge meadow at Neal Smith NWR, the Refuge will continue to 

create habitat for a diversity of grassland birds that are dependent on these plant communities. In 

general, it is these prairie-dependent species that are experiencing declines due to loss of these plant 

communities.

Red-headed Woodpecker is another species experiencing steady declines. Savanna restoration will 

create larger areas of suitable habitat for this species. Red-headed Woodpecker populations respond 

well to savanna restoration, so populations are expected to increase on the Refuge.

The Refuge has conducted breeding season bird point counts almost every year since 1994. The surveys 

were originally conducted to collect baseline data on birds and look for population trends during the 

early stages of prairie reconstruction (Thomas, 1999). This study found increases in grassland birds such 

as Dickcissel and Grasshopper Sparrow during the first few years after Refuge establishment. Since then 

an analysis was carried out examining the bird species composition in prairie plantings of different ages 

(Olechnowski et al., 2009). This study found that the bird species found in a certain areas of the Refuge 

were related to the age of the planting. For example, Henslow’s Sparrows were found in more 

established plantings, while Killdeer, Horned Lark, and Vesper Sparrow were most abundant in the first 

year after planting. Dickcissels peaked in abundance the second year after planting.

Objective 2-2: Bison Genetics

Participate in the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) program to conserve bison genetics.

Strategies

• Maintain an optimum herd size that will not compromise habitat quality or other wildlife 

populations within the bison and elk enclosure. 

• Selectively exchange bison with other herds on other refuges as needed to maintain widespread 

genetic diversity based on data developed by the FWS Wildlife Health Office (WHO) in Bozeman, 

Montana.

• Expand and reconfigure bison enclosure to minimize parasite problems associated with 

repeated use of the same area.

Rationale

The primary purpose of the bison and elk herds on Neal Smith NWR is to establish native wildlife species 

to the tallgrass prairie reconstruction that played key roles in the ecology of the natural prairie 

ecosystem. Bison and elk were the dominant native grazers on the tallgrass prairie; and, as such, they 

shaped the vegetative communities and had direct impacts on other prairie-dependent species such as 

insects, mammals, and birds. These animals graze the reconstructed prairie within the enclosure to 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

approximate as closely as possible the movements and other behaviors that would have been found in 

the wild. 

Since December 2006, the Neal Smith NWR bison herd has been part of a Service program established to 

help conserve the genetic diversity of the species. Modeling suggests that a herd size of 1,000–2,000 

animals is necessary for high confidence of genetic conservation. The seven Refuges participating in the 

program have about 1,400 bison in total, with each at or near its preferred carrying capacity. Therefore, 

the seven small herds are managed genetically as a single large metapopulation. Exchange of animals 

between the participating Refuges ensures that the genetic diversity of the metapopulation is 

maintained. In addition, maintaining the genetic foundation broadly across several locations reduces the 

risk of total loss of genetic resources at a single location from a natural event or other disaster. 

The DOI has made a commitment to manage and maintain bison on its lands by chartering the Bison 

Conservation and Management Working Group to guide management of DOI bison herds (DOI, 2008). 

The Working Group coordinates opportunities to increase existing DOI herds to 1,000 or more bison or 

establish new herds as parts of a metapopulation that can reach that size, without impacts from nonnative diseases and with minimal cattle allele introgression. 

Objective 2-3: Bison and Elk Herd Health

Promote bison and elk herd health at Neal Smith NWR with the following measures:

• In November of each year, at least 90 percent of individuals in bison and elk herds are in goodto-excellent condition based on body condition charts. In March at least 90 percent of animals 

are in fair or better condition.

• At least 90 percent of tested bison have normal blood panel results, and remaining 

abnormalities are minor and without herd significance.

• Elk are monitored and show no signs of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) and samples test 

negative. 

Strategies

• Conduct regular visual assessments of health of at least 80 percent of the animals in the bison 

and elk herds every one to two weeks (when travel conditions within the enclosure allow) to 

monitor population and determine body condition, injuries, abnormal behavior, or other signs 

of disease.

• In cooperation with the FWS WHO, conduct bison health assessments during annual roundup, 

sample sizes determined by WHO as appropriate for disease and needed sensitivity. Collect fecal 

samples when advised by WHO for assessing parasite trends and management effectiveness.

• Euthanize moribund animals, and conduct postmortem exams of all euthanatized animals and of 

found carcasses in suitable postmortem condition. 

• Comply with the Refuge’s Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance and Management Plan, which 

addresses surveillance/detection, communication/education, and containment/eradication. 

Refuge staff will confer with the Iowa DNR if CWD appears in the State of Iowa.

• Continue to coordinate with the DOI, Intertribal Bison Cooperative, and Native American tribes 

to donate excess bison to maintain an appropriate herd size. Manage the elk herd toward 

maintaining a 50/50 sex ratio of no more than 20 adult animals. 

• Continue minimal interference with herds, handling bison only once per year as needed to 

manage herd size and genetics, and not handling elk at all if possible. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

• Avoid domestic animal practices such as vaccination, feeding, and individual animal treatment 

with exception of herd management practices that include parasite treatment.

Rationale

Bison and elk are nomadic/migratory animals. However, Neal Smith bison and elk herds are confined to 

a 700-acre enclosure. Confinement to small areas, dense animal aggregation, and repetitive use of select 

forage all enhance spread of transmissible diseases and parasites. Direct life cycle parasites are a known 

problem in Neal Smith NWR bison. 

Currently the bison herd size is being maintained at approximately 70 head, but appropriate herd size 

may change with new information derived from research, changes in the size of the enclosure, parasitic 

loads, as well as vegetative and wildlife response to grazing benefits. The 700-acre enclosure currently 

produces enough forage to maintain approximately 70 head of bison with healthy body condition and 

weight and no evident damage to the prairie based on visual observations of the vegetation. 

Objective 2-4: Regal Fritillary Butterfly

Increase the prairie violet (Viola pedatifida) population on the Refuge to provide larval food source for 

the regal fritillary butterfly by establishing at least 500 violet plants in ten additional burn units within 

ten years.

Strategies

• Purchase or collect local ecotype prairie violet seeds and grow in the greenhouse for planting 

out.

• Plant prairie violet seeds and plants throughout different burn units of the Refuge, including the 

bison enclosure where disturbance is beneficial.

• Monitor violet and butterfly populations.

Rationale

The regal fritillary, a species of concern in Iowa, was re-introduced to Neal Smith NWR in 2000. The 

species was not found when initial butterfly surveys were conducted on the Refuge in 1994 (Klaas and 

Bishop, 1995). The larval host plant consists of only a few species of violets. Prairie violet is one of the 

primary host plants and is appropriate for the soil types found on Neal Smith NWR. Before and after 

reintroduction of the butterflies, prairie violet plugs were planted in several units on the Refuge. Regal 

fritillary butterflies continue to persist on the Refuge as do the violets where they were planted. 

More prairie violets across the Refuge would increase habitat for regal fritillary butterflies and increase 

their likelihood of locating a patch of violets on which to lay eggs. Increasing the number of burn units 

on the Refuge that support prairie violets would also reduce the percentage of prairie violet patches 

burned, and thereby the number of regal fritillary larvae destroyed, in a given year. Prairie violets are 

conservative plants (coefficient of conservatism for Iowa is 8 on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the 

highest) making their presence an indication of high quality prairie. Establishing more prairie violets on 

the Refuge would increase the floristic quality of the prairie and increase the cover of cool season native 

species, which could make the prairie plant community better able to compete with invasive plant 

species. 

Monitoring of the violets and regal fritillaries is needed to measure success. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

Objective 2-5: Indiana Bat

Within three years, initiate Indiana bat monitoring to determine if the species is still present on the 

Refuge; and, if so, determine locations and whether there is evidence of reproduction. Coordinate 

endangered species consultation with FWS Ecological Services staff as needed for any restoration work 

that potentially could impact the Indiana bat.

Strategies

• Conduct baseline inventory of bats within oak savanna habitat across the Refuge. 

• Map areas where the Indiana bats are located.

• Continue to monitor every five years in sites known to contain the Indiana bat.

Rationale

Several endangered Indiana bats were found on the Refuge between 1992 and 1995, but no surveys 

have been conducted since then. Savanna sites will be restored and reconstructed throughout the 

Refuge over the next 15 years, and it is important to know whether Indiana bats are currently present in 

these areas or in other areas of the Refuge where restoration work may take place. Bats may begin to 

occur here in higher numbers as ecosystem restoration continues. Monitoring to determine presence or 

absence of Indiana bats will provide a better understanding of what, if any, measures should be taken to 

avoid negatively impacting the population. At a minimum, restoration work such as tree removal and 

prescribed burning in occupied Indiana bat habitat should occur only between September 15 and April 

15. Mist-net surveys will follow guidelines described in the Indiana Bat recovery plan (FWS, 2007).

4.2.3 People

Goal: The Refuge will provide a variety of wildlife-dependent recreational and educational 

opportunities for visitors to experience and develop an appreciation for the native tallgrass prairie 

heritage, ecological processes, and cultural resources while participating in ecological restoration 

efforts or enjoying other activities on the Refuge.

Objective 3-1: Welcome and Orient Visitors

Provide a welcoming, safe, accessible experience for at least 200,000 visitors each year. Provide clear 

information in multiple formats so visitors can easily determine where they can go, what they can do, 

and how they can safely and ethically engage in recreational and educational activities. At least 90 

percent of visitors will report a satisfactory overall experience on the Refuge each year. 

Strategies

• Within two years of CCP approval, review and update website(s) to provide clear, dynamic 

information about research, biology, visitor services (to include upcoming events, education, 

volunteer opportunities), and timely flora and fauna updates (i.e., what’s blooming or migrating 

through). Review and update all other website information at least annually.

• Within five years, review and revise if needed, all informational brochures, directional signs, 

maps, and other welcoming/orienting publications to ensure that they are current, accurate, 

and in compliance with Service standards. Thereafter, review brochures annually and update if 

needed.

• Determine measures of visitor satisfaction, and begin collecting data within one year of 

completing a Visitor Services step-down plan.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

• Move current kiosk closer to the beginning of the entry road; move kiosk on hill by Visitor 

Center to parking lot.

• Expand length of the Savanna Trail to approximately one mile incorporating savanna/prairie 

edge. 

• Add a southern extension to the Savanna Trail that will eventually connect to the Basswood Trail 

when the property between is acquired.

• Realign a portion of the lower section of the Tallgrass Trail and place it farther up onto the 

hillside. The current location is frequently flooded and difficult to maintain.

• Add accessible after-hours restrooms and drinking water. 

• Within five years, update Visitor Center display theme and exhibits.

• Develop new introduction movie, and update the theatre configuration.

• Increase Visitor Center hours Memorial Day through Labor Day (hours would be 9:00 AM –

8:00PM) to allow for more interpretive programing and provide evening visitors an opportunity 

to experience the Visitor Center.

Rationale

Welcoming and orienting Refuge visitors contributes to the criteria that defines a quality wildlifedependent recreation program as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Improvement Act) and defined in the Service Manual (Service Manual, 605 FW 1). The number of 

visitors has stabilized at 140,000 visitors annually. Clear signage and adequate visitor information are

essential. The ease with which the public can navigate to visitor use areas on the Refuge, understand 

guidelines for appropriate conduct and safety, have basic needs met (parking, restrooms, maps, 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 agency. 

Objective 3-2: Hunting

Develop a Refuge hunting program that provides the public with safe and enjoyable hunting 

opportunities, increases understanding and appreciation of tallgrass prairie and oak savanna ecosystems 

and associated wildlife, minimizes conflict with other compatible public uses, and is consistent with 

sound wildlife and resource management practices. 

Strategies

• Complete a Refuge hunting plan within one year of CCP approval.

• Add hunting opportunities for youth and people with disabilities. 

• Consider changes to Refuge hunt program that would align more closely with the State hunt 

program.

• Monitor hunter satisfaction by including a space on the hunting brochure for comments along 

with an email address to encourage a response.

• Host Iowa DNR hunter education courses at the Refuge.

• Review hunting program annually, updating as needed based on wildlife monitoring findings. 

• Coordinate and consult with Iowa DNR on all changes to the Refuge hunting program. 

• Coordinate with biological program to monitor population numbers of hunted species on the 

Refuge, and monitor effects on non-hunted species such as Short-eared Owl.

Rationale

Hunting is one of six wildlife-dependent recreational uses that receives priority consideration in Refuge 

planning and management under the Improvement Act. The Improvement Act states that “Compatible 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System . . . 

through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife.”

Hunting on Neal Smith NWR will allow Refuge staff to provide wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities for the public, promote a better understanding and appreciation of tallgrass prairie and 

oak savanna ecosystems and their associated wildlife resources, and manage game populations at 

acceptable levels. The Service will coordinate and consult with the Iowa DNR on all changes to the 

Refuge hunt program.

Objective 3-3: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Provide year round opportunities for at least 150,000 visitors to safely observe and photograph wildlife 

and plants on the Refuge. Offer a range of visitor access experiences appropriate to each activity, 

location, vegetation type, and time of year. 

Strategies

• Continue to maintain current trails and auto tour route to meet FWS standards.

• Provide new trail connecting the existing Basswood and Savanna trails (figure 4-3) within ten 

years of acquiring the necessary land (Rothinghouse property). Upgrade the surface of the 

Basswood trail when connection is complete.

• Reconfigure the layout of the Savanna trail to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act

regulations.

• Slightly reconfigure the Tallgrass Trail to elevate it out of the creek floodplain and to allow 

better visibility into the bison enclosure.

• Allow off-trail foot access year round throughout the Refuge except within and next to the bison

and elk enclosure. The Refuge reserves the right to close specific units throughout the year for 

management or safety purposes.

• Assist with the completion of the bicycle trail adjacent to the entry road. 

• Install spotting scopes on pullouts adjacent to bicycle trail and at the Visitor Center to improve 

viewing of bison and elk.

• Continue to allow cross-country skiing and snowshoeing in designated areas.

• Allow walking of leashed dogs on designated trails.

• Develop new amphitheater outside the bison viewing window next to the Visitor Center to 

provide seating for programs or viewing of bison and elk.

• Continue to limit horseback riding on the Refuge to only county roads to prevent the spread of 

noxious and invasive weeds, and eliminate maintenance issues created by traffic other than foot 

traffic.

• Increase birding opportunities and activities to meet many of the “birder-friendly” standards of 

the Refuge System without incorporating feeders, nest boxes, or artificial devices. 

(http://www.fws.gov/refuges/pdfs/a%20birder%20friendly%20refuge7.08.pdf) 

• Continue to provide opportunities for the visiting public to view bison and elk grazing within the 

relatively natural landscape of the enclosure.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

Rationale

Wildlife observation and photography are priority 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities listed in the 

Improvement Act. 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 detrimental effects to 

wildlife or vegetation. 

Objective 3-4: Environmental Education 

Provide quality environmental education programs to at 

least 15,000 students each year. Emphasize curriculumbased packages based on national and state education 

standards, training of teachers to lead their own 

educational experiences (e.g., Partner Teachers), and 

repeat student visits that include hands-on outdoor 

experiences (e.g., Partner Schools). At least 90 percent 

of teachers will report that Refuge environmental 

education programs support their curriculum and help 

to promote resource stewardship and conservation.

Strategies

• Within five years of CCP approval, develop and implement activities to evaluate student learning 

and teacher satisfaction.

• Within five years, review and update Project Bluestem lesson plans to meet new Iowa 

educational standards, as well as Refuge and teacher needs and teaching philosophies. These 

will be reviewed and updated every three years.

• Within five years, all lessons taught as part of the Partner Schools program will reinforce 

classroom lessons to assist teachers in meeting state standards. 

• Increase number of teachers participating in the Partner Teacher program. 

• Increase annual number of teacher workshops from one to at least three.

• Develop three to five core themes. Incorporate them into all environmental education programs 

within two years after completion of the Visitor Services step-down plan.

• Provide educational programs that explain the historic role of bison in the native ecosystems, 

the relationship between native cultures and bison, the role of bison on the Refuge today, and 

the management of the FWS bison metapopulation.

Rationale

Through repeated hands-on and minds-on learning experiences, students gain a more in-depth 

understanding of the value of America’s unique wildlife resources and the role that the Service plays in 

their management and protection. Recent studies indicate that environmental education increases 

student engagement, academic achievement, leadership skills, critical thinking skills, overall health, and 

reduces discipline problems. These studies include findings from evaluations conducted at the Prairie 

Science Class (Prairie Wetlands Learning Center in Fergus Falls, Minnesota); research by the Place-Based 

Education Evaluation Collaborative; and research by the National Association of Environmental 

Figure 4-3: Future Configuration of Hiking 

Trails
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

Educators; their work can be accessed at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/pwlc/prairie_school.html, 

http://www.peecworks.org/ and http://www.eeweek.org/pdf/EE_Benefits.pdf respectively.

Expanding the Partner Schools and Project Bluestem programs are high priorities for the Visitor Services 

program at the Refuge. These programs build on the “No Child Left Indoors” goal of the Service, as well 

as building skills for the future workforce (critical thinking), connecting people with nature, instilling civic 

responsibility, and increasing environmental literacy. 

Objective 3-5: Interpretation

Provide quality interpretive experiences for at least 100,000 visitors annually. Identify three to five core 

themes that will make Refuge issues relevant to everyday lives. Select delivery methods, locations and 

target audiences to reach people of diverse age, ability, and background. At least 90 percent of people 

participating in interpretive activities will report learning and understanding the core messages 

developed in the Visitor Services step-down plan and a satisfaction with their experience.

Strategies 

• Within 15 years of CCP approval, update all interpretive programs, signs, brochures, and exhibits 

to reflect new core themes. 

• Continue to offer at least eight special events per year. Work to increase participation and 

update/revise programs as needed. 

• Expand interpretive program offerings. 

• Update interpretive CD for auto tour route, and offer it in MP3, podcast format or other current 

media.

• Develop interpretative resources that encourage native gardens for the benefit for wildlife and 

people.

• Provide interpretive programs, brochures, and signs that explain the historic role of bison in the 

native ecosystems, the relationship between native cultures and bison, the role of bison on the 

Refuge today, and the management of the bison metapopulation.

Rationale

Interpretation is a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use listed in the Improvement Act. Welldesigned interpretation can be an effective management tool and provide the opportunity to influence 

visitor attitudes about natural resources, refuges, the Refuge System, and the Service. They can help 

develop a citizenry that has the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation, and commitment to 

work cooperatively towards the conservation of our nation’s environmental resources. They can also 

influence visitor behavior when visiting units of the Refuge System. Future efforts will be directed 

toward on- and off-Refuge programs with a goal of increasing the knowledge of, and appreciation for, 

the Refuge and its resources.

Objective 3-6: Other Recreational Uses

Continue to provide opportunities for berry and mushroom collecting for personal consumption. 

Continue to allow firewood gathering in designated areas with a Special Use Permit. 

Strategy

• Develop an informational sheet (or rack card) concerning berry and mushroom collecting 

regulations on the Refuge. The brochure will be reviewed annually and updated if necessary.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Rationale

These allowed activities promote historical uses on the Refuge while instilling a land use ethic. Visitor 

participation can develop a connection and appreciation for non-commercially grown foods and other 

consumable resources. Human populations have become more and more removed from tasting wild 

foods that do not require chemicals or other unnatural means to grow. This disconnect is counter to 

human needs.

Camping and campfires are sometimes requested by visitors, but these uses introduce a potential for 

increased litter, wildlife feeding issues, and wildfire, so they will not be allowed on the Refuge. Hotels 

and campgrounds are located within 20 miles of the Refuge allowing these uses to be accommodated by 

the local community, bolstering the economy, which benefits the Refuge and neighboring towns.

Objective 3-7: Outreach

Increase awareness of and support for Refuge issues in the local community and the Des Moines 

metropolitan area by participation in community events. Develop messages and delivery techniques that 

make Refuge issues relevant to everyday lives.

Strategies 

• Incorporate core themes and messages into all outreach activities.

• Provide local media with news releases, television/radio spots, interviews, newsletter articles, 

etc. a minimum of 12 times per year.

• Develop relationships with three key reporters in the surrounding area within two years.

• Increase the frequency of community group presentations. 

• Increase opportunities to interact with and listen to local residents and landowners.

• Maintain regular contact with community leaders, agencies, and organizations.

• Enlist the assistance of the Refuge Friends Group in conducting outreach activities.

• Utilize social media including Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, and YouTube, as well as any future sites 

approved by the Service.

Rationale

It is critical to the mission of the Refuge System and to Neal Smith NWR that the neighbors, citizens, 

organizations, and agencies in the surrounding landscape know about the Refuge and support it as a 

valuable and contributing part of the community. The Refuge is an asset to the local community and 

continued support is essential for the success of the Refuge and its long-term viability. Also, building 

support for land and water conservation among Refuge neighbors is essential in protecting the natural 

resources in the area over the long term. 

Effective outreach depends on open and continuing communication and collaboration between the 

Refuge and its many publics. Outreach can foster a sense of ownership in the greater community and 

contribute to achievement of Refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission.

Objective 3-8: Volunteers and Community Partnerships

Provide quality volunteer opportunities that total at least 20,000 hours annually; and recruit, orient, and 

train new volunteers each year. Develop community partnerships with local cities and towns.

Strategies

• Recruit new volunteers from the local community and the Des Moines metropolitan area. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

• Explore new opportunities for Refuge involvement in the community.

• Explore new opportunities for the community to become involved with the Refuge.

• Construct bunkhouse and RV pads for use by out-of-town volunteers, interns, and researchers. 

• Continue to support the Friends Group in providing quality interpretive and educational material 

offered for sale in the Refuge bookstore.

Rationale

The human resource hours required to effectively manage a national wildlife refuge often exceeds 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 manages 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.” 

Whether through volunteers, support groups, or other important partnerships in the community, Refuge 

personnel seek to make the Refuge an integral part of the community. Volunteers and partner 

organizations of Neal Smith NWR become advocates for Refuge management activities and provide vital 

assistance in fulfilling Refuge purposes and goals. They are integral to the future of the Refuge System. 

Congress reauthorized the Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act in 2004, affirming 

its desire to involve Americans as stewards of our nation’s natural resources and wildlife. 

Friends of Neal Smith NWR and other volunteers will continue to be important partners in restoring the 

biological integrity of Refuge lands.

Developing relationships with other conservation agencies and organizations is mutually beneficial in 

conducting efficient and effective natural resource work. It is important that the Refuge continue efforts 

to build and maintain open communication, informing partners and the public about the successes, 

opportunities, and challenges involved in conservation and wildlife-dependent recreation.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

In this chapter

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Funding

5.3 Staffing

5.4 Partnership Opportunities

5.5 Step-Down Management Plans

5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation

5.7 Plan Review and Revision

5.1 Introduction

This chapter summarizes the actions, funding, coordination, and monitoring needed to implement the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). As noted in the inside cover of this document, this plan does 

not constitute a commitment for staffing increases or operational and maintenance increases. These 

decisions are at the discretion of Congress in overall appropriations and in budget allocation decisions 

made at the Washington and Regional levels of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service).

5.2 Funding

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action for the future management of Neal Smith National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge). The ability to enhance wildlife habitats and to develop and maintain 

quality public use facilities will require a significant commitment of staff and funding from the Service. 

The Refuge will continually need appropriate operational and maintenance funding to implement the 

objectives of this plan. This section provides a brief description of the highest priority Neal Smith NWR 

projects as chosen by the Refuge staff. 

Expansion of Bison Fence 

The existing enclosure is approximately 700 acres and supports approximately 70 bison and 20 elk. The 

8-foot tall woven wire fence with wooden posts will be reconfigured. This project would enlarge the 

size of the enclosure to as much as 1,500 acres, and could allow a doubling of the size of the bison herd. 

This will allow Neal Smith NWR to better manage for a more botanically and structurally diverse prairie 

and support the Service's bison genetics conservation efforts by moving to expand and protect bison 

genetic material that lacks evidence of cattle gene introgression and by expanding the unique genetics 

represented in the National Bison Range herd through relocation. Reconfiguring the enclosure is needed 

to maintain adequate space and forage for the existing herd of elk and bison. In addition, through more 

aggressive grassland management practices, the Refuge may be in a better position to eventually 

reintroduce the Greater Prairie-Chicken.

Estimated Cost $105,000

Repair Deteriorated Bison Containment Fence 

This asset consists of 30,000 linear feet of 8-foot tall by 6-inch diameter (exposed, 12 feet total) posts 

that are about ten-feet apart with wire containment fencing. Most of the fenceline is in good condition 

but approximately five to ten percent of posts are damaged and/or degraded and require replacement 

in order to prevent wildlife from breaching the containment area.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

Estimated Cost $20,000

Building Visitor Center and Office Rehabilitation

General rehabilitation work is required as follows: 

• The security system is inadequate due to inadequate materials for the size and commercial 

function of the building. Remove and replace with commercial grade security system. There are 

12 air handlers for the building with carbon dioxide (CO2) monitors. The air handlers and 

sensors are failing and must be replaced. Eighteen of the 20 compressors and five of the six 

geothermal pumps are failing and must be replaced. Abandoned conduit through the concrete 

into the HVAC room needs to be fire caulked/sealed. 

• The roof was replaced five years ago, but interior damage has not been repaired. Remove and 

replace 15,000 square feet ceiling tile. Remove and replace 500 board feet of interior window 

trim, and refinish an additional 1,000 board feet. Replace 2,500 square feet water-damaged wall 

coverings with sheetrock. Replace electrical circuits damaged during the roof replacement. This 

will require 1,000 linear feet of #12 stranded and 100 linear feet of 3⁄4-inch electrical metallic 

tubing. Exterior windows and casings need existing caulking removed and replaced, as it is 

weathered and failed. 

• Replace 15,000 square feet of carpet in the Visitor Center due to mildew and potential mold 

caused by inadequate drainage beneath the floor. No water barrier was installed beneath the

concrete flooring when the building was originally constructed. To correct this structural 

problem, an electric osmotic pulse system was installed to stop water percolation through the 

floor. The system has failed causing chemical reactions to occur at cathode/diode sites creating 

a leachate to stain carpet. Leaky roof drains, leaking roof, thermal expansion, and differential 

settling have caused damage and cracking to drywall in office area. Five thousand square feet of 

drywall needs to be replaced, taped and repainted; install ten expansion joints, and repaint 

10,000 square feet sheetrock. The building's 119-gallon gas water heater does not meet current 

energy efficiency standards (built in 1990, installed in 1996) and must be replaced. Fifteen 

thousand square feet of soffits, fascia, and wood timber exterior needs pressure washing and 

resealing. 

• Integrated neon lighting in the theater does not function properly and must be replaced with 

more energy efficient lighting. Fifty emergency battery back-up lamps are failing and must be 

replaced. Four dome skylights in the gift shop have failed and must be replaced. Drains in 

greenhouse, planting room, and men's shower floors are not graded to drain. Remove and 

replace 1,000 square feet tile, and mill 100 square feet concrete floor for adequate slope to 

drain. 

• Foundation waterproofing on the building exterior has delaminated and must be replaced. 

Apply three-ply waterproofing to perimeter of entire building. Erosion, settling, and animal 

burrows are apparent around the perimeter of the building. Re-grade, compact, and seed. A 15 

by 20 foot false ceiling in the loading dock platform of the Visitor Center needs to be installed to 

prevent bird access to the roof interior where they have nested and caused damage to the 

ceiling insulation. A workroom used for soldering and brazing does not have adequate 

ventilation. Install an exhaust hood. A large floor crack runs through several rooms and on a 

west-side exterior foundation wall. Interior floor cracks have been ground and grouted, but the 

floor must now be covered with 4,000 square feet tile, and epoxy grout 1⁄2-inch by 6-foot crack in 

foundation wall. Re-caulk all windows, and replace lighting with more efficient models.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

Estimated Cost $671,840

Realignment and Expansion of Savanna Trail

This gravel surface trail will be expanded from 1⁄2 mile to 1 mile in length and will better meet Americans 

with Disabilities Act requirements by more closely following the contours of the landscape.

Estimated Cost $75,000

Realignment of Tallgrass Trail

Approximately 1⁄2 mile of this trail will be re-surveyed and moved farther up the hill to elevate it out of 

the floodplain and allow better visibility of the bison enclosure.

Estimated Cost $100,000

Construction of Connector Trail between Savanna and Basswood Trails (including Bridge Construction 

over Creek)

The three-mile Connector Trail will follow the contours of the landscape and will highlight the 

transitional zone between prairie and savanna habitats. Construction of a foot bridge capable of weight 

loads equivalent to UTVs will be built.

Estimated Cost $400,000

Resurface Basswood Trail

This 1⁄2 mile long trail will be resurfaced to gravel but will continue the same route as currently exists.

Estimated Cost $50,000

Redesign, Construction, and Installation of Exhibits in Visitor Center

A plan and cost estimate is being prepared for redesign, construction, and installation of new exhibits as 

well as new color scheme and finishes for the Visitor Center and administrative areas of the building. 

Current exhibits are out of date, technology is obsolete (unable to be repaired), and some exhibits are 

broken. The current theme will be updated. Old exhibits will be recycled where possible either in the 

Visitor Center or will be donated to other conservation entities if possible. 

Estimated Cost $2,000,000

5.3 Staffing

Currently, Neal Smith NWR has a staff of 10.5 full-time employees. Table 5-1 below lists current staff. 

Additional positions will likely be needed for full implementation of this CCP. However, future funding is 

uncertain, and new staff positions cannot be guaranteed.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

Table 5-1: Current and proposed Neal Smith NWR staffing 

Current Staffing Proposed Additions

Management Wildlife Refuge Manager, GS-13

Assistant Refuge Manager, GS-11/12

Wildlife Refuge Specialist, GS-07/09

Biological Wildlife Biologist, GS-11 Wildlife Biologist, GS-0486-07

Visitor Services Park Ranger, GS-07/09

Park Ranger, GS-07/09

Park Ranger, GS-05/07

Administrative Administrative Officer, GS-09

Office Assistant, GS-05 (0.5 FTE)

Maintenance Maintenance Mechanic, WG-09

Maintenance Worker, WG-07

Fire Management Fire Management Specialist, GS-09

Law Enforcement None LE Officer, GS-07/09

5.4 Partnership Opportunities 

Partnerships are an essential element for the successful accomplishment of goals, objectives, and 

strategies at Neal Smith NWR. The objectives outlined in this CCP need the support and the partnerships 

of federal, state, and local agencies; non-governmental organizations, and individual citizens. Refuge 

staff will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to achieve the vision of the Refuge. 

We expect to continue to work with the following notable partners, while also developing new 

partnerships:

• Iowa Department of Natural Resources

• Friends of Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

• Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

• Jasper County Conservation Board

• Polk County Conservation Board

• Dallas County Conservation Board

• Prairie City Business Association

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• Local and Des Moines area partner schools

• Iowa Prairie Network

• Iowa State University

• Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

• Iowa Audubon

• Des Moines Audubon Society

• Iowa Ornithologists’ Union

• Iowa Native Plant Society

5.5 Step-Down Management Plans 

The CCP for Neal Smith NWR is intended to be a broad umbrella plan that 1) outlines general concepts 

and objectives for habitat, wildlife, visitor services, cultural resources, and partnerships; and 2) guides 

Refuge management for the next 15 years. Step-down management plans provide greater detail for 

carrying out specific actions authorized by this CCP. Table 5-2 below presents step-down management 

plans that are anticipated to be needed, along with their current status and next revision date. Some of 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

these plans logically suggest an integrated approach and, where appropriate, may be combined into a 

single integrated step-down management plan. 

Table 5-2: Step-down management plans

Step-down Management Plan Existing Plan

Year Approved New or Revised Plan

Habitat Management -- 2014

Fenced Animal Management 2002 2015

Integrated Pest Management -- 2014

Inventory and Monitoring -- 2014

Fire Management 2009 Updated Annually

Chronic Wasting Disease 2005 2020

Visitor Services -- 2014

Hunting 1992 2012

5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation 

The direction set forth in this CCP and specifically-identified strategies and projects will be monitored 

throughout the life of the plan. Many actions inherent in the plan are new directions, and monitoring 

will help understand the effects of the actions on habitat, wildlife, and public use patterns. In addition, 

the Refuge and its watershed will certainly change, and likely in ways unforeseen. Land use changes, 

invasive species, floods and droughts, disease outbreaks, and climate may alter expected outcomes. 

Monitoring will be critical to detecting and reacting to such change.

5.7 Plan Review and Revision

The CCP is intended to be a dynamic plan based on the concept of adaptive management. Since the CCP 

will be a constant reference and guide for Refuge staff, internal review will be continuous. In addition, it 

is expected that the public and partners will offer continuous feedback. The Service will document minor 

plan modifications when monitoring and evaluating to determine that changes are needed to achieve 

Refuge goals and objectives. There will be opportunity for public review and comment before making 

any substantive amendments or revisions. A major plan review and re-write will occur after 15 years.
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact
Appendix B: Land Protection Plan

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

Appendix B: Land Protection Plan

In this appendix

B.1 Introduction

B.2 Threats to Resources

B.3 Proposed Action

B.4 Other Land Protection Alternatives Considered

B.5 Land Acquisition Funding

B.6 Sociocultural Impacts

B.7 Map
Appendix B: Land Protection Plan

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

B.1 Introduction

Project Description

Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) was established in 1991 to reconstruct about 8,600 

acres of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem “from scratch” on former farmland in central Iowa. Although 

tallgrass prairie once covered much of the central United States and Canada, the ecosystem is now 

globally endangered. Less than one percent of this historic mosaic of prairie, savanna, and wetland 

remains today, and many prairie-dependent wildlife species are declining range-wide.

Priorities for the Refuge include restoration and reconstruction of native plant and wildlife diversity and 

the ecological functions and processes that sustain them. About 5,500 acres within the approved 

boundary have been acquired from willing sellers. Several thousand acres of farmland have been seeded 

with tallgrass prairie plants, resulting in a 100 percent conversion to wildlife habitat. The few remaining 

remnants of native prairie and savanna, degraded by fire suppression, are under restoration. 

This portion of Iowa is characterized by heavily dissected drainage systems such as the Walnut Creek 

basin. The current Refuge boundary includes about 6.5 miles of 10-mile-long Walnut Creek and 45

percent of its watershed. The headwaters of Walnut Creek and its tributaries lie mainly outside the 

Refuge boundary to the north, east, and west. Walnut Creek empties into the Des Moines River at Lake 

Red Rock about three miles south of the Refuge. Although farm fields dominate the landscape 

surrounding the Refuge, Chichaqua Bottoms Greenbelt to the north (8,600 acres) and Lake Red Rock to 

the south (52,800 acres) provide additional protected wildlife habitat.

Study Area

During the process of developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Neal Smith NWR, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) evaluated land protection and restoration options for a 

20,550-acre study area outside the existing approved Refuge boundary. The study area encompasses 

lands that connect the Refuge to Chichaqua Bottoms Greenbelt and Lake Red Rock and includes the 

entire Walnut Creek watershed. The evaluation also considered options for conserving remnant prairies 

in surrounding counties that might provide seed sources for Refuge restoration. 

B.2 Threats to Resources

Grassland bird population declines

More than 97 percent of the native grasslands of the United States have been lost, mostly because of 

conversion to agriculture. As a result, grassland bird populations nationwide have declined from historic 

levels far more than any other group of birds. However, many species that had been largely extirpated 

from central Iowa, such as Henslow’s Sparrow, Dickcissel, and Upland Sandpiper, are beginning to return 

to the Refuge as the integrity of its ecosystem improves and as additional habitat is created. More than 

200 bird species now use the Refuge, including more than 80 species during breeding season. Avian 

diversity is complemented by more than 40 mammal species including the endangered Indiana bat, 28 

species of reptiles and amphibians, and nearly 60 butterfly species including the rare regal fritillary.

Watershed alteration

Hydrologic changes in the Walnut Creek watershed affect the Service’s ability to restore Refuge lands. In 

the uplands, subsurface drainage tiles on and near the Refuge cause drier soils, making sustainable 

reconstruction of prairie, savanna, and upland sedge meadow habitat more difficult. In the floodplain, 

straightening and down-cutting of the creek bed has increased erosion and water flow through the 
Appendix B: Land Protection Plan

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

Refuge and degraded floodplain habitat; invasive reed canarygrass has overtaken many locations. 

Sediment and contaminants end up in Lake Red Rock.

However, the creek is slowly moving toward a new state of equilibrium. This is a natural process, 

probably aided by conversion of agricultural fields to prairie on the Refuge and widespread use of 

conservation tillage on farmland upstream. The creek bed down-cutting has largely stabilized, and the 

channel is gradually widening again as the stream banks collapse (Schilling et al., 2011). Given current 

trends, the creek will eventually restore many of its natural functions. Slope of banks will decrease, 

terraces and channel meanders will begin to emerge, and floodplain vegetation communities will 

become established. The time needed for these changes to occur naturally is on the order of decades to 

centuries. 

Habitat loss and urban development

Neal Smith NWR, Chichaqua Bottoms, and Lake Red Rock each provide diverse habitat for wildlife but 

are separated by large expanses of farmland. Some prairie wildlife such as reptiles, amphibians, small 

mammals, and butterflies have difficulty crossing agricultural areas so may be unable to move between 

the Refuge and other protected areas. State highway 163 and Interstate 80 provide additional barriers 

to terrestrial wildlife movement within the study area. 

The Refuge is located in Jasper County, a primarily rural area just 20 miles east of Des Moines. 

Development pressure is increasing around the Refuge as the city and suburbs expand. The 

metropolitan area has a population of more than 500,000 people and recent highway improvements 

have made commuting from Jasper County to Des Moines much easier. If land surrounding the Refuge is 

subdivided and houses built, the possibility of restoring it to tallgrass prairie sometime in the future 

would be lost. 

B.3 Proposed Action

The Environmental Assessment (Appendix A) includes evaluation of four options for future management 

direction on Neal Smith NWR. Table B-1 below summarizes Refuge boundary expansion 

recommendations under each of the four alternatives. 

Table B-1: Summary of land protection by environmental assessment alternative on Neal Smith NWR

Alternative A

Current Direction

(No Action)

Alternative B

Refuge Grassland Bird Focus

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C

Watershed Focus

Alternative D

Corridor Focus

Acquire and manage lands 

only within existing Refuge 

boundary (8,600 acres total).

Acquire and/or protect an 

additional 3,210 acres to 

include tributaries of Walnut 

Creek that flow through the 

Refuge.

Acquire and/or protect an 

additional 14,600 acres to 

include the entire Walnut 

Creek watershed.

Acquire and/or protect an 

additional 20,550 acres that 

connect the Refuge to 

Chichaqua Bottoms 

Greenbelt and Lake Red 

Rock.

Alternative B (Refuge Grassland Bird Focus) has been selected as the preferred alternative and is the 

basis for the CCP. The preferred alternative includes expansion of the Refuge boundary by 3,210 acres to 

the east and west of the current boundary to encompass the headwaters of all Walnut Creek tributaries 

that flow through the Refuge. The expansion area lies south of Highway 163 and north of County Road 

70. Fee title acquisition from willing sellers within the Refuge boundary is likely to be the most viable 
Appendix B: Land Protection Plan

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

option for meeting objectives, although easements or cooperative agreements also may be feasible in 

some locations.

Objectives of the proposed action are to: 

• Increase populations of grassland bird species of concern on the Refuge.

• Improve the quality and sustainability of habitat for tallgrass prairie wildlife on the Refuge by 

reestablishing more natural soil moisture and water flow patterns.

• Work with partners to increase the conservation value of lands that connect the Refuge to 

Chichaqua Bottoms Greenbelt and Lake Red Rock.

This Land Protection Plan proposes acquiring only those lands of highest conservation value to Neal 

Smith NWR and to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) and is the most costeffective means of achieving Refuge objectives. The proposed action would ensure a net increase in the 

biological integrity and diversity of the Refuge. Declining populations of grassland birds and other native 

wildlife will benefit from increased habitat acreage and improved quality of habitat on the Refuge. An 

intact, resilient ecosystem will be better able to withstand outside pressures including urban 

development and climate change.

Service lands will be managed to reconstruct and restore the tallgrass prairie ecosystem. Agricultural 

fields will be planted to native vegetation and managed to increase wildlife and plant diversity and to 

improve habitat for declining populations of grassland birds and other wildlife. As far as possible, 

ecosystem processes that historically sustained the system (such as hydrology, fire, and grazing), will be 

restored. 

The boundary expansion will permit restoration of more natural hydrology on Refuge prairies, savannas, 

and upland sedge meadows by reducing or eliminating the subsurface drainage system. More natural 

water flow will help native vegetation outcompete invasive plant species while reducing the threat of 

erosion and headcutting. Walnut Creek will be allowed to reach a new equilibrium on its own over time.

Service acquisition priorities within the proposed Refuge boundary are:

• Lands facing imminent threat of development that would irreparably destroy wildlife values.

• Lands important for reduction of subsurface drainage and restoration of more natural soil 

moisture regimes on the Refuge.

• Lands that will reduce habitat fragmentation and help consolidate the Refuge into manageable 

units. 

Refuge staff will assist agency partners, landowners, and other stakeholders in their efforts to restore 

and protect habitat and wildlife outside the expanded Refuge boundary. Priority areas for such 

assistance include the Walnut Creek watershed north and south of the Refuge, connections with 

Chichaqua Bottoms Greenbelt, and prairie remnants of high conservation value. Refuge staff may 

provide technical assistance and other support as requested, but any fee-title acquisition, easements, 

and on-going management responsibility in these areas would be provided by others.

Ultimately, restoring ecological functions and values in the tallgrass prairie ecosystem in central Iowa 

will require conservation and restoration of both public and private lands. Neal Smith, Chichaqua 
Appendix B: Land Protection Plan

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

Bottoms Greenbelt, and Lake Red Rock could serve as core areas of permanently protected and restored 

habitat connected by a matrix of public and private conservation lands.

Estimated Initial Costs:

Purchase 3,210 acres of agricultural land @ $6,000/acre = $19.3 million

Prepare sites and plant native prairie species @ $1,000/acre = $3.2 million

B.4 Other Land Protection Alternatives Considered 

Current Direction (Alternative A)

Land acquisition would continue within the current approved Refuge boundary, but the boundary would 

not be expanded to include any additional lands. Reliance would be on existing federal, state, and local 

programs and authorities to address threats to Refuge resources. 

Watershed Focus (Alternative C)

Under Alternative C, the Refuge boundary would expand by 14,600 acres to include the entire Walnut 

Creek watershed. Service land ownership would facilitate major efforts to restore the hydrology of 

Walnut Creek. Small-scale measures (such as grade control structures and silt fences) might help 

somewhat but are expensive and unlikely to be successful in the long term. Any serious attempt to 

engineer the restoration of Walnut Creek would require moving massive amounts of dirt, require fee 

title acquisition by the Service or buy-in from private landowners upstream, and take many years with a

low likelihood of success at a very high monetary cost.

However, given current trends, the creek and its floodplain will return to a more natural equilibrium and 

water quality will continue to improve, although it will be a very long-term process. If this long-term 

approach is acceptable, then Service investment in the restoration of Walnut Creek would not be 

needed to meet Refuge objectives. 

Increased acreage of restored tallgrass prairie within the watershed would provide additional habitat for 

migratory grassland birds and other native wildlife. Restoration of the southern reaches of the 

watershed would create a three-mile-wide habitat corridor linking the Refuge and Lake Red Rock. Most 

bird species, of course, can fly between nearby protected areas without the need for connecting 

corridors, but this connection could benefit reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, and invertebrates that 

have trouble crossing agricultural areas. In the northern reaches, however, Highway 163 would continue 

to be a hazard to wildlife trying to cross it.

Alternative C would provide increased ecosystem resilience in the face of stressors such as urbanization 

and climate change and Service-owned lands would be permanently protected from development.

Estimated Initial Costs

Purchase 14,600 acres of agricultural land @ $6,000/acre = $87.6 million

Prepare sites and plant native prairie species @ $1,000/acre = $14.6 million

The cost of attempting an engineered restoration of Walnut Creek hydrology is unknown, but would be 

many millions of dollars.
Appendix B: Land Protection Plan

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

Corridor Focus (Alternative D)

Under Alternative D, Refuge land acquisition would expand by 20,550 acres to allow establishment of a 

permanent wildlife habitat corridor connecting the Refuge with Chichaqua Bottoms Greenbelt to the 

north and Lake Red Rock to the south. These connections could benefit reptiles, amphibians, small 

mammals, and invertebrates that have trouble crossing agricultural areas. Highway 163 and Interstate 

80, however, would pass through the Neal Smith – Chichaqua portion of the habitat corridor and would 

continue to be hazardous to wildlife trying to cross.

Increased acreage of restored tallgrass prairie within the watershed would provide additional habitat for 

declining populations of migratory grassland birds. The Greater Prairie-Chicken has been proposed for 

reintroduction but currently would be difficult to manage successfully on the Refuge due to the limited 

land base. This species has a large home range and requires a variety of grassland habitat conditions to 

meet its life cycle needs. Establishment of a habitat connection between the Refuge and Chichaqua 

would increase the probability of developing a self-sustaining Greater Prairie-Chicken population in 

central Iowa.

Some habitat improvement could continue to be accomplished without Service land acquisition through 

existing programs and the committed efforts of the many conservation partners working in the 

Chichaqua – Neal Smith – Red Rock corridor. Pooling of resources by federal, state, and local agencies; 

private landowners, and other conservation groups would facilitate accomplishment of mutual goals. 

Service land acquisition and restoration, however, would provide permanent protection from 

development and increased ecosystem resilience in the face of long-term stressors such as climate 

change. 

Estimated Initial Costs

Purchase 20,550 acres of agricultural land @ $6,000/acre = $123.3 million.

Prepare sites and plant native prairie species @ $1,000/acre = $20.6 million

Prairie Remnants (Alternative E)

The Refuge only uses native prairie seed from sources originating within about 100 miles of the Refuge. 

These “local ecotype” seeds are adapted to local climate and soil conditions and have a better chance of 

survival than seeds grown farther away. In the early years of Refuge restoration, seed was primarily 

collected on small pieces of native prairie that had never been cleared for agriculture. 

The need to include some or all of these prairie remnants as part of Neal Smith NWR was evaluated as 

part of this Land Protection Plan. The focus was on areas east, south, and west of the Refuge that are 

not included within the boundary of Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR (where the Service already has 

acquisition authority). The Iowa Department of Natural Resources’ 2003 Statewide Prairie Inventory 

identified more than 700 remnants within this zone, ranging in size from less than 0.1 acre to more than 

200 acres. The average (mean) size is 7.3 acres.

Most of these remnants would benefit from restoration efforts to address problems such as non-native 

plant invasion and encroachment of trees. Many have not been inventoried so their species composition 

and conservation value are poorly known. Most are on private land, although some are owned and 

managed by state or local agencies.

Service acquisition of remnants would protect them in perpetuity and facilitate their restoration and 

management. However, off-Refuge remnants, although worth protecting, are no longer essential to 
Appendix B: Land Protection Plan

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

Refuge restoration, because local ecotype seed now can be purchased from local suppliers or collected 

from restored sites on-Refuge. Management of many small tracts of land scattered over a multiple 

county area would be logistically difficult.

Many private landowners recognize the value of their remnants and are working to protect and enhance 

them. If additional public ownership becomes desirable, acquisition by state or local agencies could be 

financially feasible due to the small size and proportionally lower cost of the remnants compared to 

larger tracts of high quality agricultural land. Refuge staff could provide technical assistance to state, 

local, and private efforts, if needed.

Alternative E was eliminated from further consideration in the Draft CCP.

B.5 Land Acquisition Funding

Funding to buy land for Neal Smith NWR comes primarily from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 

which derives from certain user fees, proceeds from the disposal of surplus federal property, federal tax 

on motor boat fuels, and oil and gas lease revenues. About 90 percent of that fund now derives from 

Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases. The federal government receives about 40 percent of that 

fund to acquire and develop nationally significant conservations lands.

B.6 Sociocultural Impacts

Landowners

Expansion of the Refuge would affect to some degree the current lifestyles of individuals in and around 

the proposed boundary expansion. Landowners who choose to sell their land to the Service would be 

most affected. Landowners who choose not to sell their land would probably not be directly affected by 

purchases around them since they would retain all ownership rights such as hunting, control of trespass, 

farming, drainage, and pesticide use. If Service activity inadvertently created a water-related problem 

(flooding, soil saturation, deleterious increases in water table height, etc.) for any private landowner, 

the problem would be corrected at Service expense.

The Service’s policy is to acquire land from willing sellers and only when other protective means, such as 

local zoning restrictions or regulations, are not appropriate, available, or effective. When land is needed 

to achieve fish and wildlife conservation objectives, the Service seeks to acquire the minimum interest 

necessary to reach those objectives. If fee title acquisition is required, the Service gives full 

consideration to extended use reservations, exchanges, or other alternatives that will lessen the impact 

on the owner and the community. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged.

Although the Service has a long-standing policy of willing-seller-only acquisitions, it also has the power 

of eminent domain as do other federal, state, and local government agencies. This federal power, 

however, requires congressional approval and is rarely used by the Service. When acquiring lands, the 

Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of the property’s appraised market value as established 

by an approved appraisal that meets professional standards and federal requirements.

Local Community

When land is purchased, it becomes the property of the U. S. Government and is exempt from taxation. 

The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act authorizes annual in-lieu-of-taxes payments to counties based on 3⁄4 of 
Appendix B: Land Protection Plan

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

1 percent of the appraised value of Refuge land acquired in fee. In recent years, however, Congressional 

appropriations have been insufficient to pay the full amount authorized.

Lands purchased would be removed from agricultural production but would be protected from many of 

the effects of urban development. Refuge expansion would likely open more lands to public hunting, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and other compatible Refuge uses thereby 

enhancing local and regional opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreational activities, increasing 

Refuge visitation, and having a positive effect on the local economy. 

B.7 Map

(see figure B-1, next page)
Appendix B: Land Protection Plan

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Figure B-1: Map of Alternatives
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

In this appendix:

Bicycling

Dog Walking on Leash

Farming

Firewood Cutting and Collection

Grazing

Haying

Hunting

Jogging

Mushroom and Berry Picking

Research and Monitoring

Wildlife Interpretation and Outreach, Environmental Education

Wildlife Observation and Photography
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

Compatibility Determination

Use: Bicycling

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Congress established the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purposes

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes for the Refuge, so its legal purposes are derived 

from the following broad authorities:

“ . . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

" . . . 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) (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986)

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act)

The intent of Congressman Neal Smith in working to establish the Refuge was clear. He stated in the 

Congressional Record (H2727) that the proposed Refuge would offer “an unusual opportunity for 

interpretive programs, wetlands, a habitat for some 300 species of indigenous and migratory birds, the 

regrowth of many acres of now scarce species of trees, buffalo and elk which were indigenous to the 

area, and the largest native prairie grass fields in Iowa” and that “tens of thousands of school children . . 

. could use the area as an outdoor study area.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee])

Description of Use

What is the use? Bicycling
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Where is the use conducted? Bicycling will be permitted on the entry road where bicycle trails will be 

constructed to flow with traffic, and in the parking lots associated with the entry road.

When is the use conducted? Bicycling will occur throughout the year from sunrise to sunset. 

How is the use conducted? The public will be able to park their vehicle near the entry of the Refuge on 

the entry road and bicycle in and out of the Refuge. Citizens in the nearby community of Prairie City 

may bicycle their way to the Refuge from their homes. Future trail plans in Jasper County include 

connecting with the Refuge allowing long distance bicyclers to visit the Refuge.

Why is the use being proposed? Bicycling is a current activity on the county roads around the Refuge. To 

increase safety of bicyclers, a bicycle trail is being added to the existing entry road in 2013. Bicycling is a 

healthy way to enjoy the outdoors and view wildlife without the interference of vehicle noise or 

containment. Bicycling may provide additional opportunities to interpret and educate the public about 

the tallgrass prairie.

Availability of Resources

The entry road is currently undergoing a renovation. Funding from Federal Highways, Refuge Roads, and 

the Sarbanes Transportation Grant will finance the repaving of the entry road to include widening to 

accommodate a bicycle trail. While additional interpretive signage is going to be included in the 

renovation, it is not specific to bicyclers. Some regulatory signage will be added to the bicycle trail,

which will be maintained with other signage. Resources needed to administer the bicycle trail will be 

negligible.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

It is expected that some bicycling will replace the current traffic that comes to the Refuge from Prairie 

City. A small increase in bicycle traffic may occur initially, increasing over time as news spreads that the 

trail is available. No negative impacts are expected from allowing bicycling to occur along the entry road 

and parking areas of the refuge.

Wildlife Response to Bicycling

Rapid movement directly toward wildlife frightens them, while movement away from or at an oblique 

angle to the animal is less disturbing (Knight and Cole, 1995). Road noise has been shown to negatively 

affect birds (Bowles, 1995), although the response is often difficult to assess, because it may be 

confounded by responses to visual stimulus. Knight and Cole (1991) suggest that sound may elicit a 

much milder response from wildlife if animals are visually buffered from the disturbance. 

Bicycles, motorcycles, and vehicles currently travel through the Refuge on the entry and county roads. 

The addition of a bicycle trail along the entry road will not increase wildlife disturbance or noise on the 

Refuge. 

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review 

includes a notice of availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media 

announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be 

included in the final CCP.
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Determination: Bicycling

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Bicycles must be ridden at safe speeds and yield to pedestrians. Signs would be placed on the bicycle 

trail and parking areas to reflect that requirement. Use of the trail will be restricted to areas within the 

3-foot symbolic fence located on both sides of the trail. 

Justification

Bicycling is not one of the Priority Public Uses of the Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). However, the refuge manager believes by 

allowing this use, more people will be exposed to the importance of habitat and wildlife to people, as 

well as the benefits the National Wildlife Refuge System has to wildlife in their communities. Further, 

bicycling allows access to the Refuge and reduces the carbon footprint of visitors to the Refuge. Bicycling 

may provide alternatives to motor vehicle transportation for enjoying the Refuge and are often 

necessary to allow the public to get away from the urban landscape. The educational possibilities 

provided by this opportunity would outweigh anticipated impacts associated with implementation. 

Literature Cited

Bowles, A. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. Pf 109-156 in K.D. Frederick and R. A. Sedgo, eds, 

America’s Renewable Resources: Historical and Current Challenges. Resources for the Future, 

Washington, D.C.

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1995. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands in Transactions 

of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 56:238-247.

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2022 

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 9/17/2012 _

(Signature and Date)

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Tom Worthington, Acting/ 10/31/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Compatibility Determination

Use: Dog Walking on Leash

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Congress established the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purposes:

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes the refuge, so its legal purposes are derived from 

the following broad authorities: 

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) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986: "... 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) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act: "... conservation, management, and ... 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats ... for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans..." 16 U.S.C. ¤ 668dd(a)(2) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee.]

Description of Use(s):

What is the use? This use will allow dog walking on a leash.

Where is the use conducted? The use is conducted on the trails, bicycle paths and county roads within 

the Refuge boundary.

When is the use conducted? The use is conducted year round.
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

How is the use conducted? The use will be allowed but dogs must be on a leash and be under the 

complete control of the owner at all times. At no time will threatening behavior to wildlife or other 

people be tolerated and the public must clean up all waste from their dogs.

Why is the use being proposed? The Refuge recognizes that a large segment of society enjoys outdoor 

recreation and leisure activity while accompanied by their dogs. A large segment of the public prefers to 

travel with their pets. The Refuge wants to welcome the public on their trails where human disturbance 

to wildlife is already tolerated.

Availability of Resources: Trails that can accommodate dog walking already exist. Dog care stations will 

be installed at the head of each trail for nominal costs. The Zone Law Enforcement officer and other 

staff can enforce the dog on leash change in policy.

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses: For the most part the anticipated impacts of this use will be the cost 

of providing care stations and materials. Some members of the public may fear the presence of dogs. 

Waste could be left on trails.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was initiated due to comments made during the public review of the 

Draft Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental 

Assessment. 

Determination:

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The following stipulations must be followed to allow 

dog walking on the Refuge:

• All dogs must be on a leash.

• Owners must maintain full control of dogs at all times.

• Dogs will not be permitted to threaten wildlife or people.

• Owners must clean up waste left by their pets on trails.

• The Refuge reserves the right, at Refuge Manager’s discretion, to close any trail where waste is 

not cleaned by dog owners.

Justification: More and more people travel with pets and consider them part of the family. This 

segment of the public is often denied access to refuge trails where wildlife and habitat disturbance from 

pedestrians is already tolerated. If dogs remain on a leash, do not threaten wildlife or people, and the 

public cleans up the waste, dog walking can be considered appropriate on trails within the Refuge. The 

Refuge will provide dog stations for bags and waste disposal.

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2022

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision

__X__ Categorical Exclusion 

_____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 10/9/2012 _

(Signature and Date)

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Tom Worthington, Acting/ 10/31/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Compatibility Determination

Use: Farming (with Genetically Modified Crops)

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Congress established the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3,600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purposes

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes for the Refuge, so its legal purposes are derived 

from the following broad authorities: 

“ . . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

" . . . 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) (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986)

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act)

The intent of Congressman Neal Smith in working to establish the Refuge was clear. He stated in the 

Congressional Record (H2727) that the proposed Refuge would offer “an unusual opportunity for 

interpretive programs, wetlands, a habitat for some 300 species of indigenous and migratory birds, the

regrowth of many acres of now scarce species of trees, buffalo and elk which were indigenous to the 

area, and the largest native prairie grass fields in Iowa” and that “tens of thousands of school children . . 

. could use the area as an outdoor study area.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee])

Description of Use

What is the use? Row crop farming using genetically modified crops, specifically glyphosate tolerant 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

soybean and corn. 

Where is the use conducted? The use is conducted on agricultural lands purchased by the Service for the 

purpose of tallgrass prairie reconstruction.

When is the use conducted? In the long term, not to exceed five years, the use is conducted until such 

time the Refuge is able to begin tallgrass prairie reconstruction/restoration efforts on newly acquired 

lands, not to exceed five years from year of purchase. Seasonally, the use would be conducted between 

April and November with a one year Special Use Permit (SUP) beginning January 1st of each year and 

ending December 31st

. 

How is the use conducted? The land is rented through an SUP. The land would be farmed under typical 

farming practices for the area but would be restricted to no-till, Service-approved pesticides and their 

application, no fall fertilization, and maintenance of grassed waterways and buffer strips.

Why is the use being proposed? This is an existing economic use that is useful in managing land in a 

weed-free state until such time the Refuge can begin the reconstruction/restoration effort. The use of 

GMCs is necessary to reduce the quantity and use of pesticides on the Refuge, reduce weed infestations 

from crops to restored areas of the Refuge, and to maintain a farming program with local farmers. There 

are no native corn species on the Refuge and no endangered species utilize areas where farming occurs. 

Farming is not used as a food crop for wildlife but is simply a place holder until restoration activities can 

begin.

Availability of Resources

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use are approximately $6,000 for staff 

time and overhead. No special equipment or facilities are needed to support this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Temporary continuation of the loss of ground cover, increased erosion, and use of pesticides will be 

some of the direct and indirect short term impacts. Pesticide use is expected to be minimal due to the 

use of GMCs. Glyphosate applications can be made early in the season when they are most effective. 

Loss of viable soil for restoration and gully erosion are potential impacts, but since all farm ground will 

be restored to tallgrass prairie the impacts will be short term. Cumulative impacts, if farming were to be 

maintained on each site, would include depleted soil microbes and soil fertility. Cumulative impacts 

under eventual reconstruction or restoration would be minimal.

Public Review and Comment

Public notification and review includes a notice of availability, 15-day comment period and local media 

announcements. Copies of this compatibility determination were made available at the Neal Smith NWR 

Visitor Center as well as the public library in Prairie City, Iowa. Comments received and agency 

responses will be included in the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan that is currently in progress.

Determination: Farming (with GMCs)

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Farmers who lease land on the Refuge must adhere to strict regulations to comply with the “Special Use 

Permit.” Some related special conditions that farmers must adhere to in order to farm on the Refuge 

include the following:

1. Only “no till” farming practices are allowed.

2. Planting of Bt corn is not allowed.

3. Application of anhydrous ammonia is only allowed in the spring. Application of any fertilizer is 

not permitted in the fall.

4. All fields with streams and/or gullies will be required to have a buffer strip planted 100 feet wide 

on each side. The Refuge will provide the seed to plant strips. Operator will mow buffer strips 

and field borders at least once between July 15 and August 15 and as needed or as directed by 

Refuge staff for weed control.

5. Only glyphosate herbicides are allowed to be sprayed on Refuge cropland without first obtaining 

written permission. Application rates on are not to exceed the recommended label rate for 

each growing season.

6. Other herbicides may be used if all the following three conditions are met: 1) there is 

documented need from a crop scout, 2) the herbicide is listed on the FWS Region 3 Herbicides 

List, and 3) the farmer requests and obtains written permission from the Refuge. Requests for 

herbicide use must be received at least 72 hours prior to the planned application time.

7. By December 15th the operator is required to provide a pesticide use report to the Refuge.

8. Use of genetically-modified, glyphosate-tolerant crops is limited to corn and soybeans.

9. Beginning in calendar year 2012, the use of genetically-modified, glyphosate-tolerant corn and 

soybeans will be used only for the purpose of habitat restoration.

Justification

This is an existing economic use that is useful in managing land in a weed-free state until such time the 

Refuge can begin the reconstruction/restoration effort. The use of GMCs is necessary to reduce the 

quantity and variety of use of pesticides on the Refuge, reduce weed infestations from crops to restored 

areas of the Refuge, and to maintain a farm program with local farmers. There are no native corn 

species on the Refuge, and no endangered species utilize areas where farming occurs. Farming is not 

used as a food crop for wildlife but is simply a place holder until restoration activities can begin.

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2021

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 9/15/2011 _

(Signature and Date)

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Rick Schultz/ 9/15/2011 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

Compatibility Determination

Use: Firewood Cutting and Collection

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Congress established the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3,600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purposes

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes for the Refuge, so its legal purposes are derived 

from the following broad authorities:

“ . . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

" . . . 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) (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986)

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act)

The intent of Congressman Neal Smith in working to establish the Refuge was clear. He stated in the 

Congressional Record (H2727) that the proposed Refuge would offer “an unusual opportunity for 

interpretive programs, wetlands, a habitat for some 300 species of indigenous and migratory birds, the 

regrowth of many acres of now scarce species of trees, buffalo and elk which were indigenous to the 

area, and the largest native prairie grass fields in Iowa” and that “tens of thousands of school children . . 

. could use the area as an outdoor study area.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee])

Description of Use

What is the use? Non-commercial harvest of downed wood for use as fire fuel.
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Where is the use conducted? These activities may occur throughout the Refuge. Approximately five to 

15 people participate in this activity annually, and most access areas adjacent to existing roads and 

trails.

When is the use conducted? This activity is authorized year round in the Refuge areas outside the bison 

enclosure, when wood is available. Only downed trees are authorized for take.

How is the use conducted? This is an activity that is permitted along road ditches and in areas where the 

Refuge has cleared trees for prairie or savanna reconstruction or restoration. Trees that have already 

been cut down along road ditches and on prairie locations may be cut into smaller pieces and retrieved 

by individuals or groups who have acquired a Special Use Permit (SUP) from the Refuge. When Refuge 

staff clears trees from an area, wood is generally available on a first come, first served basis to persons 

who acquire an SUP from the Refuge. No individual will be permitted to cut down a standing tree; they 

will only be permitted to cut a downed tree to smaller sizes in order to transport.

Why is the use being proposed? Removal of trees from the Refuge for reconstruction and restoration is 

an on-going management activity. The cost of removing the wood from sites or the staff time needed to 

conduct and monitor burn piles can be prohibitive. Burning of wood piles is limited to winter when 

snow is on the ground. This use allows the Refuge to remove wood from reconstruction/restoration 

sites throughout the year and provide fuel wood to the general public.

Availability of Resources

There is little to no cost to administer this program. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Historically public participation in woodcutting activities has been low, and future participation is 

expected to remain low. Most activity occurs adjacent to existing roads and trails causing minimal 

disturbance to wildlife. No woodcutting will be permitted within the bison enclosure for the safety of 

the public. 

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Neal Smith NWR Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and 

a public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final 

CCP.

Determination: Firewood Cutting and Collection

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

All users must comply with Refuge-specific regulations. Only trees that have already been cut down will 

be permitted to be taken from the Refuge.
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Justification

This use has little negative impact to wildlife or habitat since it is linked to beneficial habitat 

enhancement and restoration management activities.

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2022

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 9/17/2012 _

(Signature and Date)

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Tom Worthington, Acting/ 10/31/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Compatibility Determination

Use: Grazing (other than bison and elk)

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Congress established the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3,600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purposes

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes for the Refuge, so its legal purposes are derived 

from the following broad authorities:

“ . . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

" . . . 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) (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986)

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act)

The intent of Congressman Neal Smith in working to establish the Refuge was clear. He stated in the 

Congressional Record (H2727) that the proposed Refuge would offer “an unusual opportunity for 

interpretive programs, wetlands, a habitat for some 300 species of indigenous and migratory birds, the 

regrowth of many acres of now scarce species of trees, buffalo and elk which were indigenous to the 

area, and the largest native prairie grass fields in Iowa” and that “tens of thousands of school children . . 

. could use the area as an outdoor study area.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee])

Description of Use

What is the use? The use is grazing by domestic livestock to include cows, goats, and sheep, or other 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

herbivores to manipulate or remove unwanted vegetation, create disturbance, or achieve a specific 

habitat management goal or objective.

Where is the use conducted? The use would be conducted throughout the Refuge where needed.

When is the use conducted? Grazing could occur within any season on the Refuge depending on the 

target species and desired outcome to achieve habitat management goals.

How is the use conducted? Agreements or contracts with livestock owners can be established on shortor long-term basis. The Refuge would lease land to or pay a contractor to graze a specified area of land 

for a specific time frame or series of time frames to meet a desired habitat goal or objective.

Why is the use being proposed? In order to manage the Refuge landscape successfully, methods should 

be available to the Refuge to allow flexibility so that when one method is not feasible another can be 

employed. In many instances grazing may achieve specific results that cannot be achieved through any 

other means due to the selective feeding preferences of different livestock.

Availability of Resources

Neal Smith NWR is located in an agricultural landscape where many land owners own various domestic 

livestock and may be interested in working with the Refuge. Some biological staff time and expertise 

will be required to permit and monitor the activity.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Grazing would be used as a habitat management tool to achieve specific goals and objectives. The 

anticipated impacts to the landscape should be positive or, if not, will be discontinued. Other impacts 

could be perceptions from visitors who perceive domestic livestock in a negative light. Environmental 

education and interpretation measures would be conducted to reduce negative visitor impacts.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Neal Smith NWR Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and 

a public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final 

CCP.

Determination: Grazing (other than bison and elk)

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Grazing (non-bison/elk) would be permitted on the Refuge as part of a habitat management plan to 

manipulate or control habitat to a desired outcome. Grazing would particularly be used where mowing 

or prescribed burning is not feasible. Consideration of animal species will be considered for each habitat 

type and desired outcome. Grazing will not be permitted in areas where it will directly conflict or 

compete with bison or elk.
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2022

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 9/17/2012 _

(Signature and Date)

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Tom Worthington, Acting/ 10/31/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

Compatibility Determination

Use: Haying

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Congress established the refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purpose(s):

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes for the Refuge, so its legal purposes are derived 

from the following broad authorities:

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act)

“. . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)

" . . .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) (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee.]

Description of Use

What is the use? Haying is the cutting, baling, and removal of vegetation for purposes of reinvigorating 

established grassland habitat on refuge lands as well as to establish and maintain firebreaks. Haying is 

primarily conducted to create and maintain firebreaks for prescribed fire operations or to remove 

vegetation from refuge units that cannot be burned for any reason. Haying is conducted through a 

Special Use Permit issued by the Refuge. Permits will be issued annually.

Where is the use conducted? Haying will occur on various grassland units throughout the refuge and 

along outer boundaries of the refuge. Units hayed each year vary in size from 20 to 80 acres and the 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

total area hayed each year will vary from 200 to 600 acres depending on management needs and 

prescribed fire planning.

When is the use conducted? Haying for the purpose of fire break establishment and maintenance may 

occur anytime from May through late September. When haying is utilized as a tool to enhance 

established grasslands within units, cutting will begin after August 15 into late September when most 

ground nests, particularly grassland bird species, have hatched or ceased nesting activity.

How is the use conducted? Haying is carried out by permittees using standard agricultural tractors and 

implements. Special Conditions will apply with the Permit (see Stipulations below). 

Why is the use being proposed? Haying is an effective tool for grassland management and restoration. 

Construction of fire breaks, free of fuels in the form of duff, is essential to controlling prescribed fire 

operations. Haying is a viable alternative to rejuvenating and maintaining decadent grassland. 

Haying is not a priority public use, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997, but rather serves as a management instrument for ensuring priority habitat objectives are 

being addressed.

Availability of Resources 

No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. Needed management staff time is already 

committed and available. Most of the work needed to prepare for this use would be done during 

habitat management planning. The bid process would require some additional staff time to develop and 

oversee Special Use Permits but would be relatively minor and within existing resources. Costs would 

be off-set by the benefits of restoration and fire break maintenance without using staff time or 

equipment to conduct the activity.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

In units where haying is used in place of prescribed fire, short-term impacts include disturbance and 

temporary displacement caused by noisy heavy equipment and temporary removal of cover as well as 

mortality to small mammals, insects, amphibians, reptiles, and potentially some birds. In these same 

areas, long term impacts will be beneficial by helping to restore and reinvigorate native prairie cover 

needed by these same species. Units selected for haying will rotate throughout the refuge each year so 

that it does not occur in the same unit consecutively year after year. 

In firebreaks, the negative impacts listed above will be both short term and long term as these areas will 

be hayed several times throughout the year, every year, to protect habitats and neighboring landowners 

from wildfire. Impacts from creating firebreaks through mowing cannot be avoided as these 

management activities are a safety measure to protect property during prescribed burns or from 

wildfire. However, the addition of haying on firebreaks will increase the effectiveness of firebreaks by 

removing fire fuels.

Public Review and Comment

Public notification and review included a notice of availability through the local media and a 15-day 

comment period between August 1 through August 16, 2012. Copies of this Compatibility 

Determination were available at the Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center front desk, City 

Hall of Prairie City, and at the Prairie City Public Library. No comments or suggestions were received 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

during that time period. Comments and suggestions should be directed to the Refuge Manager at 515-

994-3400 before close of business on August 17, 2012.

Determination: Haying

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Permits are issued on an annual basis. 

2. Equipment must be cleaned and be free of vegetation, seeds, mud, and soil before 

mowing/baling operations begin on the Refuge. Notify Refuge 24 hours before you plan to 

begin. The Refuge reserves the right to inspect equipment prior to the onset of work.

3. All equipment must be removed from the field directly after its use. Storage of equipment is not 

allowed on Refuge property.

4. Hay bales must be removed from the Refuge prior to September 15 each year.

5. Fields must be mowed between August 15 and August 31 each year. Firebreaks must be mowed 

as soon as vegetation reaches a height of one foot, probably May of each year, and repeated 

throughout year when necessary to maintain a firebreak of 8 inches or less.

6. In case of rain, sufficient drying time must be allowed so that equipment does not leave ruts.

Justification

Haying will not materially interfere with or detract from the purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System when carried out under the required stipulations. Haying is a valuable management tool that 

provides greater long-term habitat benefits for reestablished and existing grasslands. The productivity 

and abundance of grassland dependent bird and other wildlife species would slowly decline in the 

absence of haying or similar treatments on the refuge. Grasslands are a disturbance-dependent 

ecosystem that requires periodic haying, mowing or burning to maintain their vigor, diversity and the 

structure necessary for wildlife use. Haying is an effective alternative when other management 

methods are infeasible.

Literature Cited: N/A

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2022 

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 8/17/2012 _

(Signature and Date)

Refuge Supervisor Concurrence: /Matt D. Sprenger/ 8/21/2012 _

(Signature and Date)

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Rick Schultz/ 8/21/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Compatibility Determination

Use: Hunting

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Congress established the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3,600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purposes

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes for the Refuge, so its legal purposes are derived 

from the following broad authorities:

“ . . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

" . . . 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) (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986)

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act)

The intent of Congressman Neal Smith in working to establish the Refuge was clear. He stated in the 

Congressional Record (H2727) that the proposed Refuge would offer “an unusual opportunity for 

interpretive programs, wetlands, a habitat for some 300 species of indigenous and migratory birds, the 

regrowth of many acres of now scarce species of trees, buffalo and elk which were indigenous to the 

area, and the largest native prairie grass fields in Iowa” and that “tens of thousands of school children . . 

. could use the area as an outdoor study area.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee])

Description of Use

What is the use? Hunting of game as an activity conducted by the general public under regulation 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Hunting is currently allowed 

for small game (squirrel and cottontail rabbit), upland game birds (bobwhite quail and rooster pheasant) 

and whitetail deer. 

Where is the use conducted? The entire Refuge is open to all hunting with the exception of the bison 

enclosure and the area immediately adjacent to the Neal Smith NWR Visitor Center. Units of the 

Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR that are administered by the Neal Smith NWR will be open to hunting 

and will be managed in a seamless manner, as if it were a part of the Neal Smith NWR, beginning in 

2013. 

When is the use conducted? Hunting of small game generally begins during the first week of September; 

upland game bird hunting begins at the end of October with Deer season opening late September or 

early October. All hunting on the Refuge ceases on January 31 of each year. This use is conducted during 

daylight hours only with the exception of deer hunting, which will begin one-half hour before sunrise 

and close one-half hour after sunset. 

How is the use conducted?

Hunting is conducted according to the regulations of the Neal Smith NWR and consistent with 

regulations of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The Refuge requires that shot are of non-toxic 

materials. Please refer to the State of Iowa Hunting Regulations for clothing requirements, definition of 

approved weapons, bag limits, license requirements, and other important information. Hunters are 

required to acquire a special hunting brochure that serves as a hunting permit on the Refuge. These 

brochures are located at the Neal Smith NWR Prairie Visitor Center as well as at all hunt parking 

locations. All hunters must have this “permit” with them at all times while hunting. 

Why is the use being proposed? Hunting is a priority public use identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) and it has traditionally occurred at the Refuge 

without adverse impacts to the purpose for which the Refuge was established. The Refuge is 

surrounded by farm fields and, as such, provides some of the best habitat for many species to 

concentrate. A hunt program is needed to maintain game populations in balance with prairie and 

savanna reconstruction activities. The hunt program is administered in accordance with sound wildlife 

management principles and the utmost concern for public safety.

Availability of Resources

The Refuge is assisted by state law enforcement officers in patrolling during the hunting season. In 

addition the Refuge is the location for one of the Zone Law Enforcement offices in Region 3. An 

additional $25,000 is required annually to support and administer this program including Refuge staff 

time to prepare parking sites, install signage, prepare brochures/permits, coordinate with local law 

enforcement, and provide information to interested public.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use 

This activity is an existing use on the Refuge and has shown no assessable environmental impact to the 

Refuge, its habitats, or wildlife species; but the activity is monitored closely for any signs of change. 

Hunting does cause mortality and disturbance to those species hunted, but bag limits, season dates, and 

other regulations are set to protect the long-term health of populations. 

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Neal Smith NWR Comprehensive Conservation 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and 

a public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final 

CCP.

Determination: Hunting

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

1. This use must be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations and special Refuge 

regulations published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

2. Dogs may only be used to hunt pheasant and quail.

3. Snowmobiles and ATVs are prohibited on Refuge lands.

4. Hunters must possess non-toxic shot for upland game and bird species.

5. Parking, blocking, or in any manner restricting access to roads and gates is prohibited.

6. All personal property must be removed from the Refuge at the end of each hunt day.

7. Annually evaluate hunting methods to ensure safety.

8. Annually review all hunting activities and operations to ensure compliance with all applicable 

laws, regulations, and policies.

Justification

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This use is 

being permitted as 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 wildlife and plant resources on these lands.

This activity is an existing use on the Refuge and has shown no assessable environmental impact to the 

Refuge, its habitats, or wildlife species. It is a valuable tool in controlling deer and small game species 

on the Refuge that have direct negative impacts to the process of habitat reconstruction and 

restoration.

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2027

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 9/17/2012 _

(Signature and Date)

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Tom Worthington, Acting/ 10/31/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132

Compatibility Determination

Use: Jogging

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Congress established the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3,600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purposes

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes for the Refuge, so its legal purposes are derived 

from the following broad authorities:

“ . . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

" . . . 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) (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986)

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act)

The intent of Congressman Neal Smith in working to establish the Refuge was clear. He stated in the 

Congressional Record (H2727) that the proposed Refuge would offer “an unusual opportunity for 

interpretive programs, wetlands, a habitat for some 300 species of indigenous and migratory birds, the 

regrowth of many acres of now scarce species of trees, buffalo and elk which were indigenous to the 

area, and the largest native prairie grass fields in Iowa” and that “tens of thousands of school children . . 

. could use the area as an outdoor study area.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee])

Description of Use

What is the use? Jogging
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

Where is the use conducted? Jogging will be permitted on entry road bicycle path, Tallgrass Trail, 

Overlook Trail, Savanna Trail, Basswood Trail, and all native trails (mowed trails). In addition, this 

activity will be permitted on the proposed trail that will connect the Savanna Trail and the Basswood 

Trail via a connector through the Rothinghouse property when it is acquired.

When is the use conducted? Jogging could occur throughout the year on any open trail.

How is the use conducted? No special conditions or efforts are required beyond normal maintenance of 

trails. Trails will not be maintained in winter.

Why is the use being proposed? Jogging is a preferred mode of travel for individuals who are interested 

in outdoor exercise in areas with good opportunities for wildlife observation and clean air. 

Availability of Resources

The Neal Smith NWR has a variety of trails and locations available for this activity. No additional 

resources are needed to administer or regulate this use.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Rapid movement by joggers is more disturbing to wildlife than slower moving hikers (Bennett and 

Zuelke, 1999). However, joggers tend to spend less time in a particular area than pedestrians and are 

less likely to directly approach or otherwise disturb wildlife. The effects of human disturbance can be 

reduced by restricting human activity to an established trail. Animals show greater flight response to 

humans moving unpredictably than to humans following a distinct path (Gabrielsen and Smith, 1995). 

Neal Smith NWR has public use trails where walking is allowed. Disturbance by joggers on these trails to 

feeding or nesting passerines is not expected to increase.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Neal Smith NWR Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and 

a public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final 

CCP.

Determination: Jogging

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Joggers would be restricted to established, well-defined trails.

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2022

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 9/17/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Tom Worthington, Acting/ 10/31/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

Compatibility Determination

Uses: Mushroom and Berry Picking

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Congress established the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3,600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purposes

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes for the Refuge, so its legal purposes are derived 

from the following broad authorities:

“ . . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

" . . . 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) (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986)

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act)

The intent of Congressman Neal Smith in working to establish the Refuge was clear. He stated in the 

Congressional Record (H2727) that the proposed Refuge would offer “an unusual opportunity for 

interpretive programs, wetlands, a habitat for some 300 species of indigenous and migratory birds, the 

regrowth of many acres of now scarce species of trees, buffalo and elk which were indigenous to the 

area, and the largest native prairie grass fields in Iowa” and that “tens of thousands of school children . . 

. could use the area as an outdoor study area.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee])

Description of Use

What is the use? Non-commercial harvest of mushrooms and berries (chokecherries, raspberries, 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

blackberries) for human consumption.

Where is the use conducted? These activities may occur throughout the Refuge in wooded areas. 

Approximately ten to fifty people participate in this activity annually, and most people tend to access 

areas adjacent to existing roads and trails.

When is the use conducted? Mushroom and berry picking are authorized year round in the Refuge areas 

outside the bison enclosure. However, most of the activity is conducted during the few weeks when the 

fruits ripen.

How is the use conducted? This is an activity that is often done in conjunction with other activities that 

are wildlife-dependent, such as wildlife observation and photography. Access to harvest sites is 

accomplished by walking from a designated parking area, public roadway, or trail. All harvesting is done 

by hand.

Why is the use being proposed? Mushroom and berry picking are traditional outdoor activities that 

bring families to the Refuge. It allows them to collect wholesome, healthy foods while enjoying the 

natural environment.

Availability of Resources

There is little to no cost to administer this program. It occurs in conjunction with other public uses, and 

participation is low.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Historically public participation in mushroom and berry picking has been low, and future participation is 

expected to remain low. Most activity occurs adjacent to existing roads and trails causing minimal 

disturbance to wildlife or habitat. No mushroom or berry picking will be permitted within the bison 

enclosure for the safety of the public. The relatively few mushrooms and berries harvested will not 

significantly reduce the food source for wildlife.

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Neal Smith NWR Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review includes a notice of 

availability published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and 

a public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final 

CCP.

Determination: Mushroom and Berry Picking

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

All users must comply with Refuge-specific regulations.

Justification

This use has little negative impact to wildlife or habitat since few people participate, no machinery is 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

allowed, and most activity occurs along designated foot trails.

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2022

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 9/17/2012 _

(Signature and Date)

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Tom Worthington, Acting/ 10/31/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

Compatibility Determination

Uses: Research and Monitoring

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Congress established the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3,600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purposes:

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes for the Refuge, so its legal purposes are derived 

from the following broad authorities:

“ . . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

" . . . 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) (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986)

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act)

The intent of Congressman Neal Smith in working to establish the Refuge was clear. He stated in the 

Congressional Record (H2727) that the proposed Refuge would offer “an unusual opportunity for 

interpretive programs, wetlands, a habitat for some 300 species of indigenous and migratory birds, the 

regrowth of many acres of now scarce species of trees, buffalo and elk which were indigenous to the 

area, and the largest native prairie grass fields in Iowa” and that “tens of thousands of school children . . 

. could use the area as an outdoor study area.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee])

Description of Use

What is the use? Research and monitoring of vegetation, hydrology, geology, wildlife, and public uses 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

will be conducted to provide information that will form the basis for management decisions. Priority 

would be given to research and monitoring that contributes to the enhancement, reconstruction, 

protection, preservation, and management of prairie, savanna, and related habitats as well as migratory 

birds, bison, elk, bats, and other wildlife on the Refuge. 

Research proposals would be assessed based on criteria including, but not limited to, research that will 

contribute to specific Refuge or regional management challenges, Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) goals, or purposes for which the Refuge was established; and research designed to minimize 

disturbance to the wildlife and habitat on the Refuge as well as the surrounding human environment. 

Research projects should incorporate the principles of adaptive management. 

Where is the use conducted? Research will be conducted throughout the Refuge within the variety of 

habitats found there depending on the purpose and need. 

When is the use conducted? Research can be conducted throughout the year, day or night and

depending on the purpose and need.

How is the use conducted? Research proposals would be reviewed by Refuge staff and conservation 

partners, as appropriate. If the proposal is approved, a Special Use Permit would be issued by the 

Refuge Manager. Research that will conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management 

programs will not be granted. Research that can be accomplished off-Refuge is less likely to be 

approved. Research that causes exceptional disturbance to wildlife or undue habitat degradation will 

not be granted. If staffing or logistics make it impossible for the Refuge staff to monitor research activity 

in sensitive areas, the proposal will not be granted; and the length of proposed research will not be 

allowed to be conducted with an open-ended time frame. Research and monitoring SUPs will be 

reviewed annually before renewal.

Why is the use being proposed? Research and monitoring are integral parts of national wildlife refuge 

management. Two provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 are to 

“maintain biological integrity, diversity and environmental health” and to conduct “inventory and 

monitoring.” Plans and actions based on research and monitoring provide an informed approach, which 

analyzes the management effects on Refuge wildlife. 

Availability of Resources

Some staff time would be required to review research requests and manage research activities. 

However, Refuge staff would not be expected to commit weekly staff time to managing this use. 

Approving proposals will also be based upon available staff to monitor the research. Currently, limited 

staffing exists to monitor projects and compliance of research projects. Other than staff time, no special 

equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary to support this proposed use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Expected short-term benefits to conducting research activities at the Refuge would include 

improvement of habitat and wildlife populations. Monitoring of wildlife and habitat on the Refuge 

would provide feedback on the effectiveness of activities taking place. The possibility exists of 

disturbing wildlife. In addition, if research is expected to take place, rare plants and newly planted 

native seedlings may be trampled. Non-native plants may also be introduced through researchers’ 

clothing and footwear. 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Long-term effects could include expanding the knowledge base of the habitat and wildlife of the larger 

tallgrass prairie ecosystem. Moreover, natural resources inventory, monitoring, and research are 

provisions in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Overall, proper review and 

approval of appropriate research proposals should result in limited disturbance to wildlife and habitat, 

while resulting in maximum benefit to Refuge management and scientific data within the tallgrass 

prairie ecosystem. 

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Neal Smith NWR CCP and Environmental 

Assessment. Public notification and review includes a notice of availability published in the Federal 

Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final CCP.

Determination: Research and Monitoring

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Each research project will be evaluated, and special requirements will be determined for each project 

and included with the Refuge SUP. All researchers must comply with the additional requirements or the 

research project will be stopped or discontinued until compliance measures are met.

Justification

There is much to be learned about tallgrass prairie and savanna ecosystems. Research and monitoring 

are integral parts of national wildlife refuge management. Two provisions of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) are to “maintain biological integrity, 

diversity and environmental health” and to conduct “inventory and monitoring.” Plans and actions 

based on research and monitoring provide an informed approach, which analyzes the management 

effects on Refuge wildlife. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2022

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 9/17/2012 _

(Signature and Date)

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Tom Worthington, Acting/ 10/31/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

Compatibility Determination

Uses: Wildlife Interpretation and Outreach, Environmental Education 

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Congress established the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3,600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purposes

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes for the Refuge, so its legal purposes are derived 

from the following broad authorities:

“ . . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

" . . . 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) (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986)

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act)

The intent of Congressman Neal Smith in working to establish the Refuge was clear. He stated in the 

Congressional Record (H2727) that the proposed Refuge would offer “an unusual opportunity for 

interpretive programs, wetlands, a habitat for some 300 species of indigenous and migratory birds, the 

regrowth of many acres of now scarce species of trees, buffalo and elk which were indigenous to the 

area, and the largest native prairie grass fields in Iowa” and that “tens of thousands of school children . . 

. could use the area as an outdoor study area.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee])

Description of Uses

What is the use? Environmental education is a process designed to develop a citizenry that has the 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

awareness, concern, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivations, and commitment to work toward 

solutions of current environmental problems and the prevention of new problems. Environmental 

education that is conducted within the Refuge System incorporates onsite, offsite, and distance learning 

activities and programs that address the audience’s course of study, the mission of the Refuge System, 

and the management purposes of the specific field station. Environmental education integrates the 

field station messages with the audience’s program such as school curriculums. Environmental 

education tends to be longer in duration than interpretation and often involves pre- and post-visit 

discussions and multiple field station visits. 

Interpretation is a communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between 

the interests of the audience and the inherent meanings in the resource (i.e., more than information). 

Interpretation occurs in less formal activities with Refuge staff and volunteers or through exhibits, signs, 

brochures, elements of special events, and tours. 

Outreach is a two-way communication between the Service and the public to establish understanding 

and promote involvement or influence attitudes and actions, with the goal of improving joint 

stewardship of our natural resources. Examples of outreach include news releases, newsletters, 

websites, offsite displays, and participation in community partnerships. 

The 20,000 square foot Neal Smith NWR Visitor Center was built specifically to accommodate 

environmental education, interpretation, and outreach.

Where is the use conducted? These activities may occur on or off the Refuge but most are likely to occur 

within the Visitor Center, wildlife auto tour, trails, and roads. The Refuge also maintains a website that 

provides interpretive information. Environmental education and interpretive programs are given upon 

request to schools and other groups visiting the Refuge. The Refuge also has a Partner School program, 

which actively engages teachers and specific schools with more specialized environmental education 

activities. Additional recreational and outreach programs will include winter wildlife observation tours, 

theatre programs, and some night time activities. 

When is the use conducted? The Visitor Center is open seven days a week except Thanksgiving Day, 

Christmas Day, and New Year’s Day. The Refuge hosts approximately 140,000 people per year. 

Interpretation occurs throughout the year whenever a visitor reads a sign, brochure, or the Refuge 

website or talks to Visitor Services staff and volunteers. Environmental education activities typically 

occur when school is in session, concentrated in the spring and fall months. Most activities occur during 

daylight hours with some scheduled evening or night events. 

How is the use conducted? All environmental education and interpretation activities are conducted 

under the guiding principles of the Refuge’s primary mission, goals, objectives, and habitat management 

requirements. These activities allow the Refuge to accomplish its management goals and provide for 

the safety of visitors. All programs include a description of the Service and the Refuge System. All of the 

interpretive programs address at least one of a number of wildlife conservations issues relating to 

management, habitat, watershed, wildlife endangered species, invasive species, etc.

Why is the use being proposed? These activities are consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 that promotes environmental education and interpretation as two of six 

primary uses considered appropriate for national wildlife refuges. These activities accomplish Refuge 

goals and promote understanding, appreciation, and support for national wildlife refuges.
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

Availability of Resources

Approximately $320,000 is required to administer this program at current staffing levels, which include a 

half-time Visitor Services Manager and two full-time, permanent Visitor Services Specialists. In addition, 

staff time is required for periodic maintenance and improvement of interpretive signs, trails, 

observation platforms, and exhibits. Shortfalls in permanent Visitor Services staffing are sometimes 

remedied through hiring Student Temporary Employment Program (STEP) students on a seasonal basis 

and recruiting volunteers. The Regional Office periodically uses this Refuge as a training detail for 

Student Career Experience Program (SCEP) students in the Visitor Services program. Volunteers are an 

integral and vital part of the Refuge’s environmental education and interpretation program, staffing the 

Visitor Center and bookstore, hosting special events, leading or co-leading programs, and assisting 

Refuge staff with a variety of other needs.

Every effort is made to meet each request for environmental education and interpretive programs. 

However, staff and funding shortages have curtailed programs and the number of requests often 

exceeds our resources. Based on a review of the current Refuge budget, there is enough funding to 

administer this program at its current reduced level to ensure compatibility with the purposes for which 

the Refuge was established. Strategies to improve the environmental education and interpretive 

program have been identified in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). These strategies include 

hiring another park ranger and maintenance person. Facility improvements in the form of digital 

equipment and products, as well as replacement and redesign of displays are needed. Construction of a 

bunkhouse for the Refuge would assist the Visitor Services program by providing housing for volunteers 

and interns.

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses

Environmental education and interpretation are not expected to have measurable environmental 

impacts on the Refuge, its habitats, or wildlife. Activities are designed to have no impact while providing 

interpretation and education about the work that is done on the Refuge. These activities follow all 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies including: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Title 5 Code of 

Federal Regulations, Service Manual; Refuge System mission, goals, and objectives; and the Refuge goals 

and objectives. 

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Neal Smith NWR CCP and Environmental 

Assessment. Public notification and review includes a notice of availability published in the Federal 

Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. 

Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final CCP.

Determination: Wildlife Interpretation and Outreach, Environmental Education

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

All users must comply with Refuge-specific regulations.

Justification
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144

Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses for the Refuge System as outlined in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). By facilitating these 

uses on the Refuge, we will increase visitor’s knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife, which will 

lead to increased public stewardship of fish and wildlife resources and fulfillment of the mission of the 

Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2027

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 9/17/2012 _

(Signature and Date)

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Tom Worthington, Acting/ 10/31/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

Compatibility Determination

Uses: Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means of access)

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities

Congress established the Refuge on May 25, 1990 by appropriating $6 million for land acquisition 

through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-302). The first major parcel of 

land (about 3,600 acres) was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the Redlands 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Iowa Power in April 1991. Previously, this property had been targeted for a 

nuclear power generating station. A total of 8,655 acres of land south and west of Prairie City, Iowa, are 

included within the approved acquisition boundary. About 5,580 acres have been acquired so far. 

Refuge Purposes

Public Law 101-302 did not describe specific purposes for the Refuge, so its legal purposes are derived 

from the following broad authorities:

“ . . . 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) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

" . . . 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) (Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986)

" . . . conservation, management, and . . . restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans . . . " 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2) 

(National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act)

The intent of Congressman Neal Smith in working to establish the Refuge was clear. He stated in the 

Congressional Record (H2727) that the proposed Refuge would offer “an unusual opportunity for 

interpretive programs, wetlands, a habitat for some 300 species of indigenous and migratory birds, the 

regrowth of many acres of now scarce species of trees, buffalo and elk which were indigenous to the 

area, and the largest native prairie grass fields in Iowa” and that “tens of thousands of school children . . 

. could use the area as an outdoor study area.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 668dd - 668ee])

Description of Uses

What is the use? General public access to observe and/or photograph wildlife and Refuge habitats 
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

including the means of access such as automobile, hiking, bicycling, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, 

and jogging. Under the National Wildlife Improvement Act, of 1997, wildlife observation and 

photography are priority public uses.

Where is the use conducted? These activities may occur anywhere on the Refuge but most often occur in 

the vicinity of roads and visitor use facilities. The Refuge has an auto tour route, paved and gravel 

walking trails, and grass mowed (native) trails that total more than 50 miles of access. A bicycle trail is 

being planned as part of an improvement to the five mile entry road and bicycling will be limited on the 

Refuge to that trail when it is completed. For their safety, the public is not permitted to enter the bison 

enclosure by any other means than an automobile. The native trail system totals over forty miles 

around the perimeter of the Refuge. The distances and lengths of these trails provide an excellent 

opportunity for visitors to get away from the main Visitor Center area and truly enjoy the wide expanses 

of prairie and open space. These native trails are very amenable to optional access modes including 

snow shoeing, cross-country skiing, and jogging. These additional modes of access will allow a diverse 

public more opportunity to enjoy the outdoors without creating adverse impacts to habitat or wildlife. 

These modes of access will increase opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography on the Refuge. 

When is the use conducted? The Visitor Center is open seven days a week except Thanksgiving Day, 

Christmas Day, and New Year’s Day. The Refuge hosts approximately 140,000 people per year. Wildlife 

observation and photography occurs throughout the year, from dawn to dusk. 

How is the use conducted? The use is conducted whenever a visitor drives the roads of the Refuge or 

accesses the trails. Many of the roads that cross through the Refuge are county roads affording wildlife 

observation and photography twenty four hours per day. Trails within the Refuge are open from dawn 

to dusk.

Why is the use being proposed? These activities are consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 that promotes wildlife observation and photography as one of six primary 

uses considered appropriate for national wildlife refuges. These activities accomplish Refuge goals and 

promote understanding, appreciation, and support for national wildlife refuges.

Availability of Resources

Approximately $74,000 is required annually to maintain Refuge roads, trails, and facilities used by the 

public engaged in wildlife observation and photography. The current Refuge budget allows for this level 

of maintenance.

Anticipated Impacts of the Uses

Wildlife observation and photography are not expected to have measurable environmental impacts on 

the Refuge, its habitats, or wildlife. These activities follow all applicable laws, regulations, and policies 

including: Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations, Service Manual; Refuge 

System mission, goals, and objectives; and the Refuge goals and objectives. 

Public Review and Comment

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Neal Smith NWR Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment. Public notification and review includes a notice of availability 

published in the Federal Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a public 

meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final CCP.
Appendix C: Compatibility Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

Determination: Wildlife Observation and Photography (including means of access)

_____ Use is Not Compatible

__X__ Use is Compatible with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

All users must comply with Refuge-specific regulations.

Justification

Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses for the Refuge System as outlined in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). By facilitating these uses 

on the Refuge, we will increase visitor’s knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife, which will lead 

to increased public stewardship of fish and wildlife resources and fulfillment of the mission of the 

Refuge System. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2027

Refuge Manager: /Christy Smith/ 9/17/2012 _

(Signature and Date)

Regional Chief Concurrence: /Tom Worthington, Acting/ 10/31/2012 _

(Signature and Date)
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148

Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

In this appendix:

Bicycling

Dog Walking on Leash

Farming with Genetically Modified Crops

Firewood Cutting and Collection

Haying

Jogging

Mushroom, Nut and Berry Picking

Prescribed Grazing

Research
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Bicycling (means of access)

This exhibit 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: /Christy Smith/ Date: 9/17/2012 _

Justification: This use will provide the public an alternative conveyance to automobiles to view and observe 

wildlife on the Refuge as well as promote fitness and wellness of visitors. This use reduces the carbon footprint for 

the visiting public. This use will be allowed on existing or proposed public use trails outside the bison enclosure.

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. 

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. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

150

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________________ Date:_______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Dog Walking on Leash

This exhibit 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 _X_

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: /Christy Smith/ Date: 9/27/2012 _

Justification: More and more people travel with pets and consider them part of the family. This segment of the 

public is often denied access to refuge trails where wildlife and habitat disturbance from pedestrians is already 

tolerated. If dogs remain on a leash, do not threaten wildlife or people, and the public cleans up the waste, dog 

walking can be considered appropriate on trails within the Refuge. The Refuge will provide dog stations for bags 

and waste disposal.

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(k) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(l) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(m) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(n) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(o) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(p) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(q) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(r) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(s) 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

(t) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152

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: _________________________________________________ Date:_______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Farming with Genetically Modified Crops

This exhibit 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 _X_ 

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: /Christy Smith/ Date: 9/15/2011 

Justification: Farming is used on the Refuge as a place holder to maximize the destruction of seeds from invasive 

or unwanted plant species and to create less competition when lands are converted to prairie. Typically 

cooperators use glyphosate tolerant corn and soybeans prior to reconstruction activities. Farming on Neal Smith 

NWR is phased out on all units within 3 to 5 years of acquisition.

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(u) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(v) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(w) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(x) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(y) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(z) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(aa) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(bb)Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(cc) 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

(dd) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154

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: /Matt Sprenger/ Date: 9/21/2012 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Firewood Cutting and Collection

This exhibit 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: /Christy Smith/ Date: 9/17/2012 

Justification: Trees have invaded areas where prairie and savanna reconstruction and restoration will occur. 

Removal of trees that have been cut down by refuge staff by the public under a special use permit helps to reduce 

fire fuel loads and aids in the restoration of prairie habitats. The public may obtain a special use permit at no cost 

to remove wood from specific areas of the refuge. The person will be issued a special use permit and directed to 

an area where they can collect wood from previously downed trees and/or they may cut downed trees to a size 

that can be transported. Under no circumstance is the public permitted to cut standing trees.

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. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

156

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: _________________________________________________ Date:_______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Haying

This exhibit 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 _X_ 

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: /Christy Smith/ Date: 8/17/2012 

Justification: Haying is a valuable management tool used, inconjunction with mowing, to remove fuels from 

firebreaks. In addition, haying is valuable when used where or when prescribed burns are not feasible or when an 

alternative treatment for vegetative disturbance is desired.

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. 

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. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: /Matt Sprenger/ Date: 8/20/2012 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Jogging

This exhibit 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: /Christy Smith/ Date: 9/17/2012 

Justification: This activity provides a means of access for wildlife observation as well as an opportunity to maintain 

fitness/wellness. The use is wildlife-dependent in that it requires fresh air and open spaces. The jogging public will 

appreciate the experience of being in the tallgrass prairie and viewing the open vistas and wildlife. The use will be 

allowed on existing trails and any new proposed trails.

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. 

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. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________________ Date:_______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Mushroom, Nut and Berry Picking

This exhibit 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: /Christy Smith/ Date: 9/17/2012 

Justification: For a small number of people, this is a traditional, family oriented activity which provides an 

opportunity for those participating to collect wholesome, healthy foods while enjoying the beauty of the natural 

environment. The foods are a renewable resource and the use does not compete with wildlife needs. The use will 

not require additional refuge resources to manage.

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. 

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. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

If found to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________________ Date:_______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Research

This exhibit 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: /Christy Smith/ Date: 9/17/2012 

Justification: Research is conducted by universities and other academic institutions; government agencies, and 

consultants hired by the Service as well as non-profit organizations. Research projects focus on better 

understanding refuge wildlife and habitat resources in relation to construction and restoration activities, provide 

information to improve adaptive management decisions and increase of life history information on wildlife species, 

invasive plants and tallgrass prairie habitats.

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

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. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

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: _________________________________________________ Date:_______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Refuge Name: Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Prescribed Grazing (other than bison and elk)

This exhibit 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: /Christy Smith/ Date: 9/17/2012 

Justification: Prescribed grazing may be used in areas where mowing or burning is not feasible to remove woody 

vegetation or other unwanted vegetative cover. Grazing may also be used to enhance specific attributes in any 

habitat to achieve disturbance or vegetative manipulation. Species considered for management include non-native 

ungulates such as cattle, goats, and/or sheep.

If found to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

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. for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X
Appendix D: Appropriate Use Determinations

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

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: _________________________________________________ Date:_______________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendix E: Floristic Quality Assessment

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

Appendix E: Floristic Quality Assessment

Floristic Quality Assessment is a standardized method to assess quality of a natural area based on its 

plant community. It quantifies the plant community and can be used to compare a site to other sites or 

to determine changes in the same site through time. Each species is given an a priori Coefficient of 

Conservatism (C) based on how specific it is to undisturbed natural areas. Species with high 

conservatism have adapted over long periods to specific sets of conditions, while species with low 

conservatism adapt quickly and are less unique in their requirements, growing under more generalist 

conditions. With the rapid changes in natural areas that took place when European settlers arrived in 

Iowa, such as plowing of the soil, disruption of the fire regime, and intensive grazing, many native 

species were lost from all but the most undisturbed areas. These represent highly conservative plants 

that might be found only in the highest quality natural areas. Still others are weedy native species that 

may be found almost anywhere. The latter represent species with low conservatism. All plant species in 

Iowa have been given a C value between 0 and 10. A C value of 0 (for example, tall goldenrod, Solidago 

altissima) means that there is 0 percent confidence that the species was found in a natural area—it 

could be found anywhere. A C of 10 (for example white prairie-clover, Dalea candida) represents a 

species with 100 percent chance that the species was found in a high quality natural area. Areas with 

large aggregations of conservative plants are more representative of natural conditions that existed 

prior to European settlement. Highly disturbed areas influenced by humans are more likely to be 

dominated by less conservative or weedy species. While conservatism is not the same as rarity, most 

conservative plants are not common, because there are so few natural areas in Iowa.

The first measure that can be calculated is the mean Coefficient of Conservatism:
Appendix E: Floristic Quality Assessment

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

been used to quantify natural areas include species diversity or richness. While a high quality site may 

have a large number of species, increasing the number of species in a low-quality site may not represent 

an increase in quality. A large number of species with low conservatism do not represent high quality. 

FQI incorporates not only the number of the species, but the conservatism of the species into a metric 

that is more indicative of site quality.

FQI can be used to assess each remnant or unit independently, or as a sum of all sites combined. It can 

be weighted based on the percent cover of each species or using only presence/absence data.
Appendix F: Bibliography

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

Appendix F: Bibliography

Askins, R. A., F. Chávez-Ramírez, B. C. Dale, C. A. Haas, J. R. Herkert, F. L. Knopf, P. D. Vickery. 2007. 

“Conservation of Grassland Birds in North America: Understanding Ecological Processes in Different 

Regions: Report of the AOU Committee on Conservation.” Ornithological Monographs, No. 64, pp. iii–

viii, 1–46. Published by: University of California Press for the American Ornithologists' Union.

Bailey, R. G.; Avers, P. E.; King, T.; McNab, W. H., eds. 1994. Ecoregions and subregions of the United 

States (map). Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. 1:7,500,000. With supplementary table of map 

unit descriptions, compiled and edited by W. H. McNab and R. G. Bailey.

Brawn, J. D. 1998. Effects of oak savanna restoration on avian populations and communities in Illinois. 

Final Report to Illinois Natural History Survey.

Brawn, J. D. 2006. “Effects of Restoring Oak Savannas on Bird Communities and Populations.” 

Conservation Biology 20: pp. 460–469.

Brennan, L. A. and W. P. Kuvlesky, Jr. 2005. “North American Grassland Birds: An Unfolding 

Conservation Crisis?” The Journal of Wildlife Management 69: pp. 1–13.

Carver E. and J. Caudill, PhD. 2007. Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. USFWS, Washington, D.C.

Cummings, D.C., S.D. Fuhlendorf, and D.M. Engle. 2007. “Is altering grazing selectivity of invasive forage 

species with patch burning more effective than herbicide treatments?” Rangeland Ecol Manage 60: pp. 

253–260.

Davis, M.A., D. W. Peterson, P. B. Reich, M. Crozier, T. Query, E. Mitchell, J. Huntington, and P. Bazakas. 

2000. “Restoring savanna using fire: Impact on the breeding bird community.” Restoration Ecology 8: 

pp. 30–40.

Dinsmore, J.J. 1994. A Country So Full of Game: the Story of Wildlife in Iowa. Univ. of Iowa Press, Iowa 

City. p. 249.

Drobney, P.M and S.J. Bryant. 1991. Walnut Creek National Wildlife Refuge Native Plant Community 

Assessment. Compass Plant Consultants, Cedar Falls, IA.

Fuhlendorf, S.D. and D.M. Engle. 2001. “Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: Ecosystem 

management based on evolutionary grazing patterns.” BioScience 51: pp. 625–632.

Fuhlendorf, S.D. and D.M. Engle. 2004. “Application of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a shifting 

mosaic on tallgrass prairie.” Journal of Applied Ecology 41: pp. 604–614.

Fuhlendorf, S.D., W.C. Harrell, D.M. Engle, R.G. Hamilton, C.A. Davis, and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 2006. “Should 

heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing.” Ecological 

Applications 16: pp. 1706–1716.
Appendix F: Bibliography

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

Grundel, R. and N.B. Pavlovic. 2007. “Distinctiveness, use, and value of Midwestern oak savannas and 

woodlands as avian habitats.” Auk 124(3): pp. 969-985.

Hoekstra, J. M., T. M. Boucher, T. H. Ricketts, and C. Roberts. 2005. “Confronting a biome crisis: Global 

disparities of habitat loss and protection.” Ecological Letters 8: pp. 23–29.

Hudak, G.J., T.M Halloran, D.R. Henning, C.M. Hudak, B.B. Long. 1991. Cultural resource investigation of 

the Walnut Creek National Wildlife Refuge study area, Jasper County Iowa. USFWS Contract #14-16-

0010-89-004, Malcolm Pirnie Inc., Minneapolis, MN.

Iowa Climate Change Impacts Committee (ICCIC). 2011. Climate Change Impacts on Iowa 2010. Report 

to the Governor and the Iowa General Assembly.

Kagima, B. W. 2008. Habitat selection and diet of native ungulates in an ongoing tallgrass prairie 

reconstruction effort. M.S. thesis, Iowa State University, Ames. p. 64.

Klaas, E.E. and T.R. Bishop. 1995. Acquisition and development of biological and geographical spatial 

data for Walnut Creek National Wildlife Refuge, 1990-1994. Final Report to Walnut Creek NWR. 

Cooperative Agreement 14-16-0009-1560 RWO No. 29.

Knapp, A.K., J.M. Blair, J.M. Briggs, S.L. Collins, D.C. Hartnett, L.C. Johnson, and E.G. Towne. 1999. “The 

keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie.” BioScience 49: pp. 39–50.

Lyons, J.E, M.C. Runge, H.P. Laskowski, and W.L. Kendall. 2008. “Monitoring in the context of structured 

decision-making and adaptive management.” Journal of Wildlife Management 72(8): pp. 1683–1692.

Martin, L.M., K.A. Moloney, and B.J. Wilsey. 2005. “An assessment of grassland restoration success 

using species diversity components.” Journal of Applied Ecology 42: pp. 327–336.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2010. Resource Sheet 1: Streambank erosion and 

restoration. Stream Habitat Program, St Paul, MN.

Noss, R. F., E. T. Laroe III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A 

preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. National Biological Service, 

Washington, D.C.

Nuzzo, V.A. 1986. “Extent and status of midwest oak savanna: presettlement and 1985.” Natural Areas 

Journal. 6: pp. 6-36.

Olechnowski, B.F.M., D.M. Debinski, P. Drobney, K. Viste-Sparkman, and W. T. Reed. 2009. “Changes in 

vegetation structure through time in a restored tallgrass prairie ecosystem and implications for avian 

diversity and community composition.” Ecological Restoration 27: pp. 449–457.

Plumb, G.E., and J.L. Dodd. 1993. “Foraging ecology of bison and cattle on a mixed prairie: Implications 

for natural area management.” Ecological Applications 3: pp. 631–643.

Prior, Jean C. 1991. Landforms of Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA. 
Appendix F: Bibliography

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North 

American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2009. Version 3.23.2011 USGS Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Schilling, K.E. and C.F. Wolter. 2000. “Application of GPS and GIS to map channel features in Walnut 

Creek, Iowa.” Journal American Water Resources Assn. 36: pp.1423–1434.

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/Browse/walnutcr/WALNUTCR.HTM

Schilling, K.E., T. Hubbard, J. Juzier, and J. Spooner. 2006. “Walnut Creek watershed restoration and 

water quality monitoring project: Final Report.” Iowa Geological Survey, Technical Information Series 49. 

Iowa DNR.

Schilling, K.E., Isenhart, T.M., Palmer, J.A., Wolter, C.F. and Spooner, J. 2011. “Impacts of land-cover 

change on suspended sediment transport in two agricultural watersheds.” Journal of the American 

Water Resources Assn. 47: pp. 672-686.

Schilling, K.E. and P. Drobney, M.D. Tomer, M.J. Helmers, P. Jacobson, T.M. Isenhart, R.C. Schultz. 2012. 

“Progress toward hydrologic restoration at Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge, Jasper County, Iowa.” 

Iowa DNR and USFWS.

Sexton, N.R., A.M. Dietsch, A.W. Don Carlos, L. Koontz, A. Solomon, and H. Miller. 2011. National Wildlife

Refuge visitor survey 2010/2011: Individual refuge results for Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge. USGS 

Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Shepherd, S. and D. M. Debinski. 2005. “Reintroduction of regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) to a restored 

prairie.” Ecological Restoration 23: pp. 244–250.

Smith, Daryl D. 1998. “Iowa Prairie: Original Extent and Loss, Preservation and Recovery Attempts.” J 

Iowa Acad Sci 105(3): pp. 94–108. 

Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. 4th ed. Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois. 

pp. 11–18.

Thomas, L.H. 1999. Breeding birds of a large-scale tallgrass prairie restoration in Iowa: Monitoring 

abundance and frequency of occurrence. M.S. thesis, Iowa State University, Ames. p. 58.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Soil Survey of Jasper County, Iowa. 

National Cooperative Soil Survey.

U.S. DOE. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development Report. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008. Bison Conservation Initiative. Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Walnut Creek National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan. Jasper 

County, IA.
Appendix F: Bibliography

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Fenced Animal Management Plan. Neal Smith National Wildlife 

Refuge, Prairie City, IA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Chronic wasting disease contingency plan for Neal Smith National 

Wildlife Refuge. Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge, Prairie City, IA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. p. 258.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. p. 85. 

[Online version available at <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Structured Decision Making: Fact Sheet. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/science/doc/structured_decision_making_factsheet.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Wildland fire management plan, Neal Smith National Wildlife 

Refuge. Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region.

Wilhelm, G. and D. Ladd. 1988. “Natural area assessment in the Chicago region.” Trans. 53rd. North 

American Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. pp. 361–375.

Will, Tom. 2012. Personal communication.

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2007. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of 

Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Wydeven, A.P. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1983. “Food Habits of Elk in the Northern Great Plains.” The Journal 

of Wildlife Management 47: pp. 916–923.
Appendix G: Summary of Refuge Ecosystems

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173

Appendix G: Summary of Refuge Ecosystems

Ecosystems Characteristic plant species Characteristic wildlife species Natural processes 

responsible for 

these conditions

Limiting factors/threats

Tallgrass 

Prairie

Dry: Yellow Star Grass, Fringed 

Puccoon, Creamy Indigo, Little 

Bluestem, Rough Dropseed, Prairie 

Dropseed, Side Oats Grama, Downy 

Gentian, Sand Milkweed. Mesic: Lead 

Plant, Big Bluestem, Indian Grass, 

Hoary Puccoon, Butterfly Milkweed, 

Switch Grass, Rough Blazingstar, 

White Prairie Clover, Downy Gentian, 

Prairie Lily, Alum Root, Prairie 

Potentilla, Prairie Violet. 

Birds: Northern Harrier, Upland Sandpiper, Shorteared Owl, Sedge Wren, Field Sparrow, Grasshopper 

Sparrow, Henslow's Sparrow, Dickcissel, Bobolink, 

Eastern and Western Meadowlarks. Mammals: 

Short-tailed Shrew, Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel, 

Plains Pocket Gopher, Prairie Vole, Meadow Vole, 

Badger, Bobcat, Elk, Bison. Reptiles: Western 

Smooth Green Snake, Bull snake. Butterflies: 

Regal Fritillary, Monarch, Wild Indigo Duskywing, 

Arogos Skipper, Byssus Skipper. Crustacea: 

Prairie Crayfish (Procambarus gracilis).

Frequent fire, 

grazing, pollination, 

seed dispersal, 

hydrologic process, 

migration, nutrient 

cycling, carbon 

cycling, 

reproduction.

Invasive species; invasion 

by fire intolerant woody 

vegetation; altered 

hydrology; erosion; climate 

change.

Oak Savanna Bur Oak, Blue-eyed Grass, Leather 

Flower, Creamy Gentian, Downy 

Brome, Wood Reed Grass, Yellow 

False Foxglove, Violet Wood Sorrel, 

Dutchman's Breeches, Bloodroot, Lead 

Plant, Culver's Root, Purple Milkweed, 

Elm-leaved Goldenrod.

Birds: Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Red-headed 

Woodpecker, Northern Flicker, Loggerhead Shrike, 

Bell's Vireo, Tufted Titmouse, Blue Jay, Eastern 

Bluebird, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow, Orchard 

Oriole, Baltimore Oriole. Mammals: Indiana Bat, 

Evening Bat, Southern Flying Squirrel, Fox Squirrel, 

Bobcat, Elk. Reptiles: Bull snake, Fox Snake. 

Butterflies: Hickory Hairstreak, Monarch. 

Frequent fire, 

grazing, pollination, 

seed dispersal, 

hydrologic process, 

migration, nutrient 

cycling, carbon 

cycling, 

reproduction.

Invasive species; invasion 

by fire intolerant woody 

vegetation due to lack of 

fire; lack of fine fuel matrix; 

lack of sunlight penetrating 

to understory; climate 

change.

Sedge 

Meadow

Blue Flag Iris, Prairie Milkweed, Marsh 

Milkweed, Bottle Gentian, Prairie Cord 

Grass, Tussock Sedge, Michigan lily, 

New England Aster, Great Blue Lobelia, 

Rattlesnake master, Giant St. John's 

Wort, Mad Dog Skullcap.

Birds: Northern Harrier, Short-eared Owl, Sedge 

Wren. Mammals: Masked Shrew, Indiana Bat, 

Meadow Jumping Mouse. Amphibians: Tiger 

Salamander, Blanchard's Cricket Frog. Reptiles: 

Western Smooth Green Snake. Butterflies: 

Monarch, Dion Skipper, Two-spotted Skipper. 

Crustacea: Prairie Crayfish (Procambarus gracilis ).

Frequent fire, 

grazing, pollination, 

seed dispersal, 

hydrologic process, 

migration, nutrient 

cycling, carbon 

cycling, 

reproduction.

Invasive species; invasion 

by fire intolerant woody 

vegetation; altered 

hydrology including drain 

tiles, erosion; climate 

change.

Aquatic 

Systems

Birds: Wood Duck, Great Blue Heron, Belted 

Kingfisher. Mammals: River Otter, Beaver. Reptiles: 

Common Snapping Turtle Amphibians: Tiger 

Salamander, Blanchard's Cricket Frog. Fish: 

Northern hog sucker, Slenderhead darter. Insects: 

Odonata: Dragonflies and damselflies.

Hydrologic 

process, migration, 

nutrient cycling, 

carbon cycling, 

reproduction.

Hydrologic alteration 

including drain tiles, 

erosion, siltation; pollution 

from agricultural runoff; 

climate change.

Aerial 

Ecosystem

Aerially dispersing and wind pollinated 

plants (grasses, oaks).

Aerial feeders (Tree Swallow, Cliff Swallow, Barn 

Swallow, Purple Martin, Chimney Swift, Common 

Nighthawk, bats), migratory birds and bats, 

grassland birds, flying insects

Pollination, 

migration, nutrient 

cycling, carbon 

cycling, 

reproduction.

Air pollution, wind turbines, 

power lines, light pollution, 

communication towers.
Appendix H: Birds of Special Consideration

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174

Appendix H: Birds of Special Consideration

Species

Breeding

Sp S F W

Federal Status

USFWS Focal 

Species

State Status

Region 3 Priority 

Species (MSH/UMR)

BCR 22 (Eastern 

Tallgrass Prairie) 

BCC 2008 List, 

USFWS

Iowa DNR SGCN

Shortgrass Prairie

Tallgrass Prairie

Sedge Meadow

Oak Savanna

Shrubland

Habitat preference

Wood Duck x u u u FS x x Water with trees and nest cavities nearby

Greater Prairie-Chicken x x Large grassland tracts with varying vegetation heights

Northern Bobwhite x o o o o x x x Medium height grasslands w/shrubs & forbs

Northern Harrier x u r u u E x x x x Large grassland tracts 

Swainson’s Hawk o r x x x x Savanna (breeding) or grassland (foraging)

American Kestrel x u u u u x Savanna (breeding) or grassland (foraging)

Upland Sandpiper x o o r FS x x x x x x x Short-to-medium height grasslands w/forbs

Barn Owl x E x x x Savanna (breeding) or grassland (foraging)

Short-eared Owl x u r u u E x x x x x Large grassland tracts

Red-headed Woodpecker x u u r r x x x x x Oak savanna

Northern Flicker x c c c u x x x x Oak savanna

Willow Flycatcher x u c x x x x x Shrubs or thickets in grasslands

Eastern Kingbird x c c u x x x Shrubs or thickets in grasslands or savannas

Loggerhead Shrike x o r o r S x x x x x x Thorny shrubs/trees in savanna/grasslands

Bell’s Vireo x u c o x x x x x x Thickets in savanna/grasslands

Sedge Wren x a a c x x x x Tall grass infrequently disturbed

Eastern Bluebird x u u u r x x Oak savanna

Brown Thrasher x c c u x x x x Shrubs or thickets in grasslands or savannas

Smith's Longspur o o x x x Short, sparse vegetation

Yellow-breasted Chat x o o x x x x x Dense, overgrown, brushy grasslands

Eastern Towhee x u u o r x x x Brushy wooded edge or savanna

Clay-colored Sparrow o o x x x x Grassland w/shrubs

Field Sparrow x a a c x x x x x x Grassland w/shrubs

Savannah Sparrow c c x x Short to medium height grass

Grasshopper Sparrow x a a u x x x x x Short grass (arid grasslands) w/forbs

Henslow’s Sparrow x c c o S FS T x x x x Tall grass and infrequent disturbance

Le Conte’s Sparrow r u x x x x Tall grass, wetlands

Dickcissel x a a u x x x x Medium height or tall grass w/forbs

Bobolink x u u r x x x x Medium height grass w/forbs

Eastern Meadowlark x a a c x x x Grassland or open savanna

Western Meadowlark x u u u o x x x Short grass w/forbs

Orchard Oriole x u u x x x Thickets in savanna/grasslands

Baltimore Oriole x c c u x Oak savanna
Appendix I: Invasive Plants

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175

Appendix I: Invasive Plants

Common name Scientific 

name

Biological 

characteristics

Response to 

fire

Control method Extent on Refuge

Russian 

olive/autumn 

olive

Elaeagnus 

angustifolia, E. 

umbellata

Woody; perennial; 

nitrogen-fixing; seeds 

spread by birds; shadetolerant

Mature trees 

tolerant

Herbicide treatment—

basal bark or cut 

stump

Small, isolated populations. 

Present in Savanna 

Reconstruction Unit, 

Rothinghouse property

Shrub lespedeza Lespedeza 

bicolor

Herbaceous/semiwoody; perennial; 

clonal

Fire-adapted Herbicide treatment Dense population present in 

one unit (Old Game Farm)

Sericea lespedeza Lespedeza 

cuneata

Herbaceous forb; 

perennial; clonal; warm

season; allelopathic*

Fire-adapted Chemical treatment—

Triclopyr (Garlon 4)

Widespread small 

populations, isolated 

individuals or small clumps

Bush honeysuckle Lonicera sp. Woody; perennial; 

shade-tolerant; seeds 

spread by birds

Intolerant Herbicide treatment—

cut stump

Primarily in oak savannas

White poplar Populus alba Woody; perennial; 

clonal 

Fire may 

increase 

suckering

Girdling, herbicide 

treatment—basal bark 

or cut stump

Isolated in Dogleg unit in 

about three patches

Black locust Robinia 

pseudoacacia

Woody; perennial; 

clonal

Fire increases 

suckering

Herbicide treatment—

basal bark or cut 

stump

Small clumps in several 

plantings, one large area in 

Highpoint along both sides 

of the Refuge boundary;

primarily associated with 

former home sites

Japanese 

raspberry

Rubus 

parvifolius

Woody; perennial; 

clonal; Shade-tolerant

Intolerant Herbicide treatment Only known to be in one 

isolated population on the 

Refuge; small population on 

roadside near Refuge

Garlic mustard Alliaria 

petiolata

Herbaceous forb; 

biennial; cool season; 

shade-tolerant

Intolerant Early detection/rapid 

response -- hand 

pulling, cool season 

burning

Present in central Iowa, but 

not found on Refuge

Spotted 

knapweed

Centaurea 

maculosa

Herbaceous forb; 

perennial; clonal; 

allelopathic

Intolerant of 

annual burns

Early detection/rapid 

response, herbicide

Present in central Iowa, but 

not found on Refuge

Cut-leaved 

teasel/Common 

teasel

Dipsacus 

laciniatus/D. 

sylvestris

Herbaceous forb; 

biennial/ short-lived 

perennial

Intolerant Early detection/rapid 

response, cutting, 

mowing, burning

Not known to be present on 

Refuge

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Herbaceous forb; 

perennial; clonal

Tolerant Early detection/rapid 

response, herbicide 

treatment

Present in central Iowa, but 

not found on Refuge

Purple loosestrife Lythrum 

salicaria

Herbaceous forb; 

perennial; clonal

Intolerant Early detection/rapid 

response, herbicides, 

biocontrols

Present close to Refuge

European 

buckthorn

Rhamnus 

cathartica

Woody; perennial; 

seeds spread by birds

Fire controls 

seedlings, topkills mature 

plants

Early detection/rapid 

response, herbicides

Present in central Iowa, but 

not found on Refuge

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Herbaceous forb; 

perennial; clonal; cool

season

Intolerant Repeated mowing 

prior to bloom, 

chemical treatment 

during bud, cool

season burning

Widespread patches, but 

only in certain plantings

Crown vetch Coronilla varia Herbaceous forb; 

perennial; clonal

Intolerant Burning, mowing, 

herbicide treatment

Small patches, mostly along 

roadsides

White & yellow 

sweet clovers

Melilotus alba, 

M. officinalis

Herbaceous forb; 

biennial; seeds may 

remain viable for 

decades

Fire intolerant, 

but fire 

stimulates seed 

germination

Mowing during bloom 

stage, hand-pulling, 

burning

Widespread patches

Silvergrass, 

plumegrass

Miscanthus 

sacchariflorus

Herbaceous grass; 

Perennial; clonal; warm

Tolerant Cool season burning, 

herbicide treatment, 

Isolated patches primarily 

associated with former 
Appendix I: Invasive Plants

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

Common name Scientific 

name

Biological 

characteristics

Response to 

fire

Control method Extent on Refuge

season mowing to prevent 

seed production

home sites (3 locations)

Smooth brome Bromus inermis Herbaceous 

grass; perennial; clonal; 

cool season

Intolerant Cool season burning, 

inter-seeding

Widespread in former 

pastures and in prairie 

plantings and remnants

Tall fescue Festuca 

arundinacea

Herbaceous grass; 

perennial; clonal; cool

season; allelopathic

Intolerant Cool season burning, 

interseeding, herbicide 

treatment

Present on Refuge primarily 

in waterways

Bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus

corniculatus

Herbaceous forb; 

perennial; clonal; cool

season

Intolerant but 

seeds 

germination 

increases

Burning, hand-pulling, 

herbicide treatment

Localized in disturbed areas, 

primarily around Visitor 

Center

Alfalfa Medicago 

sativa

Herbaceous forb; 

perennial; clonal; cool

season

Intolerant Burning Scattered locations

Reed canarygrass Phalaris 

arundinacea

Herbaceous grass; 

perennial; clonal; cool

season

Intolerant Burning, herbicide 

treatment

Widespread along Walnut 

creek, smaller drainages and 

wet areas, and isolated 

clumps in uplands

Kentucky 

bluegrass

Poa pratensis Herbaceous grass; 

perennial; clonal; cool

season

Intolerant Cool season burning, 

interseeding

Widespread, especially in 

disturbed areas

Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Woody; perennial;

clonal

Intolerant Burning, mowing, 

herbicide treatment

Scattered in some prairie 

and savanna remnants

Red clover Trifolium 

pratense

Herbaceous forb; 

perennial; clonal; cool

season

Intolerant Cool season burning Widespread, especially in 

disturbed areas

Musk thistle Carduus nutans Herbaceous forb; 

biennial; cool season

Intolerant Mowing or cutting at 

crown level

Scattered individual plants 

and isolated patches

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Herbaceous forb; 

biennial

Intolerant Mowing or cutting at 

crown

Scattered individual plants

Poison hemlock Conium 

maculatum

Herbaceous forb; 

biennial

Intolerant Cutting at crown, 

burning

Isolated patches primarily 

associated with former 

home sites

Queen Anne’s 

lace

Daucus carota Herbaceous forb;

biennial

Intolerant Hand pulling, mowing Concentrated in disturbed 

areas around buildings, 

roads, and in grazed areas

Wild parsnip Pastinaca sativa Herbaceous forb; 

biennial

Intolerant Cutting at crown level, 

burning

Widespread scattered plants

Curly dock Rumex crispus Herbaceous forb; 

biennial

Intolerant Cool season burning Widespread, scattered 

plants
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

177

Appendix J: Species Lists

In this appendix

J.1Neal Smith NWR Bird Checklist

J.2 Neal Smith NWR Butterflies

J.3 Neal Smith NWR Mammals

J.4 Neal Smith NWR Reptiles (likely to occur)

J.5 Neal Smith NWR Amphibians

J.6 Neal Smith NWR Plants

J.1 Neal Smith NWR Bird Checklist

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Swans, Geese and Ducks Jays and Crows

Greater White-fronted Goose r r Blue Jay* a a a a

Snow Goose o r American Crow* c c c c

Canada Goose (resident) u u o o Larks

Canada goose (migratory) u u o Horned Lark* c c c c

Cackling Goose o o Swallows

Wood Duck* u u u Purple Martin o o

Gadwall o r Tree Swallow* c c u

American Wigeon o o Northern Rough-winged Swallow* o o r

Mallard* u u u u Bank Swallow o o r

Blue-winged Teal o o o Cliff Swallow* a a c

Northern Shoveler o o Barn Swallow* a a c

Northern Pintail o o Chickadees and Titmice

Green-winged Teal o o Black-capped Chickadee* a a a a

Hooded Merganser r Tufted Titmouse* r r r r

Quails Nuthatches

Northern Bobwhite* o o o o Red-breasted Nuthatch r r

Grouse and Turkeys White-breasted Nuthatch* a a a a

Gray Partridge r r r r Creepers

Ring-necked Pheasant* a a a a Brown Creeper u u u

Wild Turkey* u u u u Wrens

Grebes Winter Wren o o

Pied-billed Grebe r r House Wren* a a c

Cormorants Sedge Wren* a a c

Double-crested Cormorant o o Marsh Wren o o

Pelicans Gnatcatchers

American White Pelican o o Blue-gray Gnatcatcher* c c u

Herons and Bitterns Kinglets

Great Blue Heron u u u Golden-crowned Kinglet u u o

Great Egret r r Ruby-crowned Kinglet c c

Cattle Egret r r Thrushes

Green Heron o o Eastern Bluebird* u u u r

Vultures Veery o
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Turkey Vulture u u u Gray-cheeked Thrush o r

Ospreys Swainson’s Thrush u o

Osprey r r Hermit Thrush u u

Hawks and Eagles Wood Thrush* r r r

Bald Eagle o o o o American Robin* a a a o

Northern Harrier u r u u Mockingbirds and Thrashers

Sharp-shinned Hawk o o o Gray Catbird* a a a

Cooper’s Hawk o r o o Northern Mockingbird r r

Broad-winged Hawk o r Brown Thrasher* c c u

Swainson’s Hawk o r Starlings

Red-tailed Hawk* c c c c European Starling* c c c c

Rough-legged Hawk u u u Waxwings

Falcons Cedar Waxwing* c c c r

American Kestrel* u u u u Longspurs

Merlin r Lapland Longspur u u o

Prairie Falcon r Smith's Longspur o o

Peregrine Falcon r Snow Bunting o

Rails and Coots Wood Warblers

Sora o o o Blue-winged Warbler r r

American Coot o o Golden-winged Warbler r r r

Cranes Tennessee Warbler u r u

Sandhill Crane r r r Orange-crowned Warbler o o

Plovers Nashville Warbler u o u

American Golden-Plover r Northern Parula o o

Killdeer* a a a Yellow Warbler* c c o

Sandpipers Chestnut-sided Warbler o r o

Spotted Sandpiper* o o r Magnolia Warbler u r u

Solitary Sandpiper o r r Cape May Warbler r r r

Greater Yellowlegs r r r Yellow-rumped Warbler c c

Lesser Yellowlegs o r o Black-throated Green Warbler o r o

Upland Sandpiper* o o r Blackburnian Warbler o r o

Least Sandpiper r r r Palm Warbler o o

Pectoral Sandpiper o r o Bay-breasted Warbler r r

Wilson's Snipe u o o Blackpoll Warbler o r

American Woodcock* u u u Cerulean Warbler r r

Gulls and Terns Black-and-white Warbler u o u

Franklin’s Gull o o American Redstart u o u

Ring-billed Gull u u u Ovenbird o r o

Herring Gull o o o Northern Waterthrush o o

Black Tern r Mourning Warbler r r

Pigeons and Doves Common Yellowthroat* a a c

Rock Pigeon* u u u u Wilson’s Warbler o o o

Mourning Dove* a a c u Canada Warbler o r o

Cuckoos Yellow-breasted Chat* o o

Yellow-billed Cuckoo* u u u Sparrows
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

179

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Black-billed Cuckoo o o r Spotted Towhee r

Barn Owls Eastern Towhee* u u o r

Barn Owl x American Tree Sparrow c c a

Owls Chipping Sparrow* c u u

Eastern Screech-Owl r r r r Clay-colored Sparrow o o

Great Horned Owl* u u u u Field Sparrow* a a c

Snowy Owl x Vesper Sparrow* u u u

Barred Owl* u u u u Lark Sparrow* u u

Short-eared Owl* u r u u Savannah Sparrow c c

Nightjars Grasshopper Sparrow* a a u

Common Nighthawk* o o o Henslow’s Sparrow* u u o

Swifts Le Conte’s Sparrow r u

Chimney Swift* o o o Fox Sparrow u u

Hummingbirds Song Sparrow* a a a u

Ruby-throated Hummingbird* u u u Lincoln’s Sparrow u u

Kingfishers Swamp Sparrow u u

Belted Kingfisher* u u u r White-throated Sparrow c c r

Woodpeckers Harris’s Sparrow u u

Red-headed Woodpecker* u u r r White-crowned Sparrow u u

Red-bellied Woodpecker* c c c c Dark-eyed Junco a a a

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker o o r Tanagers and Buntings

Downy Woodpecker* c c c c Summer Tanager r

Hairy Woodpecker* u u u u Scarlet Tanager o r o

Northern Flicker* c c c u Northern Cardinal* c c c c

Pileated Woodpecker r r r r Rose-breasted Grosbeak* c c u

Flycatchers Indigo Bunting* a a u

Olive-sided Flycatcher o r Dickcissel* a a u

Eastern Wood-Pewee* c c c Blackbirds and Orioles

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher o r o Bobolink* u u r

Acadian Flycatcher r r Red-winged Blackbird* a a a o

Alder Flycatcher r r Eastern Meadowlark* a a c

Willow Flycatcher* u c Western Meadowlark* u u u o

Least Flycatcher o r o Yellow-headed Blackbird r

Eastern Phoebe* u u u Rusty Blackbird r r r

Great Crested Flycatcher* u c u Brewer's Blackbird r

Western Kingbird r r Common Grackle* c c c r

Eastern Kingbird* c c u Brown-headed Cowbird* c a a r

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher x Orchard Oriole* u u

Shrikes Baltimore Oriole* c c u

Loggerhead Shrike* o r o r Finches

Northern Shrike r r Purple Finch u o o

Vireos House Finch* o o o o

White-eyed Vireo x Common Redpoll x

Bell’s Vireo* u c o Pine Siskin o o o

Yellow-throated Vireo* u u o American Goldfinch* a a a c
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

180

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Species and Abundance

SpringSummerFallWinter

Blue-headed Vireo o o Old World Sparrows

Warbling Vireo* c c u House Sparrow* u u u u

Philadelphia Vireo r r r

Red-eyed Vireo* u c u

a=abundant, c=common, u=uncommon, o=occasional, r=rare

* asterisk indicates nesting on the Refuge has occurred

J.2 Neal Smith NWR Butterflies

Neal Smith NWR Butterflies

Swallowtails

Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Giant Swallowtail Papilio cresphontes

Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus

Whites and Sulphurs

Cabbage White Pieris rapae Clouded Sulphur Colias philodice

Orange Sulphur Colias eurytheme Cloudless Sulphur Phoebis sennae

Little Yellow Eurema lisa Dainty Sulphur Nathalis iole

Harvesters, Coppers, Hairstreaks and Blues

Great Gray Copper Lycaena xanthoides Striped Hairstreak Satyrium liparops

Harvester Feniseca tarquinius 'Olive' Juniper Hairstreak Callophrys gryneus gryneus

Bronze Copper Lycaena hylius Gray Hairstreak Strymon melinus

Gray Copper Lycaena dione Eastern Tailed-Blue Everes comyntas

Coral Hairstreak Satyrium titus Spring Azure Celastrina ladon

Banded Hairstreak Satryium calanus Summer Azure Celastrina ladon neglecta

Hickory Hairstreak Satyrium caryaevorum

Brushfoots

American Snout Libytheana carinenta American Lady Vanessa virginiensis

Variegated Fritillary Euptoiera claudia Painted Lady Vanessa cardui

Great Spangled Fritillary Speyeria cybele Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta

Aphrodite Fritillary Speyeria aphrodite Common Buckeye Junonia coenia

Regal Fritillary Speyeria idalia Red-spotted Purple Limentis artimis astyanax

Meadow Fritillary Bororia bellona Viceroy Limenitis archippus

Gorgone Checkerspot Chlosyne gornone Hackberry Emperor Asterocampa celtis

Silvery Checkerspot Chlosyne nycteis Tawny Emperor Asterocampa clyton

Pearl Crescent Phyciodes tharos Northern Pearly-eye Enodia anthedon

Question Mark Polygonia interrogationis Little Wood-Satyr Megisto cymela

Eastern Comma Polygonia comma Common Wood-Nymph Cercyonis pegala

Gray Comma Polygonia progne Monarch Danaus plexippus

Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa

Skippers

Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus clarus Little Glassywing Pompeius verna

Common CheckeredSkipperPyrgus communis Delaware Skipper Anatrylone logan

Common Sootywing Pholisora catullus Byssus Skipper Problema byssus

Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor Hobomok Skipper Poanes hobomok

European Skipper Thymelicus lineola Sedge or Dion Skipper Euphyes dion
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

181

Neal Smith NWR Butterflies

Tawny-edged Skipper Polites themistocles Dun Skipper Euphyes vestris

Northern Broken-Dash Wallengrenia egeremet

J.3 Neal Smith NWR Mammals

Neal Smith NWR Mammals

Virginia Opossum* Didelphis virginiana White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus

Masked Shrew* Sorex cinereus Deer Mouse Peromyscus maculatus

Short-tailed Shrew* Blarina brevicauda Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis House Mouse Mus musculus

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus

Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus Coyote Canis latrans

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Raccoon Procyon lotor

Evening Bat Nycticeius humeralis Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Least Weasel Mustela nivalis

Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Mink Mustela vison

Woodchuck Marmota momax River Otter Lutra canadensis

Thirteen-lined Ground 

Squirrel

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus

Badger Taxidea taxus

Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans Bobcat Lynx rufus

Plains Pocket Gopher Perognathus flavescens Elk** Cervus elaphus

Beaver Castor canadensis White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis Bison** Bison bison

** indicates captive species introduced to enclosure at Neal Smith NWR.

J.4 Neal Smith NWR Reptiles (likely to occur)

Neal Smith NWR Reptiles (likely to occur)

Turtles

Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii

Western Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta bellii Spiny Softshell Turtle Apalone spinifera

Snakes

Northern Water Snake Nerodia sipedon Prairie Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus arnyi

Grahams’ Crayfish Snake Regina grahamii Eastern Yellowbelly Racer Coluber constrictor flaviventris

Brown (DeKay’s) Snake Storeria dekayi Red Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum syspila

Northern Lined Snake Tropidoclonion lineatum 

lineatum

Bullsnake Pituophis catenifer sayi

Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Fox Snake Elaphe vulpina

Plains Garter Snake Thamnophis radix Black Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta

Western Ribbon Snake Thamnophis proximus 

proximus

Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platyrhinos

Western Smooth Green 

Snake

Opheodrys vernalis blanchardi
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

182

J.5 Neal Smith NWR Amphibians

Neal Smith NWR Amphibians

Salamanders

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Frogs and Toads

Blanchard’s Cricket Frog Acris crepitans blanchardi American Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

American Toad Bufo americanus Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens

Eastern Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor Pickerel Frog Rana palustris

Cope’s Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis Plains Leopard Frog** Rana blairi

Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata Green Frog** Rana clamitans

** indicates species not confirmed, but likely to occur

J.6 Neal Smith NWR Plants

Neal Smith NWR Plants

Ferns

Adiantum pedatum Northern maidenhair fern Equisetum hyemale v. affine Common scouring-rush

Athyrium filix-femina v. angustum Northern lady fern Equisetum laevigatum Smooth scouring-rush

Equisetum arvense Common horsetail Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern

Forbs

Abutilon theophrasti Buttonweed Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush

Achillea millefolium ssp. lanulosa Western yarrow Lactuca canadensis Wild lettuce

Acorus calamus Sweetflag Lactuca floridana Blue lettuce

Agalinis tenuifolia Slender false foxglove Lactuca ludoviciana Prairie lettuce

Agastache nepetoides Yellow giant-hyssop

Lactuca tatarica ssp. 

pulchella Showy blue lettuce

Agastache scrophulariifolia Purple giant-hyssop Laportea canadensis Wood nettle

Agrimonia gryposepala Tall agrimony Lemna minor Duckweed

Agrimonia pubescens Soft agrimony Leonurus cardiaca Motherwort

Alisma plantago-aquatica Water plantain Lespedeza capitata Round-headed bush clover

Allium canadense Wild onion Lespedeza cuneata Silky bush clover

Allium cernuum Nodding wild onion Liatris aspera Blazing star

Allium stellatum Wild prairie onion Liatris cylindracea Blazing star

Allium tricoccum Wild leek Liatris pycnostachya Prairie blazing star

Amaranthus hybridus Green amaranth Liatris squarrosa Blazing star

Amaranthus retroflexus Pigweed Lilium michiganense Michigan lily

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common ragweed

Lilium philadelphicum v. 

andinum Wood lily

Ambrosia trifida Giant ragweed Linum sulcatum Wild flax

Anemone canadensis Canada anemone Lithospermum latifolium American gromwell

Anemone cylindrica Windflower, thimbleweed Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal flower

Anemone quinquefolia Wood anemone Lobelia inflata Indian tobacco

Anemone virginiana Tall anemone Lobelia siphilitica Great lobelia

Antennaria neglecta Pussytoes Lobelia spicata Spiked lobelia

Antennaria plantaginifolia Ladies'-tobacco Lotus corniculatus Bird's-foot trefoil

Apocynum sibiricum Indian hemp Lycopus americanus

Aquilegia canadensis Columbine Lysimachia ciliata Fringed loosestrife

Arctium minus Common burdock Lysimachia hybrida Loosestrife

Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-pulpit Lysimachia quadriflora Narrow-leaved loosestrife

Artemisia ludoviciana White sage Lythrum alatum Winged loosestrife

Asarum canadense Wild ginger Medicago sativa Alfalfa
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

183

Neal Smith NWR Plants

Asclepias amplexicaulis Sand milkweed Melilotus alba White sweet clover

Asclepias hirtella Tall green milkweed Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweet clover

Asclepias purpurascens Purple milkweed Mertensia virginica Bluebell

Asclepias sullivantii Prairie milkweed Mimulus ringens Monkey flower

Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Mirabilis nyctaginea Wild four-o'clock

Asclepias tuberosa ssp. interior Butterfly weed Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot, horsemint

Asclepias verticillata Whorled milkweed Monotropa uniflora Indian pipe

Asclepias viridiflora Green milkweed Najas flexilis Common naiad

Asparagus officinalis Garden asparagus Nepeta cataria Catnip

Aster azureus Sky-blue aster

Oenothera biennis ssp. 

centralis

Common evening 

primrose

Aster cordifolius Blue wood aster Oenothera villosa Gray evening primrose

Aster drummondii Drummond's aster

Onosmodium molle v. 

hispidissimum False gromwell

Aster ericoides Heath aster, frost weed

Onosmodium molle v. 

occidentale False gromwell

Aster laevis Smooth blue aster Osmorhiza claytonii Sweet cicely

Aster lanceolatus Panicled aster Osmorhiza longistylis Anise root

Aster lateriflorus Side-flowered aster Oxalis stricta

Yellow wood sorrel, lady's 

sorrel

Aster novae-angliae New England aster Oxalis violacea Violet wood sorrel

Aster oblongifolius Aromatic aster Parthenium integrifolium Feverfew, wild quinine

Aster ontarionis Ontario aster Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip

Aster pilosus Hairy aster Pedicularis canadensis Lousewort

Aster praealtus Willow aster Pedicularis lanceolata Swamp lousewort

Aster prenanthoides Crooked stem aster Penstemon digitalis Foxglove penstemon

Aster puniceus Swamp aster Penstemon gracilis Slender beardtongue

Aster sagittifolius Arrow-leaved aster Penthorum sedoides Ditch stonecrop

Aster umbellatus

Flat-topped aster, white 

aster Phlox divaricata Sweet William, blue phlox

Astragalus canadensis Milk vetch Phlox maculata Wild sweet William

Astragalus crassicarpus Ground plum Phlox paniculata Garden phlox

Aureolaria grandiflora v. pulchra Yellow false foxglove Phlox pilosa Prairie phlox

Baptisia bracteata v. glabrescens Cream wild indigo Phryma leptostachya Lopseed

Baptisia lactea White wild indigo Physalis heterophylla Ground cherry

Bidens cernua Nodding bur marigold Physalis virginiana Ground cherry

Bidens connata Purplestemmed tickseed Physostegia virginiana False dragonhead

Bidens coronata Tickseed sunflower Pilea pumila Clearweed

Bidens frondosa Beggar-ticks Plantago major Common plantain

Bidens polylepis Bur marigold Plantago patagonica Wooly plantain

Bidens vulgata Tall beggar-ticks Plantago rugelii

Common plantain, Rugel's 

plantain

Brickellia eupatorioides False boneset Podophyllum peltatum Mayapple

Cacalia atriplicifolia Indian plaintain Polemonium reptans Jacob's ladder

Cacalia plantaginea Prairie Indian plaintain Polygonatum biflorum Solomon's seal

Callirhoe involucrata Purple poppy mallow

Polygonum amphibium v. 

emersum Water smartweed

Caltha palustris Marsh marigold Polygonum hydropiper Water pepper

Calystegia sepium American bindweed Polygonum hydropiperoides Mild water pepper
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

184

Neal Smith NWR Plants

Campanula americana Tall bellflower Polygonum lapathifolium Curttop lady's thumb

Cannabis sativa Hemp, marijuana

Polygonum pensylvanicum v. 

laevigatum Pinkweed

Chelone glabra White turtlehead Polygonum punctatum Water smartweed

Chenopodium album Lamb's quarters Polygonum sagittatum Tearthumb

Cichorium intybus Chicory Polygonum virginianum Jumpseed

Cicuta maculata Water hemlock Polytaenia nuttallii Prairie parsley

Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis Enchanter's nightshade Potentilla arguta Prairie cinquefoil

Cirsium altissimum Tall thistle Potentilla norvegica Norwegian cinquefoil

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Potentilla recta Sulphur cinquefoil

Cirsium discolor Field thistle Potentilla simplex Common cinquefoil

Cirsium Vulgare Bull thistle Prenanthes alba

Rattlesnake-root, white 

lettuce

Claytonia virginica Spring beauty Prenanthes aspera Rough white lettuce

Comandra umbellata Bastard toadflax Prenanthes racemosa Glaucous white lettuce

Convolvulus arvensis Creeping Jenny Prunella vulgaris Self heal

Conyza canadensis Horseweed, mule tail Prunella vulgaris lanceolata Self heal

Coreopsis palmata Tickseed, prairie coreopsis Psoralidium batesii Scurfy pea

Coreopsis tripteris Tall tickseed Pycnanthemum pilosum Hairy mountain mint

Coronilla varia Crown vetch Pycnanthemum tenuifolium Slender mountain mint

Cryptotaenia canadensis Honewort Pycnanthemum virginianum Common mountain mint

Dalea candida White prairie clover Ranunculus abortivus Small-flowered crowfoot

Dalea leporina Foxtail dalea Ranunculus fascicularis Early buttercup

Dalea purpurea Purple prairie clover Ratibida pinnata Gray-headed coneflower

Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan

Delphinium tricorne Dwarf larkspur Rudbeckia laciniata Tall coneflower

Delphinium virescens Prairie larkspur Rudbeckia subtomentosa Fragrant coneflower

Dentaria laciniata Toothwort Rudbeckia triloba Brown-eyed Susan

Desmodium canadense Showy tick-trefoil Ruellia humilis Wild petunia

Desmodium glutinosum Pointed tick-trefoil Rumex acetosella Red sorrel

Desmodium illinoense Illinois tick-trefoil Rumex altissimus Pale dock

Dianthus armeria Deptford pink Rumex crispus Curly dock

Dicentra cucullaria Dutchman's breeches Sagittaria brevirostra Short-beaked arrowleaf

Echinacea pallida Pale coneflower Sagittaria latifolia Common arrowhead

Epilobium coloratum Cinnamon willowherb Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot

Erechtites hieracifolia Fireweed Sanicula canadensis Black snakeroot

Erigeron annuus Annual fleabane Sanicula gregaria Common snakeroot

Erigeron philadelphicus Fleabane Scrophularia lanceolata Early figwort

Erigeron strigosus Daisy fleabane Scrophularia marilandica Late figwort

Eryngium yuccifolium Rattlesnake master Scutellaria lateriflora Mad-dog skullcap

Erythronium albidum White dogtooth-violet Senecio aureus Golden ragwort

Eupatorium altissimum Tall thoroughwort Senecio pauperculus Prairie ragwort

Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe-pye-weed Senecio plattensis Prairie ragwort

Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset Silene stellata Starry campion

Eupatorium purpureum Purple Joe-pye-weed Silene vulgaris Bladder campion

Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Silphium integrifolium Rosinweed

Eupatorium serotinum Late boneset Silphium laciniatum Compass plant

Euphorbia corollata Flowering spurge Silphium perfoliatum Cup plant
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

185

Neal Smith NWR Plants

Euphorbia dentata Toothed spurge Sisyrinchium campestre Prairie blue-eyed grass

Euphorbia maculata Carpet spurge Sium suave Water parsnip

Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved goldenrod Smilacina racemosa False Solomon's seal

Fragaria virginiana Wild strawberry Smilacina stellata Starry false Solomon's seal

Galearis spectabilis Showy orchis Smilax ecirrhata Carrion flower

Galium aparine Cleavers Solanum americanum Black nightshade

Galium boreale Northern bedstraw Solanum carolinense Horse nettle

Galium circaezans Wild licorice Solidago canadensis Tall goldenrod

Galium triflorum Sweet-scented bedstraw Solidago flexicaulis Zig-zag goldenrod

Gaura biennis Bienniel gaura Solidago gigantea Smooth goldenrod

Gentiana alba

Pale gentian, yellow 

gentian Solidago missouriensis Missouri goldenrod

Gentiana andrewsii

Bottle gentian, closed 

gentian Solidago nemoralis Field goldenrod

Gentiana puberulenta Downy gentian Solidago riddellii Riddell's goldenrod

Gentianella quinquefolia ssp. 

occidentalis Stiff gentian Solidago rigida Stiff goldenrod

Geranium maculatum Wild geranium Solidago speciosa Showy goldenrod

Geum canadense White avens Solidago ulmifolia Elm-leaved goldenrod

Geum laciniatum Rough avens Sonchus asper Spiny-leaved sow thistle

Glechoma hederacea

Creeping Charlie, ground 

ivy Spiranthes cernua Nodding ladies'-tresses

Glycine max Soybean Spiranthes ovalis Oval ladies'-tresses

Glycyrrhiza lepidota Wild licorice Stachys palustris Woundwort

Gnaphalium obtusifolium Everlasting Strophostyles leiosperma Small wild bean

Hackelia deflexa v. americana Stickseed Taenidia integerrima Yellow pimpernel

Hackelia virginiana Stickseed Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion

Helenium autumnale Sneezeweed Teucrium canadense American germander

Helianthus annuus Common sunflower Thalictrum dasycarpum Purple meadow-rue

Helianthus decapetalus Pale sunflower Thalictrum dioicum Early meadow-rue

Helianthus divaricatus Woodland sunflower Thalictrum thalictroides Rue anemone

Helianthus giganteus Tall sunflower Tomanthera auriculata Eared false foxglove

Helianthus grosseserratus Saw-tooth sunflower Tradescantia bracteata Long-bracted spiderwort

Helianthus hirsutus Bristly sunflower Tradescantia ohiensis Common spiderwort

Helianthus maximiliani Maximilian's sunflower Tragopogon dubius Goat's-beard

Helianthus mollis Downy sunflower Trifolium campestre Low hop-clover

Helianthus occidentalis Western sunflower Trifolium pratense Red clover

Helianthus petiolaris Petioled sunflower Trifolium repens White clover

Helianthus rigidus Prairie sunflower Triodanis perfoliata Venus' looking-glass

Helianthus strumosus Pale-leaved sunflower

Triosteum perfoliatum 

aurantiacum Late horse gentian

Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem artichoke Typha augustifolia Narrow-leaved cattail

Heliopsis helianthoides Ox-eye Typha latifolia Common cattail

Hemerocallis fulva Day lily Typha X glauca Hybrid cattail

Hepatica nobilis v. obtusa Round-lobed liverleaf Urtica dioica Stinging nettle

Heuchera richardsonii Alumroot Uvularia grandiflora Bellwort

Hieracium canadense Hawkweed Verbascum thapsus Common mullein

Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia waterleaf Verbena hastata Blue vervain

Hypericum punctatum Spotted St. John's wort Verbena stricta Hoary vervain
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

186

Neal Smith NWR Plants

Hypericum pyramidatum Giant St. John's wort Verbena urticifolia White vervain

Hypoxis hirsuta Yellow stargrass Verbesina alternifolia Wingstem

Impatiens capensis Spotted touch-me-not Vernonia baldwinii Baldwin's ironweed

Impatiens pallida

Pale touch-me-not, jewel 

weed Vernonia fasciculata Ironweed

Ipomoea hederacea Ivy-leaved morning glory Viola pedata Bird's-foot violet

Iris shrevei Blue flag Viola pedatifida Prairie violet

Iris x germanica Bearded iris Viola pratincola Common blue violet

Isopyrum biternatum False rue anemone Viola pubescens Downy yellow violet

Juncus dudleyi Dudley's rush Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur

Juncus tenuis Path rush Zizea aurea Golden alexanders

Grasses

Agropyron repens Quack grass Hordeum pusillum Little barley

Agropyron smithii Western wheatgrass Hystrix patula Bottlebrush grass

Agrostis gigantea Redtop Koeleria macrantha June grass

Agrostis hyemalis Ticklegrass Leersia oryzoides Rice cut-grass

Agrostis perennans Upland grass Leersia virginica Whitegrass

Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem Miscanthus sacchariflorus Plume grass

Bouteloua curtipendula Side-oats grama Muhlenbergia cuspidata Plains muhly

Bromus inermis Smooth brome Muhlenbergia frondosa Wirestem muhly

Bromus japonicus Japanese brome Muhlenbergia mexicana Leafy satin grass

Bromus pubescens Canada brome Muhlenbergia racemosa Marsh muhly

Bromus secalinus Cheat grass Muhlenbergia schreberi Nimblewill

Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint Muhlenbergia sobolifera Rock muhly

Calamovilfa longifolia Prairie sandreed Panicum capillare Old witchgrass

Cinna arundinacea Wood reed Panicum dichotomiflorum

Knee grass, spreading 

witchgrass

Dactylis glomerata Orchard grass Panicum virgatum Switchgrass

Diarrhena americana v. obovata Beak grass Paspalum setaceum Bead grass

Dichanthelium acuminatum Panic grass Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass

Dichanthelium latifolium Broad-leaved panic grass Phleum pratense Timothy

Dichanthelium oligosanthes Heller's witchgrass Phragmites australis Reed

Dichanthelium oligosanthes var. 

screbnerianum

Scribner's panic or rosette 

grass Poa compressa Canadian bluegrass

Dichanthelium sabulorum var. 

patulum Hemlock rosette grass Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass

Digitaria ischaemum Smooth crabgrass Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem

Digitaria sanguinalis Common crabgrass Setaria faberi Giant foxtail

Echinochloa crusgalli Barnyard grass Setaria glauca Yellow foxtail

Echinochloa muricata Spiny barnyard grass Setaria verticillata Bristly foxtail

Eleusine indica Goose grass Setaria viridis Green foxtail

Elymus canadensis Canada wild rye Sorghastrum nutans Indian grass

Elymus villosus Slender wild rye Spartina pectinata Slough grass, cord grass

Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Sphenopholis obtusata Prairie wedge grass

Eragrostis cilianensis Stinkgrass Sporobolus asper Dropseed

Eragrostis hypnoides Pony grass Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie dropseed

Eragrostis pectinacea Small lovegrass Stipa spartea Porcupine grass

Eragrostis spectabilis Purple lovegrass Tridens flavus Purple top

Festuca obtusa Nodding fescue Tripsacum dactyloides Gama grass
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

187

Neal Smith NWR Plants

Glyceria striata Fowl manna grass Zea mays Cultivated corn

Hordeum jubatum Squirrel-tail barley

Sedges

Carex atherodes Hairy-leaved lake sedge Carex tribuloides Awl-fruited oval sedge

Carex bicknellii Bicknell's sedge Carex vulpinoidea Brown fox sedge

Carex blanda Common wood sedge Cyperus esculentus Yellow nut grass

Carex brevior Plains oval sedge Eleocharis acicularis Needle spike rush

Carex cephalophora Short-headed bracted sedge Eleocharis engelmannii Engelmann's spike rush

Carex cristatella Crested oval sedge Eleocharis macrostachya Large-spiked spike rush

Carex gravida Long-awned bracted sedge Scirpus acutus Hard-stemmed bulrush

Carex grayi Common bur sedge Scirpus americanus Threesquare

Carex molesta Field oval sedge Scirpus atrovirens Dark green bulrush

Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania oak sedge Scirpus cyperinus Wooly bulrush

Carex rosea Curly-styled wood sedge Scirpus fluviatilis River bulrush

Carex shortiana Short's sedge Scirpus heterochaetus Slender bulrush

Carex sparganioides Loose-headed bracted sedge Scirpus validus v. creber Soft-stemmed bulrush

Carex sprengelii Long-beaked sedge Scleria triglomerata Tall nut-rush

Carex stricta Common tussock sedge

Shrubs

Amorpha canescens Lead plant Rosa blanda Meadow rose

Amorpha fruticosa Indigo bush, false indigo Rosa carolina Pasture rose

Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose

Ceanothus americanus v. 

pitcheri New Jersey tea Rubus allegheniensis Blackberry

Ceanothus herbaceus v. 

pubescens Redroot Rubus flagellaris Dewberry

Cornus amomum ssp. obliqua Silky dogwood Rubus idaeus idaeus Cultivated red raspberry

Cornus drummondii Rough-leaved dogwood Rubus idaeus var. strigosus Red raspberry

Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa Gray dogwood Rubus occidentalis Black raspberry

Corylus americana Hazelnut Salix discolor Pussy willow

Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn olive Salix exigua ssp. interior Sandbar willow

Euonymus atropurpureus Wahoo, burning bush Salix humilis Prairie willow

Prunus virginiana Choke cherry Salix pentandra Bay-leaved willow

Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn Salix rigida Heart-leaved willow

Rhus glabra Smooth sumac Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Coralberry, buckbrush

Ribes missouriense Wild gooseberry Syringia vulgaris Lilac

Ribes odoratum Buffalo currant Viburnum lentago Nannyberry

Rosa arkansana v. suffulta Sunshine rose

Trees

Acer negundo Box elder Populus deltoides Cottonwood

Acer nigrum Black maple Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen

Acer saccharinum Silver maple Prunus americana Wild plum

Aesculus glabra Ohio buckeye Prunus mexicana Big-tree plum

Carya cordiformis Bitternut hickory Prunus serotina Wild black cherry

Carya ovata Shagbark hickory Quercus alba White oak

Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Quercus borealis v. maxima Northern red oak

Crataegus calpodendron Sugar hawthorn Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak

Crataegus crus-galli Cockspur hawthorn Quercus velutina Black oak
Appendix J: Species Lists

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

188

Neal Smith NWR Plants

Crataegus mollis Downy hawthorn Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust

Fraxinus pennsylvanica v. 

lanceolata Green ash Salix alba White willow

Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust Salix amygdaloides Peach-leaved willow

Gymnocladus dioica Kentucky coffee tree Salix babylonica Weeping willow

Juglans nigra Black walnut Salix fragilis Crack willow

Juniperus virginiana Red cedar Salix nigra Black willow

Maclura pomifera Osage orange, hedge apple Tilia americana

Basswood, American 

linden

Malus ioensis Wild crab Ulmus americana American elm

Malus sylvestris Apple Ulmus pumila Siberian elm

Morus rubra Red mulberry Ulmus rubra Red elm, slippery elm

Populus alba Silver poplar

Vines

Amphicarpaea bracteata Hog peanut Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper

Apios americana Ground-nut Polygonum scandens Climbing false buckwheat

Celastrus scandens Bittersweet Sicyos angulatus Bur cucumber

Clematis pitcheri Leather flower Smilax herbacea Carrion flower

Echinocystis lobata Wild balsam apple Smilax hispida Greenbrier

Humulus lupulus Common hops Solanum dulcamara European bittersweet

Lonicera prolifera Wild honeysuckle

Toxicodendron radicans ssp. 

negundo Poison ivy

Menispermum canadense Moonseed Vitis riparia Riverbank grape
Appendix K: Research Publications (2011–2011)

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

189

Appendix K: Research Publications (2001–2011)

Asbjornsen, H., L. A. Brudvig, and M. D. Tomer. 2007. "Ecohydrological implications of restoring Midwestern bur 

oak savannas after woody encroachment." Ecological Restoration 25: pp. 58–59.

Asbjornsen, H., G. Mora, and M. Helmers. 2007. "Variation in water uptake dynamics among contrasting 

agricultural and native plant communities in the Midwestern U.S." Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 121:

pp. 343–356.

Abjornsen, H., M. D. Tomer, M. Gomez-Cardenas, L. A. Brudvig, C. M. Greenan, and K. Schilling. 2007. "Tree and 

stand transpiration in a Midwestern bur oak savanna after elm encroachment and restoration thinning." Forest 

Ecology and Management 247: pp. 209–219.

Asbjornsen, H., G. Shepard, M. Helmers, and G. Mora. 2008. "Seasonal patterns in depth of water uptake under 

contrasting annual and perennial systems in the Corn Belt Region of the Midwestern U.S." Plant and Soil 308: pp. 

69–92.

Atwell, R. C., L. A. Shulte, and L. M. Westphal. 2009. "Landscape, community, countryside: linking biophysical and 

social scales in US Corn Belt agricultural landscapes." Land Use Policy 24: pp. 791–804.

Atwell, R. C., L. A. Shulte, and L. M. Westphal. 2009. "Linking resilience theory and diffusion of innovations theory 

to understand the potential for perennials in the U.S. Corn Belt." Ecology and Society 14(1).

Atwell, R. C., L. A. Shulte, and L. M. Westphal. 2010. "How to build multifunctioning agricultural landscapes in the 

U.S. Corn Belt: Add perennials and partnerships." Land Use Policy 27: pp. 1082–1090.

Atwell, R. C., L. A. Shulte, and L. M. Westphal. 2011. "Tweak, adapt, or transform: Policy scenarios in response to 

emerging bioenergy markets in the U.S. Corn Belt." Ecology and Society 16(1).

Brudvig, L. A., and C. M. Mabry. 2008. "Trait-based filtering of the regional species pool to guide understory plant 

reintroduction in Midwestern oak savannas, USA” Restoration Ecology 16: pp. 290–304.

Camberdella, C., T. Isenhart, K. E. Schilling, P. Drobney, and R. Schultz. 2003. "Soil carbon assessment across a 

native prairie restoration chronosequence." Proceedings of the 18th Annual North American Prairie Conference 18: 

pp. 49–53.

Drobney, P. M. and K. E. Schilling. 2003. "Treatment of reed canarygrass monoculture improves water table levels 

for sedge meadow restoration (Iowa)." Restoration and Management Notes 21: pp. 323–324.

Guzman, J.G. and M. M. Al-Kaisi. 2009. "Soil carbon dynamics and carbon budget of newly reconstructed tall-grass 

prairies in south central Iowa." Journal of Environmental Quality 39: pp. 136–146.

Guzman, J. G. and M. M. Al-Kaisi. 2010. "Landscape position and age of a reconstructed prairie effect on soil 

organic carbon sequestration rate and aggregate associated carbon." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 65: 

pp. 9–21.

Halbert, N. D. and J. N. Derr. 2007. "A comprehensive evaluation of cattle introgression into US federal bison 

herds." Journal of Heredity 98: pp. 1–12.

Halbert, N. D., P. J. P. Gogan, R. Hieber, and J. N. Derr. 2007. "Where the buffalo roam: The history and genetics in 

the conservation of bison on U.S. federal lands.” Park Science 24: pp. 22–29.
Appendix K: Research Publications (2001–2011)

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

190

Halbert, N. D. and J. N. Derr. 2008. "Patterns of genetic variation in US federal bison herds." Molecular Ecology 17: 

pp. 4963–4977.

Hedrick, P. W. 2009. "Conservation genetics and North American bison (Bison bison)." Journal of Heredity 100: 

411–420.

Hernandez-Santana, V., X. Zhou, M. Helmers, H. Asbjornsen, and R. K. Kolka. 2010. "Effectiveness of perennial 

vegetation strips in reducing runoff in annual crop production systems." American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting.

Larson, D. L., J. B. Bright, P. Drobney, J. L. Larson, N. Palaia, P. A. Rabia, S. Vacek, and D. Wells. 2011. "Effect of 

planting method and seed mix richness on the early stages of tallgrass prairie restoration." Biologic Conservation

144: pp. 3127–3139.

Li, Z. and Y. Zhang. 2003. "Temporal scaling and numerical simulations of the hydraulic head and river baseflow." 

Eos (Transactions of the American Geophysical Union) 84: F589.

Li, Z., Y. Zhang. 2004. "Dynamic sediment modeling in Iowa streams and rivers: a case study at Walnut Creek." Eos 

(Transactions of the American Geophysical Union) 85: H43A–O362.

Li, Z., Y. K. Zhang, K. E. Schilling, and M. Skopec. 2006. "Cokriging estimation of daily suspended sediment loads." 

Journal of Hydrology 327: pp. 389–398.

Losure, D. A., B. J. Wilsey, and K. A. Moloney. 2007. "Evenness-invasibility relationships differ between two 

extinction scenarios in tallgrass prairie." Oikos 116: pp. 87–98.

Mabry, C. M., L. Brudvig, and R. C. Atwell. 2010. "The confluence of landscape context and site-level management 

in determining Midwestern savanna and woodland breeding bird communities.” Forest Ecology and Management

260: pp. 42–51.

Maher, R. M., H. Asbjornsen, R. K. Kolka, C. A. Cambardella, and J. W. Raich. 2010. "Changes in soil respiration 

across a chronosequence of tallgrass prairie reconstruction." Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 139(4): pp. 

749–753.

Maher, R., H. Asbjornsen, R. Kolka, and J. Raich. (in press). "Comparative soil respiration and rooting dynamics in a 

restored prairie and soybean field in Central Iowa." Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environments.

Martian, L. M., K. A. Moloney, and B. J. Wilsey. 2005. "An assessment of grassland restoration success using species 

diversity components." Journal of Applied Ecology 42: pp. 327–336.

Martin, L. M. and B. J. Wilsey. 2006. “Assessing grassland restoration success: Relative roles of seed additions and 

native ungulate activities.” Journal of Applied Ecology 43: pp. 1098–1109.

Mateos R. V., H. Asbjorsen, J. M. Tarara, and T. J. Sauer. 2008. "Evaluating transpiration in an annual crop and 

perennial prairie species using the heat balance method in central Iowa, USA." International Workshop on Sap 

Flow. Conference Booklet.

O’Brien, J. P. and J. L. Pease. 2004. "The effects of a national wildlife refuge’s EE programs on elementary school 

classes’ knowledge and attitudes." Journal of interpretation Research 9: pp. 27–45.

Olechnowski, B. F. M., D. M. Debinski, P. Drobney, K. Viste-Sparkman, and W. T. Reed. 2009. "Changes in 

vegetation structure through time in a restored tallgrass prairie ecosystem and implications for avian diversity and 

community composition." Ecological Restoration 27: pp. 449–457.
Appendix K: Research Publications (2011–2011)

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

191

Perez-Bidegain, M., J. M. Helmers, and R. Cruse. 2010. "Modeling phosphorous transport in an agricultural 

watershed using the WEPP model." Journal of Environmental Quality 39: pp. 2121–2129.

Ries, L. and D. M. Bebinski. 2001. "Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central 

Iowa." Journal of Animal Ecology 70: pp. 840–852.

Schilling, K. E. 2001. "Effects of prairie restoration on water quality in the Walnut Creek watershed, Jasper County, 

Iowa." Proceedings of the 17th Annual North American Prairie Conference 17: pp. 145–150.

Schilling, K. E. 2001. "Prairie restoration as a BMP for water quality improvement: evidence from the Walnut Creek 

Watershed, Jasper County, Iowa." Proceedings of the 17th Annual North American Prairie Conference 17: pp. 138–

144.

Schilling, K. E. 2002. "Chemical transportation paired agricultural and restored prairie watersheds." Journal of 

Environmental Quality 31: pp. 1184–1193.

Schilling, K. E. 2002. "Reduced baseflow transport of agricultural pollutants along a restored prairie riparian 

corridor in Iowa." AWRA Specialty Conference, Ground Water/Surface Water Interactions. pp. 155–160.

Schilling, K. E. 2007. "Water table fluctuations under three riparian land covers in Iowa, USA." Hydrological 

Processes 21: pp. 2421–2424.

Schilling K. E. 2009. "Investigating local variation in groundwater recharge along a topographical gradient, Walnut 

Creek, USA." Hydrogeology Journal 17: pp. 397–407.

Schilling, K. E. and P. Jacobson. 2008. "Groundwater nutrient concentrations near an incised Midwestern stream: 

effects of floodplain lithology and land management." Biogeochemistry 87: pp. 199–216.

Schilling, K. E. and P. Jacobson. 2009. "Groundwater conditions under a reconstructed prairie chronosequence." 

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 135: pp. 81–89.

Schilling, K. E. and J. R. Kiniry. 2007. "Estimation of evapotranspiration by reed canarygrass using field observations 

and model systems." Journal of Hydrology 337: pp. 356–363.

Schilling, K. E., Z. Li, and Y. K. Zhang. 2006. "Groundwater-surface interaction in the riparian zone of an incised 

channel, Walnut Creek, Iowa." Journal of Hydrology 327: pp. 140–150.

Schilling, K. E., J. A. Palmer, E. A. Bettis, P. Jacobson, R. C. Schultz, and T. M. Isenhart. 2009. "Vertical distribution of 

total carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in riparian soils of Walnut Creek, southern Iowa." CATENA 77: pp. 266–273.

Schilling, K. E., Y. K. Zhang, and P. M. Drobney. 2004. "Water table fluctuations near incised stream, Walnut Creek, 

Iowa." Journal of Hydrology 286: pp. 236–248.

Schilling, K. E. and J. Spooner. 2006. “Effects of watershed-scale land use change on stream nitrate 

concentrations." Journal of Environmental Quality 35: pp. 2132–2145

Schilling K. E., M. D. Tomer, P. W. Gassman, C. L. Kling, T. M. Isenhart, T. B. Morrman, W. W. Simpkins, and C. F. 

Wolter. 2007. "A tale of three watersheds: nonpoint source pollution and conservation practices across Iowa." 

Choices 22: pp. 87–95.

Schilling, K. E., M. D. Tomer, Y. K. Zhang, T. Weisbrod, P. Jacobson, C. A. Cambardella, C. A. 2007. "Hydrogeologic 

controls on nitrate transport in a small agricultural catchment." Journal of Geophysical Research 112.
Appendix K: Research Publications (2001–2011)

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

192

Schilling, K. E. and C. F. Wolter. 2007. "A GIS-based groundwater travel time model to evaluate stream nitrate 

concentration reductions from land use change." Environmental Geology 53: pp. 433–443.

Schilling, K. E. and C. F. Wolter. 2001. "Contribution to nonpoint source pollution loads in an agricultural 

watershed." Ground Water 39: pp. 49–58.

Schmidt, N., M. O’Neal, and L. A. Shulte. 2011. "Effects of grassland habitat and plant nutrients on soybean aphid 

and natural enemy populations." Environmental Entomology 40(2): pp. 260–272.

Shepard, S. and D. M. Debinski. 2005. "Evaluation of isolated and integrated prairie reconstruction as habitat for 

prairie butterflies." Biological Conservation 126: pp. 51–61.

Shepard, S., D. M. Debinski. 2005. "Reintroduction of Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia) to a restored prairie." 

Ecological Restoration 23: pp. 244–250.

Summerville, K. 2008. "Year effects and prairie Lepidoptera: are moth communities stable entities over a short 

time period." Proceedings of the 20th Annual North American Prairie Conference 20: pp. 127–143.

Summerville, K. S., A. C. Bonte, and L. C. Fox. 2007. "Short-term temporal effects on community structure of 

Lepidoptera in restored and remnant tallgrass prairie." Restoration Ecology 15: pp. 179–188.

Summerville, K. S., C. J. Conoan, and R. M. Steichen. 2006. "Species traits of lepidopteran composition in restored 

and remnant tallgrass prairies." Ecological Applications 16: pp. 891–900.

Summerville, K. S., R. M. Steichen, and M.N. Lewis. 2005. "Restoring lepidopteran communities to oak savannas: 

Contrasting influences of habitat quantity and quality." Restoration Ecology 13: pp. 120–128.

Wolfe-Bellin, K. S. and K. A. Moloney. 2001. "Successional vegetation dynamics on pocket gopher mounds in an 

Iowa tallgrass prairie." Proceedings of the 17th Annual North American Prairie Conference 17: 153–163.

Yurkonis, K. A., B. J. Wilsey, K. A. Moloney, P. Drobney, and D. L. Larson. (in press). "Warm-season grass abundance 

and distribution differs between drill and broadcast seeded grasslands." Journal of Applied Ecology.

Yurkonis, K. A., B. J. Wilsey, K. A. Moloney, P. Drobney, and D. L. Larson. 2010. "Seeding method influences warmseason grass abundance and distribution but not local diversity in grassland restoration." Restoration Ecology

18(2): pp. 344–353.

Yurkonis, K. A., B. J. Wilsey, K. A. Moloney, and A. G. Van der Valk. 2010. "The impact of seeding method on 

diversity and plant distribution in two restored grasslands." Restoration Ecology 18: pp. 311–321.

Zhang, Y. K. and K. E. Schilling. (2004). "Temporal scaling of hydraulic head and river baseflow with implication for 

groundwater recharge." Water Resource Research 40: W03504.

Zhang, Y. K. and K. E. Schilling. 2004. "Impact of vegetation on main hydrological processes: a field study and its 

implication for water quality." Advance in Earth Sciences 19: pp. 422–428.

Zhang, Y. K. and K. E. Schilling. 2006. "Effects of land cover on water table, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, and 

groundwater recharge: A field observation and analysis." Journal of Hydrology 319: pp. 328–338.

Zhou, X., M. Helmers, H. Asbjorsen, R. Kolka, and M. D. Tomer. 2010. "Perennial filter strips reduce nitrate levels in 

soil and shallow groundwater after grassland-to-cropland conversion." Journal of Environmental Quality 39(6): pp. 

2006–2015.
Appendix L: Compliance Requirements

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

193

Appendix L: Compliance Requirements

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 1996, 1996a (1976)

Directs agencies to consult with native traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate policy 

changes necessary to protect and preserve American Indian religious cultural rights and practices.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.

Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services.

Antiquities Act of 1906. 16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.

Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on federal land and provides penalties for 

unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 16 U.S.C.469-469c

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in federal construction projects.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.

Protects materials of archaeological interest from unauthorized removal or destruction and requires 

Federal managers to develop plans and schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.

Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons with 

disabilities.

Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. 1251

Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland modifications.

Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Section 6, requires the Service to make a 

determination of compatibility of existing, new and changing uses of Refuge land; and Section 7 requires 

the Service to identify and describe the archaeological and cultural values of the refuge.

The National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106, requires federal agencies to consider impacts their 

undertakings could have on historic properties; 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.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) prohibits unauthorized disturbance of 

archeological resources on federal and Indian land; and other matters. Section 10 requires establishing 

“a program to increase public awareness” of archeological resources. Section 14 requires plans to survey 

lands and a schedule for surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable archaeological resources.” 

This Act requires protection of all archeological sites more than 100 years old (not just sites meeting the 

criteria for the National Register) on federal land, and requires archeological investigations on federal 

land be performed in the public interest by qualified persons.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) imposes serious delays 
Appendix L: Compliance Requirements

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

194

on a project when human remains or other cultural items are encountered in the absence of a plan.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) iterates the right of Native Americans to free 

exercise of traditional religions and use of sacred places.

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996), directs federal agencies to accommodate access to 

and ceremonial use, to avoid adverse effects and avoid blocking access, and to enter into early 

consultation.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.

Promotes the conservation of migratory waterfowl and offsets or prevents the serious loss of wetlands 

by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential habitats. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Requires all federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened 

species.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (1977)

Each federal agency shall provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

the floodplains.

Executive Order, Protection of Wetlands 11990

Executive Order 11990 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)

Directs the Service to send copies of the Environmental Assessment to state planning agencies for 

review.

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (1994)

Establishes environmental justice as a Federal government priority and directs all federal agencies to 

make environmental justice part of their mission. Environmental justice calls for fair distribution of 

environmental hazards.

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(1996)

Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also 

presents four principles to guide management of the 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. 

Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 97-98, 7 U.S.C. 4201 (1981)

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible 
Appendix L: Compliance Requirements

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

195

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Federal Noxious Weed Act, 7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq. (1975)

Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species, and 

an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other federal and state agencies.

Federal Records Act of 1950, 44 U.S.C. 31

Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, functions, policies, decisions, 

operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq. 

Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and broadened the authority for 

acquisition and development of refuges.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq. (1934)

Requires that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state fish and wildlife agencies be consulted 

whenever water is to be impounded, diverted or modified under a Federal permit or license. The Service 

and state agency recommend measures to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to mitigate or 

compensate for the damage. The project proponent must take biological resource values into account 

and adopt justifiable protection measures to obtain maximum overall project benefits. A 1958 

amendment added provisions to recognize the vital contribution of wildlife resources to the Nation and 

to require equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resources 

development programs. It also authorized the Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas and 

accept donations of lands and funds.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. 742a 

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, and the Fish and Wildlife 

Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary 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.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (also known as the Historic Sites Act of 1935), 16 U.S.C. 

461 et seq.

Declares it a national policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those 

located on refuges. Provides procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of 

such sites.

Land and Water Conservation Fund (1965), 16 U.S.C. 460 et seq.

Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and 

other sources for land acquisition under several authorities.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715 et seq. 

Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission.

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Also known as the Duck Stamp Act, 16 U.S.C. 718 et seq. (1934) 

Requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to carry a stamp and earmarks proceeds of the 
Appendix L: Compliance Requirements

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

196

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, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. 

Designates the protection of migratory birds as a federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of 

seasons, and other regulations including the closing of areas, federal or nonfederal, to the hunting of 

migratory birds.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

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, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.

Establishes as policy that the federal government is to provide leadership in the preservation of the 

nation's prehistoric and historic resources. Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider impacts 

their undertakings could have on historic properties; 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 to 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, 16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq. (1968)

Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior and thus the Service to protect the historic and 

recreational values of congressionally designated National Historic Trail sites. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee

Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a refuge 

provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was established. The 

Refuge Improvement Act 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; established the responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior for managing and 

protecting the 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.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd 

Considered the “Organic Act of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of the System, 

designates priority wildlife-dependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning. Section 

6 requires the Service to make a determination of compatibility of existing, new and changing uses of 

Refuge land; and Section 7 requires the Service to identify and describe the archaeological and cultural 

values of the refuge.

The Act also directs the administration of the Refuge System to ensure the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the System. According to the U.S. FWS Service Manual (601 FW3) this 

refers to the maintenance of existing elements, and where appropriate the restoration of lost or 

severely degraded elements. Integrity pertains to biotic composition, structure, and function at genetic, 

organismal, and community levels. Diversity includes protection of the broad variety of living organisms, 
Appendix L: Compliance Requirements

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

197

genetic distinctions, and community compositions. Environmental health recognizes the importance of 

both biotic and abiotic features and processes in the System. The standard of measure for each of these 

terms is defined using historic conditions, or conditions and processes present prior to substantial 

anthropogenic changes, as indicated by the best available science and sound professional judgment.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998, 16 

U.S.C. 742a 

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community partnerships 

for the benefit of national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. (1990)

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate cultural 

items under their control or possession.

Refuge Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq. (1962)

Allows the use of national wildlife refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible with the 

refuge's primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage the uses.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act,16 U.S.C. 715s (1935)

Requires revenue sharing provisions to all fee-title ownerships that are administered solely or primarily 

by the Secretary through the Service.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.

Requires programmatic accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for all facilities and programs 

funded by the federal government to ensure that anybody can participate in any program.

Rivers and Harbor Appropriation Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403)

Section 10 of this Act requires the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any work 

in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the United States.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

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, 16 U.S.C. 667b-667d (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 Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a state agency for other 

wildlife conservation purposes.

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 106-554, §1(a)(3), Dec. 21, 2000, 114 

Stat. 2763, 2763A–125

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 (OMB) 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” 
Appendix L: Compliance Requirements

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

198

to address the law.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601 et 

seq. 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, businesses, or farms to 

the Service. The Act requires that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the 

property.

Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.

Directed the Secretary of 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.
Appendix M: Glossary

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

199

Appendix M: Glossary

Alternative

A set of objectives and strategies needed to achieve refuge goals and the desired future condition.

Biological Diversity

The variety of life forms and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur.

Compatible Use

A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any other use on a refuge that will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Service or the purposes of the refuge.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

A document that describes the desired future conditions of the refuge, and specifies management 

actions to achieve refuge goals and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

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.

Ecosystem

A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and animal communities and their associated non-living 

environment.

Ecosystem Management

Management of an ecosystem which includes all ecological, social, and economic components that make 

up the whole of the system.

Endangered Species

Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species Act as being in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and published in the Federal Register.

Environmental Assessment

A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions would result in a significant effect on the quality 

of the environment.

Goals

Descriptive statements of desired future conditions.

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.
Appendix M: Glossary

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

200

Issue

Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. For example, a resource management 

problem, concern, a threat to natural resources, a conflict in uses, or in the presence of an undesirable 

resource condition.

National Wildlife 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.

Objectives

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.

Preferred Alternative

The Service's selected alternative identified in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

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.

Species

A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that can interbreed and 

produce young. A category of biological classification.

Strategies

A general approach or specific actions to achieve objectives.

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 1973 Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal Register.

Undertaking

“A project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a 

Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with 

Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval...,” i.e., all Federal 

actions.

Vegetation

Plants in general or the sum total of the plant life in an area.

Vegetation Type

A category of land based on potential or existing dominant plan species of a particular area.
Appendix M: Glossary

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

201

Watershed

The entire land area that collects and drains water into a stream or stream system.

Wetland

Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that are inundated by surface or ground water for a long 

enough period of time each year to support, and that do support under natural conditions, plants and 

animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils.

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use

A use of refuge that involves hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental 

education and interpretation, as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997.

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 N: List of Preparers

Neal Smith NWR / Comprehensive Conservation Plan

202

Appendix N: List of Preparers

Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge Staff

Christy Smith, Wildlife Refuge Manager

Cheryl Groom, Deputy Refuge Manager 

Karen Viste-Sparkman, Wildlife Biologist

Nancy Gilbertson, Wildlife Refuge Manager (retired)

Branch of Conservation Planning Staff: 

Karen Westphall, Wildlife Biologist/Planner, Region 3 USFWS

Gabe DeAlessio, GIS Specialist, Region 3 USFWS

Mark Hogeboom, Writer/Editor, Region 3 USFWS

Regional Office Staff

Josh Eash, Regional Hydrologist, Region 3 USFWS

Patricia Heglund, Regional Biologist, Region 3 USFWS

James Myster, Regional Archaeologist, Region 3 USFWS

Pauline Drobney, LMRD Biologist, Region 3 USFWS

Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 399

9981 Pacific Street

Prairie City, IA 50228

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/nealsmith

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/midwest